College of Health and Human Services s2

SCHOOL OF PHYSICAL THERAPY COLLEGE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 1999-2000 STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT REPORT

I. Overview of Outcome Assessment Procedures The School of Physical Therapy uses several different indicators of the quality of student instruction and outcomes. Of course, student evaluations of courses provide a framework for faculty feedback concerning the success of particular courses each quarter. These are used for counseling faculty in teaching as well, particularly probationary faculty. In addition, de-briefing sessions with students after they have returned from clinical affiliations help us to know what topics they feel need to be covered better or earlier in the curriculum. Comments from the Clinical Coordinators of Clinical Educators (CCCEs) that are given to our Academic Coordinator also serve to alert faculty to items which are covered well or that need more depth in the curriculum. To summarize then, we have input from the students and from those who grade our students on clinical practica. Most of the input from the clinical educators is informal and is reported during faculty meetings, which occur weekly. Students also attend faculty meetings during which they share student concerns. This allows for almost immediate remedy if necessary.

Besides the methods delineated above, we have several formal procedures that our school uses. We look at the success of our graduates by surveying the graduates at the end of the program (graduation) with a tool designed to give information over all aspects of the curriculum. We then survey them 9-12 months after graduation on professional standards because they have had the opportunity to use their knowledge and skills in a professional position. We also survey the employers of those same graduates at the 9-12 month mark to determine if we are meeting their needs or if there are any weaknesses that our graduates exhibit. Finally, we look at the success of our students on the national licensing examination which they must take and pass prior to receiving their professional license in physical therapy

II. Synopsis of the Quality of Outcomes At program completion, 21/34 students responded to an open ended survey concerning all aspects of our curriculum designed to help the students to meet their professional goals. On a Likert scale of 1-5 in which 1 was not prepared and 5 was very well prepared, most of the scores were approximately 4.5. However, patient prognosis was rated as 2.5 by the students indicating a need for intervention. Some aspects of intervention were also rated 3.5 and also merited a look by faculty. When asked about the strengths and weakness of particular coursework, some basic clinical skills were rated a 3. Finally, students were asked about the most effective methods of instruction and what they would change about the program. One hundred percent of the respondents felt that Ohio University School of Physical Therapy adequately assisted them in learning the information necessary to begin professional practice as a physical therapist. One hundred percent felt that we had encouraged the habit of lifelong learning, a goal of our program.

In June of 2000, we surveyed the Class of 1999 at the one year anniversary. On a Likert scale of 1-6 with 1 being least satisfied and 6 being most satisfied, 83% of the students surveyed indicated their satisfaction level to be >4 with the curriculum. The categories included practice expectations (communication, cultural sensitivity, professionalism, clinical decision making, and critical inquiry); examination and evaluation of various types of problems commonly seen by physical therapists; diagnosis; and interventions common to physical therapy. In addition, students were asked to rate their current level of competency with these same categories and 88% indicated >4. Sixty-five percent of the students were members of the professional organization. The employer survey indicated that, on a scale of 1-10 in which 1 was “does not demonstrate the behavior” and 10 was “exceeds expectations”, 94% of our graduates were rated >8 for most categories. Our national passing rate for the first time taking the licensing examination given in 1999 was 94% and we have not yet received the statistics for 2000. All of these indicators tell us that we are meeting our objectives in producing a skilled clinician and a lifelong learner.

Finally, we sent in a Progress Report from our on-site accreditation visit in 1999 and all of our changes were accepted, with the exception of space, which will be satisfied with our move to Grover. The accreditation report validates the fact that we are conforming to the standards of our professional peers.

III. Summary of Changes Based on Assessment Procedures As noted above, patient prognosis was rated low by the graduates at program completion; therefore, at our fall faculty meeting, faculty determined how to include this information into our clinical courses in orthopedics, neurorehabilitation, and cardiopulmonary. We received a higher score from the Class of 2000 indicating that we had made an acceptable change. In intervention, students felt that they needed a therapeutic exercise course. Rather than add an additional course, faculty decided to emphasize when we were teaching therapeutic exercise and also added additional content in the laboratory portion of the orthopedic sequences, since this was where the students indicated a weakness. The basic clinical skills content was also analyzed, but since the courses had different instructors, any change was deferred to this year. Anything less than 7 was looked at on the employer survey and the only indicator (at a 6) was use of supportive personnel so this is the area that has been strengthened in the Management courses. On the one year survey of graduates, faculty noted that 7/26 students had noted a weakness in manual therapy, management, and administration in terms of satisfaction. These issues have been addressed in those particular courses. In addition to the changes in particular courses, faculty have spent the entire year developing a new curriculum for a DPT which should address all of the comments that have been made by the students. We have had two consultants review the coursework and they assure us we are on the right track for the future of the profession.

IV. Description of Changes in Assessment Goals or Procedures At this point, we do not plan for any changes in our assessment procedures as they seem to be working well for us. We evaluate ourselves and our curriculum frequently, involving many different constituencies, and we feel as though we have a good idea of the learning outcomes for our students.

Respectfully submitted:

Averell S. Overby, Dr.P.H. For

Faculty, School of Physical Therapy