促进教育的一致性:临床推理评估工具的可靠性分析。

Ben Wolden, Mitch Wolden, Jennifer Furze, Amy McDevitt
{"title":"促进教育的一致性:临床推理评估工具的可靠性分析。","authors":"Ben Wolden, Mitch Wolden, Jennifer Furze, Amy McDevitt","doi":"10.1097/JTE.0000000000000365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical reasoning (CR) is a fundamental component of physical therapist practice in health care. The Clinical Reasoning Assessment Tool (CRAT) was developed to assess CR in Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) and residency education. However, the reliability of the CRAT has not been investigated. Our purpose was to investigate the interrater and intrarater reliability of the CRAT.</p><p><strong>Review of literature: </strong>A range of assessment methods are available to assess CR, including didactic-based, simulation learning, and clinic-based assessments. The CRAT is designed to assess CR across learning environments. The CRAT assesses CR across 3 domains: (1) content knowledge, (2) procedural knowledge/psychomotor skills, and (3) conceptual reasoning.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Twenty-two faculty participated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants completed an electronic survey at 2 timepoints (T1, T2) that included training on use of the CRAT and 2 case videos of DPT students at different performance levels managing a standardized patient. Participants rated student performance with the CRAT for both case videos (T1) and repeated the sequence at least 30 days later (T2). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and 95% confidence intervals were used to determine the interrater and intrarater reliability for each domain of the CRAT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Video 1 was consistently rated higher for each CRAT domain (T1: 7.32-8.05; T2: 8.05-8.15) compared to video 2 (T1: 2.91-3.68; T2: 3.00-3.68). There were inverse relationships between CRAT ratings and number of years in DPT education, at an institution, and as a licensed physical therapist. At both timepoints, the interrater reliability for each domain was good to excellent (ICCs 0.60-0.79). The intrarater reliability was fair to excellent for all domains for each video (ICCs 0.45-0.75).</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>The CRAT is a reliable instrument for assessing DPT student CR during a simulated patient encounter. Implementation of the CRAT in DPT education may facilitate improved consistency of CR assessment across the learner continuum.</p>","PeriodicalId":517432,"journal":{"name":"Journal, physical therapy education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advancing Consistency in Education: A Reliability Analysis of the Clinical Reasoning Assessment Tool.\",\"authors\":\"Ben Wolden, Mitch Wolden, Jennifer Furze, Amy McDevitt\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JTE.0000000000000365\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical reasoning (CR) is a fundamental component of physical therapist practice in health care. The Clinical Reasoning Assessment Tool (CRAT) was developed to assess CR in Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) and residency education. However, the reliability of the CRAT has not been investigated. Our purpose was to investigate the interrater and intrarater reliability of the CRAT.</p><p><strong>Review of literature: </strong>A range of assessment methods are available to assess CR, including didactic-based, simulation learning, and clinic-based assessments. The CRAT is designed to assess CR across learning environments. The CRAT assesses CR across 3 domains: (1) content knowledge, (2) procedural knowledge/psychomotor skills, and (3) conceptual reasoning.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Twenty-two faculty participated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants completed an electronic survey at 2 timepoints (T1, T2) that included training on use of the CRAT and 2 case videos of DPT students at different performance levels managing a standardized patient. Participants rated student performance with the CRAT for both case videos (T1) and repeated the sequence at least 30 days later (T2). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and 95% confidence intervals were used to determine the interrater and intrarater reliability for each domain of the CRAT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Video 1 was consistently rated higher for each CRAT domain (T1: 7.32-8.05; T2: 8.05-8.15) compared to video 2 (T1: 2.91-3.68; T2: 3.00-3.68). There were inverse relationships between CRAT ratings and number of years in DPT education, at an institution, and as a licensed physical therapist. At both timepoints, the interrater reliability for each domain was good to excellent (ICCs 0.60-0.79). The intrarater reliability was fair to excellent for all domains for each video (ICCs 0.45-0.75).</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>The CRAT is a reliable instrument for assessing DPT student CR during a simulated patient encounter. Implementation of the CRAT in DPT education may facilitate improved consistency of CR assessment across the learner continuum.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":517432,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal, physical therapy education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal, physical therapy education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000365\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal, physical therapy education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000365","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:临床推理(CR)是物理治疗师在医疗保健领域实践的基本组成部分。临床推理评估工具(CRAT)是为评估物理治疗博士(DPT)和住院医师教育中的临床推理而开发的。然而,CRAT 的可靠性尚未得到研究。我们的目的是调查 CRAT 的互测和内测可靠性:有一系列评估方法可用于评估CR,包括基于说教、模拟学习和临床的评估。CRAT 的设计旨在评估不同学习环境下的 CR。CRAT 从 3 个领域对 CR 进行评估:(1) 内容知识;(2) 程序知识/心理运动技能;(3) 概念推理:22名教师参加:参与者在 2 个时间点(T1、T2)完成了一份电子调查,调查内容包括 CRAT 使用培训和 2 个不同水平的 DPT 学生管理标准化病人的案例视频。参与者使用 CRAT 对学生在两个案例视频中的表现进行评分(T1),并在至少 30 天后重复该序列(T2)。使用类内相关系数(ICC)估计值和 95% 的置信区间来确定 CRAT 各领域的阅卷人之间和阅卷人内部的可靠性:与视频 2(T1:2.91-3.68;T2:3.00-3.68)相比,视频 1 在 CRAT 各领域的评分一直较高(T1:7.32-8.05;T2:8.05-8.15)。CRAT 评分与接受 DPT 教育的年数、在教育机构工作的年数以及作为执业物理治疗师的年数呈反比关系。在这两个时间点上,每个领域的研究者间信度均为良好至优秀(ICCs 0.60-0.79)。在每段视频中,所有领域的研究者内部信度均为良好至优秀(ICCs 0.45-0.75):讨论与结论:CRAT 是评估 DPT 学生在模拟患者接触过程中 CR 的可靠工具。在 DPT 教育中实施 CRAT 可促进提高整个学习过程中 CR 评估的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Advancing Consistency in Education: A Reliability Analysis of the Clinical Reasoning Assessment Tool.

