A physical therapy education program implemented a student and clinical instructor (CI) performance assessment instrument (SCIPAI) that allows for student and CI completion of quick and simple snapshot assessments of student and CI performance at flexible intervals throughout clinical education experiences (CEEs). The SCIPAI provides real-time, electronic access by student, CI, DCE, and SCCE that enables these stakeholders to view student and CI performance from multiple perspectives (student and CI) and to mentor students and clinical educators throughout the CEE. CE team well-being is improved via team common access to simple and formative performance snapshots. The purpose of this presentation is to describe the results of the pilot study that quantitatively assessed the construct validity of the SCIPAI and qualitatively explored the CI experience of being mentored via use of the SCIPAI at regular points throughout a clinical.
One hundred eight students from a single DPT program and their CIs completed the SCIPAI electronically every 1-2 weeks throughout first, intermediate, and terminal CEEs. SCIPAI users utilized a 0-100 rating scale and supporting comments to describe student and CI performance. The researchers assessed construct validity of the SCIPAI quantitatively using concurrent validity and progression of scores (within and between CEEs) approaches. The researchers then used student and CI comments supporting SCIPAI ratings to identify themes characterizing CI performance throughout each clinical.
Concurrent validity analyses indicate strong relationships between SCIPAI and CPI measures of student performance across CEEs ( r = .774, _ < .01). Significant differences between initial and final SCIPAI measures of CI performance within first and terminal CEEs (p<.05) and between first and terminal clinicals further support SCIPAI construct validity (p<.01). Initial qualitative analyses focused upon CI Feedback performance. SCIPAI comments by students and CIs highlight common feedback themes with similar frequencies: timing (student 63%, CI 61%); testimony feedback occurred (45%, 36%), constructive criticism (5%, 8%), and teaching methods (26%, 22%). Additionally, students (52%) and CIs (8%) commented on the theme of positive reinforcement, though with markedly different frequencies. CI feedback themes transitioned from timing and nature of feedback early in the clinical to the variety of teaching methods used later in the clinical.
Conclusions/Relevance to the conference theme:
Snapshot assessments of student and CI performance provide real-time data to students, CIs, DCEs, and SCCEs Ð an innovative means of enhancing the performance, mentoring, communication, and well-being of the entire CE team. Quantitative analysis of pilot study data supports the SCIPAI as demonstrating construct validity. Qualitative analyses of comments supporting ratings of CI performance highlight themes of CI progression in feedback performance. Additional research is warranted to further evaluate the toolÕs validity and reliability and to explore how all CE stakeholders can use the SCIPAI to grow as mentors to one another.