Program Outcomes
Physical Therapy Program
July 26, 2010
The outcomes discussed below are taken from a report written for the Commission for
Accreditation of Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE), the accrediting body of physical therapy
programs in the US. The report was prepared for a site visit that was held in March, 2010. The
entire 230 page review of the program, curriculum, etc, is attached. Information summarized in
this document is from sections of the report specifically related to outcomes from the Program.
In the material below, the standard from CAPTE is highlighted in yellow with the response
follows.
P-3 The program has expected program outcomes that are based on its goals and reflect
the activities of the program, core faculty, and students.
RESPONSE: The PT Program has goals and expected program outcomes that are based on
the mission statement, the APTA’s Vision 2020, the Guide to Physical Therapist Practice, and
the Normative Model of Physical Therapist Professional Education. From these sources, a
curriculum philosophy was developed collectively by the faculty and adopted on June 16, 2004.
This curriculum philosophy was the starting point from which the DPT curriculum was developed
and all outcome measures are based. The statement of philosophy is elaborated on in Section
CP.2 and is described in detail in the PT Student Policies and Procedures Manual (Student
P&P) under the Curriculum section.
The expected outcomes, reflecting the program’s goals, have been identified as:
Students/Graduates:
1. Ninety percent (90%) of our graduates will pass the NPTE on their first attempt to
become licensed physical therapists.
2. Eight-five percent (85%) of our graduates will feel competent to practice autonomously
as Doctors of Physical Therapy within their first year post-graduation.
3. All (100%) of our graduates will use critical thinking, evidence, and clinical reasoning in
physical therapy patient management.
4. All (100%) of our graduates will be prepared to provide physical therapy care to meet the
needs of patients across the lifespan.
Outcomes
CO-1. Graduates of the program meet the expected student outcomes of the program,
including those related to the program’s unique mission.
RESPONSE: Graduates of the program meet the expected student outcomes stated in P-3.
The extent to which these outcomes are met is analyzed in Table CO-1.1 below. These
outcomes are derived from three sources:


Exit surveys: The results derived from exit surveys of graduates are reported as a combined
average for the Classes of 2007, 2008, and 2009; all survey results represented a 100%
response rate for graduating students.
Graduate Surveys: The results from surveys of graduates 1+ years post-graduation are
1

reported as a combined average for the Classes of 2007 and 2008. The 2009 cohort were
not long enough post-graduation to be included in this data set or the results for the
employers of our graduates.
Employer surveys: The response rates for graduates and employers were described in
Section CP-3 and Table CP-3.2.
Greater than 90% of graduates from all classes met Outcome 1 and Outcome 2. While the
results for outcomes 3 and 4 are slightly below our expectation of 100%, it is apparent that the
employers recognize that the graduates are prepared. For example, in Outcome 4, the
employers indicated that the graduates are prepared to work with patients across the lifespan at
a higher percentage rate than the graduates perceive themselves. This can be partially
explained by the graduates inability to recognize how their skills will carry over from one
population or age group to another in the clinical setting and their lack of experience in multiple
settings. This lower response rate can also be explained by the changes faculty have made in
the curriculum over the past several years. We expect that this response rate will continue to
rise over the next several years as the curricular changes have time to manifest in the more
recent, and future, graduates.
In summary, given that our first graduating class was in 2007, the results of the expected
student outcomes demonstrate the quality of the program. As the program continues to strive to
reach the highest level for each outcome, the input from students, faculty, graduates,
employers, and the CAPTE accreditation process will be useful in making changes to influence
future outcomes.
Table CO-1.1: Assessment of Program’s Expected Student Outcomes
Expected Student
Types of
Assessment Scoring
Results
Outcomes
Assessments
Method
1) Ninety percent
(90%) of our
graduates will
pass the NPTE on
their first attempt
to become
licensed physical
therapists.
National Physical
Therapy Licensure
Exams (NPTE)
NPTE pass rate and
section rates
 First time pass rates:
Class of 2007: 94%
Class of 2008: 93%
Class of 2009: 93%
 Overall NPTE pass
rates:
Class of 2007: 100%
Class of 2008: 100%
Class of 2009: 99%
2
Expected Student
Outcomes
Types of
Assessments
Assessment Scoring
Method
Results
2) Eight-five percent
(85%) of our
graduates will feel
competent to
practice
autonomously as
Doctors of
Physical Therapy
within their first
year postgraduation.