Introduction: Clinical reasoning (CR) is a fundamental component of physical therapist practice in health care. The Clinical Reasoning Assessment Tool (CRAT) was developed to assess CR in Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) and residency education. However, the reliability of the CRAT has not been investigated. Our purpose was to investigate the interrater and intrarater reliability of the CRAT.

Review of literature: A range of assessment methods are available to assess CR, including didactic-based, simulation learning, and clinic-based assessments. The CRAT is designed to assess CR across learning environments. The CRAT assesses CR across 3 domains: (1) content knowledge, (2) procedural knowledge/psychomotor skills, and (3) conceptual reasoning.

Subjects: Twenty-two faculty participated.

Methods: Participants completed an electronic survey at 2 timepoints (T1, T2) that included training on use of the CRAT and 2 case videos of DPT students at different performance levels managing a standardized patient. Participants rated student performance with the CRAT for both case videos (T1) and repeated the sequence at least 30 days later (T2). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and 95% confidence intervals were used to determine the interrater and intrarater reliability for each domain of the CRAT.

Results: Video 1 was consistently rated higher for each CRAT domain (T1: 7.32-8.05; T2: 8.05-8.15) compared to video 2 (T1: 2.91-3.68; T2: 3.00-3.68). There were inverse relationships between CRAT ratings and number of years in DPT education, at an institution, and as a licensed physical therapist. At both timepoints, the interrater reliability for each domain was good to excellent (ICCs 0.60-0.79). The intrarater reliability was fair to excellent for all domains for each video (ICCs 0.45-0.75).

Discussion and conclusion: The CRAT is a reliable instrument for assessing DPT student CR during a simulated patient encounter. Implementation of the CRAT in DPT education may facilitate improved consistency of CR assessment across the learner continuum.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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