|
 |
CLINICAL INSTRUCTOR SATISFACTION WITH THE APTA’S CLINICAL PERFORMANCE INSTRUMENT (CPI): A PILOT STUDY. Guenther, LA. Polak K, Power G, Szabo K; Richard Stockton College of NJ, Pomona, NJ. powergee@aol.com. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this study was to determine the satisfaction of clinical instructors (CIs) with the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) generated Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI). The CPI was created and made available for use in the assessment of student clinical performance in 2000. Currently, no studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of the CPI. SUBJECTS: 150 clinical sites of a particular academic institution were selected as a sample of convenience. METHOD AND MATERIALS: a survey, based upon the CPI was generated and field-tested on two members of the Physical Therapy Faculty. It was then revised. Packets containing an introductory letter, project information, informed consent, return envelopes and surveys for data collection were sent to the Center Coordinators of Clinical Education at the sites affiliated with the MPT Program. Each survey contained a respondent demographic section and a 30-item assessment of the CPI . ANALYSES: The CPI survey items were divided into the following categories/topics: respondent demographics, overall satisfaction with the CPI, use of the visual analog scale for grading on the CPI, CPI time requirements, CPI use in failures, and CI ease of understanding the CPI. CPI survey responses utilized a five point Likert Scale (range of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5= Strongly Agree). The results were analyzed using a tally, frequencies of variables and percentages. RESULTS: The response rate was 61% (91/150); however, several items were scored with only 90 respondents as one item was missing. 71% (64/90) of the respondents agreed that the CPI "sufficiently assesses" student performance. In addition, 57% (52/91) reported "It is easy for the CI to understand how to use the CPI." However, only 20% (18/90) reported that the CPI is "the most appropriate method" for assessing a student’s clinical performance. In fact, 53%(48/91) of the respondents stated that there are performance criteria on the CPI that they "do not understand." And, 48% (44/91) would prefer to use another tool to evaluate the students. The visual analog scale was identified as a source of rater bias by 75% (68/91) of the respondents. With respect to the time required to complete the CPI, 70% (64/91) of the respondents agreed that "writing narrative comments" for each performance criterion is too time consuming; also, 46% (28/90) felt there was "insufficient time" to correctly complete the CPI. 57% (52/91) felt it was not difficult to assign a failing grade to a student using the CPI. CONCLUSIONS: Results in various topics vary greatly. The majority of respondents believe the CPI appropriately assesses student performance. However, a majority also has concern with the length of the CPI. In addition, they feel that they do not understand components of the tool. In fact, 80% do not believe that the CPI is the most appropriate method for student assessment. Further study is indicated to specify suggestions for improving the CPI, to explore alternatives to this tool and to expand results outside of this study’s sample. FUNDING SOURCE: None.
Copyright 2004 by the American Physical Therapy Association Reprint Information |