Exit survey of students
about to graduate
(Classes 2007, 2008,
and 2009)
Percent response
measured on Likert
Scale to online survey
questions
Survey of graduates 1+
year post-graduation
(Classes 2007 and
2008)
Percent response
measured on Likert
Scale to online survey
questions
Survey of employers of
graduates 1+ year
post-graduation
(Classes 2007 and
2008)
Percent response
measured on Likert
Scale to online survey
questions
3) All (100%) of our
graduates will use
critical thinking,
evidence, and
clinical reasoning
in physical
therapy patient
management.
Exit survey of students
about to graduate
(Classes 2007, 2008,
and 2009)
Percent response
measured on Likert
Scale to online survey
questions
Survey of graduates 1+
year post-graduation
(Classes 2007 and
2008)
Percent response
measured on Likert
Scale to online survey
questions
Survey of employers of
Percent response
92 % agreed the PT
Program prepared
them to function
within a doctoring
profession
86% agreed the PT
prepared them to
function within a
doctoring
profession
92 % agreed the PT
Program prepared
the graduate with
the skills and
knowledge
necessary for
practice as a Doctor
of Physical Therapy
 91.6 % agreed the PT
Program developed
their clinical decisionmaking abilities
 93% agreed the PT
Program prepared
them to integrate
evidence in to clinical
practice
 94.2% agreed the PT
Program prepared
them to utilize a
critical reasoning
process when making
ethical and legal
decisions regarding
physical therapy
practice
 93.7% agreed the PT
Program prepared
them to apply a
clinical decisionmaking process
 94.9% agreed the PT
Program prepared
them to apply
evidence-based
practice
 96.2% agree that the
3
graduates 1+ year
post-graduation
(Classes 2007 and
2008)
measured on Likert
Scale to online survey
questions
graduate makes
appropriate clinical
decisions for his/her
patients
Performance during
final fulltime clinical
education experiences
CPI with associated
benchmarks for CE III
and CE IV
 100% of Class of
2009 met entry level
on the CPI related to
their Clinical Decision
making and clinical
reasoning skills
during their final
fulltime clinical
internships (CE III &
IV)
4
Expected Student
Outcomes
Types of
Assessments
Assessment Scoring
Method
Results
4) All (100%) of our
graduates will be
prepared to
provide physical
therapy care to
meet the needs of
patients across
the lifespan.
Exit survey of students
about to graduate
(Classes 2007, 2008,
and 2009)
Percent response
measured on Likert
Scale to online survey
questions
 74.1% agreed that
the PT Program
prepared them to
work with patients
across the lifespan
Survey of graduates 1+
year post-graduation
(Classes 2007 and
2008)
Percent response
measured on Likert
Scale to online survey
questions
Survey of employers of
graduates 1+ year
post-graduation
(Classes 2007 and
2008)
Percent response
measured on Likert
Scale to online survey
questions
 78.4% agreed that
the PT Program
prepared them to
work with patients
across the lifespan
 92% agreed that the
PT Program graduate
demonstrates
competence in
meeting the health
care needs of
patients/clients, the
local community, and
society
CO-2.
Graduates of the program meet the health care needs of patients/clients and
society through ethical behavior, continued competence, and advocacy for the
profession.
RESPONSE: In order to meet the expected student outcomes stated in P-3 and further
described in CO-1, graduates of the program will meet the health care needs of patients/clients
and society through ethical behavior, continued competence, and advocacy for the profession.
It would not be possible to successfully meet the expected outcomes without incorporating all of
these practices given that these are recognized components and expectations of a Doctor of
Physical Therapy as defined by APTA’s Vision 2020.
CO-3.
When averaged over 3 years, 80% or more of all graduates pass the licensure
exam.
RESPONSE:
Graduating
Class
# who passed
exam after all
attempts
36
Pass rate
per cohort
2007
# who took
exam at least
once
36
2008
43
43
100%
2009
44
43
98%
3-year pass rate:
100%
99%
5
CO-4.
Graduation rates and employment rates are consistent with the program
mission, goals, and expected student outcomes.
RESPONSE: The 3 year graduation rates are reported in the Graduation Rate Table, and the
reported rate of approximately 96% is consistent with the PT Program mission, goals, and
expected student outcomes. Given the mission of the PT Program to provide Colorado and the
nation with a program of excellence in education, clinical care, research & scholarship, and
community service, and the PT Program goal to graduate generalist practitioners in physical
therapy who are able to provide physical therapy in the constantly changing health care system,
a 100% graduation rate is not likely. The 96% graduation rate does reflect the commitment we
have to our students to meet all outcomes and reach graduation while acknowledging that there
are changing circumstances that alter the progress or path of small number of students who
enter the PT Program.
