A systematic review of assessments for procedural skills in physiotherapy education / Assessment von prozeduralen Fähigkeiten in der physiotherapeutischen Ausbildung: Ein systematischer Review

Martin Sattelmayer, Roger Hilfiker, Gil Baer
{"title":"A systematic review of assessments for procedural skills in physiotherapy education / Assessment von prozeduralen Fähigkeiten in der physiotherapeutischen Ausbildung: Ein systematischer Review","authors":"Martin Sattelmayer, Roger Hilfiker, Gil Baer","doi":"10.1515/ijhp-2017-0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction Learning of procedural skills is important in the education of physiotherapists. It is the aim of physiotherapy degree programmes that graduates are able to practice selected procedures safely and efficiently. Procedural competency is threatened by an increasing and diverse amount of procedures that are incorporated in university curricula. As a consequence, less time is available for the learning of each specific procedure. Incorrectly performed procedures in physiotherapy might be ineffective and may result in injuries to patients and physiotherapists. The aim of this review was to synthesise relevant literature systematically to appraise current knowledge relating to assessments for procedural skills in physiotherapy education. Method A systematic search strategy was developed to screen five relevant databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Central, SportDISCUS, ERIC and MEDLINE) for eligible studies. The included assessments were evaluated for evidence of their reliability and validity. Results The search of electronic databases identified 560 potential records. Seven studies were included into this systematic review. The studies reported eight assessments of procedural skills. Six of the assessments were designed for a specific procedure and two assessments were considered for the evaluation of more than one procedure. Evidence to support the measurement properties of the assessment was not available for all categories. Discussion It was not possible to recommend a single assessment of procedural skills in physiotherapy education following this systematic review. There is a need for further development of new assessments to allow valid and reliable assessments of the broad spectrum of physiotherapeutic practice","PeriodicalId":91706,"journal":{"name":"International journal of health professions","volume":"38 1","pages":"53 - 65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of health professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijhp-2017-0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Learning of procedural skills is important in the education of physiotherapists. It is the aim of physiotherapy degree programmes that graduates are able to practice selected procedures safely and efficiently. Procedural competency is threatened by an increasing and diverse amount of procedures that are incorporated in university curricula. As a consequence, less time is available for the learning of each specific procedure. Incorrectly performed procedures in physiotherapy might be ineffective and may result in injuries to patients and physiotherapists. The aim of this review was to synthesise relevant literature systematically to appraise current knowledge relating to assessments for procedural skills in physiotherapy education. Method A systematic search strategy was developed to screen five relevant databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Central, SportDISCUS, ERIC and MEDLINE) for eligible studies. The included assessments were evaluated for evidence of their reliability and validity. Results The search of electronic databases identified 560 potential records. Seven studies were included into this systematic review. The studies reported eight assessments of procedural skills. Six of the assessments were designed for a specific procedure and two assessments were considered for the evaluation of more than one procedure. Evidence to support the measurement properties of the assessment was not available for all categories. Discussion It was not possible to recommend a single assessment of procedural skills in physiotherapy education following this systematic review. There is a need for further development of new assessments to allow valid and reliable assessments of the broad spectrum of physiotherapeutic practice
物理治疗训练流程审核量/程序性评估:系统评估
程序技能的学习是物理治疗师教育的重要内容。物理治疗学位课程的目的是使毕业生能够安全有效地实践选定的程序。程序能力受到大学课程中越来越多的程序的威胁。因此,用于学习每个特定程序的时间就更少了。在物理治疗过程中,不正确的操作可能是无效的,并可能导致患者和物理治疗师受伤。本综述的目的是系统地综合相关文献,以评价目前有关物理治疗教育中程序技能评估的知识。方法采用系统检索策略筛选5个相关数据库(CINAHL、Cochrane Central、SportDISCUS、ERIC和MEDLINE),筛选符合条件的研究。对纳入的评估进行了信度和效度评估。结果通过电子数据库检索,鉴定出潜在病历560份。本系统综述纳入了7项研究。这些研究报告了8项程序性技能评估。其中六项评估是为一个具体程序设计的,两项评估是为评价一个以上的程序而考虑的。支持评估的测量特性的证据并不适用于所有类别。在此系统综述之后,不可能推荐对物理治疗教育中的程序技能进行单一评估。有必要进一步发展新的评估,以便对广泛的物理治疗实践进行有效和可靠的评估
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信