Survey responses from the graduates of the Class of 2007 and 2008 are reported in table CO4.1 and indicate that 93% of the graduates sought employment within 6 months of licensure and
91% of them reached that goal. 98% of the graduates who sought employment were employed
within the first year. It is not known whether the other 2% sought employment within the first
year or made another choice about their career path. While it is inherent in the goal and
mission of the PT Program to have 100% of our graduates successfully employed within the first
year, personal circumstances occasionally interfere and may delay immediate opportunities for
licensure and employment.
6
CP-2.9 A variety of evaluation processes used by faculty to determine whether students have
achieved the educational objectives. Evaluations of student performance in the cognitive,
psychomotor, and affective domains occur regularly and, at a minimum, must occur at the end
of each term of the curriculum.
RESPONSE: Faculty members evaluate students throughout the curriculum to ensure that
students demonstrate the level of competence expected at each stage of the curriculum in
terms of performing well conceived, safe, and effective physical therapist patient
management. These evaluations include assessment in the cognitive domain as
demonstrated by performance on written final examinations, assessment in the psychomotor
domain (as evidenced by performance on tests of basic skills competencies during most
management courses and comprehensive, integrative practical examinations at the end of
each management course), and assessment in the affective domain (as evaluated during
practical examinations, standardized patients, patient care seminar presentations, and other
presentations).
Summative examinations are used throughout the curriculum to evaluate the student’s
ability to synthesize content in the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains. Courses
typically have a final exam and/or final project. Many courses have midterm examinations.
Typically the management courses include both assessment of clinical competency and a
final practical examination. Also included are presentations in the patient care seminar
series (emphasizing cognitive and affective performance). Standardized patient
assessments are used at the beginning of the second and third year to assess students’
progress, emphasizing the cognitive and affective domains, but also requiring students to
perform psychomotor skills. In addition, several other mechanisms of assessment are
utilized including oral presentations in many courses, written papers, development of patient
educational materials, and other projects and assignments.
Faculty assess student performance and provide feedback in a timely manner with the
intention that students learn from their work. Importantly, students are asked to self assess
performance following laboratory examinations, after many of their oral presentations and
following many of their group projects. Relative weighting for each assessment for the
course grade is indicated in each course syllabus. Students are expected to uphold
professional behaviors in all interactions with faculty, staff, and other students in classes, on
campus, and during course or curricular assessments. Explanations of specific assessment
tools appear in course syllabi located in the appendices to this document. Examples of
evaluation methods and graded products will be available on-site for review.
In most courses, students must pass both the cognitive and psychomotor/affective
components of the course in order to pass the course as a whole. The PT Program policy on
repeating examinations and practical examinations can be found in the Student P&P under
the Curriculum section, specifically under the Physical Therapy Program Minimum Grade
Standard, Repetition of Courses, and Probationary Status.
With regard to clinical education, students receive formal evaluations on their performance
in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains at the mid-point and end of each
clinical education course. For this purpose, clinical instructors use the Physical Therapist
Clinical Performance Instrument (PT CPIWeb). Students complete their own selfassessment separately from the CI using the PT CPIWeb at mid-point and the end of each
clinical education course. In addition, students receive ongoing feedback on their
performance from their CIs throughout each clinical education experience. During CE III &
IV, students and CIs also review monthly Program Benchmarks which are faxed to the
7
DCE/Clinical Education Faculty Advisor for review. Benchmarks are located in the course
syllabi for Clinical Education III and Clinical Education IV, in Appendices D in the Clinical
Education Manual, and in the Appendices for Section P-11 of this document.
No courses in the entry level program are taught through distance education methods.
CP-2.9 A variety of evaluation processes used by faculty to determine whether students have
achieved the educational objectives. Evaluations of student performance in the
cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains occur regularly and, at a minimum, must
occur at the end of each term of the curriculum.
RESPONSE: Faculty members evaluate students throughout the curriculum to ensure that
students demonstrate the level of competence expected at each stage of the curriculum in
terms of performing well conceived, safe, and effective physical therapist patient management.
These evaluations include assessment in the cognitive domain as demonstrated by
performance on written final examinations, assessment in the psychomotor domain (as
evidenced by performance on tests of basic skills competencies during most management
courses and comprehensive, integrative practical examinations at the end of each management
course), and assessment in the affective domain (as evaluated during practical examinations,
standardized patients, patient care seminar presentations, and other presentations).
Summative examinations are used throughout the curriculum to evaluate the student’s ability to
synthesize content in the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains. Courses typically have
a final exam and/or final project. Many courses have midterm examinations. Typically the
management courses include both assessment of clinical competency and a final practical
examination. Also included are presentations in the patient care seminar series (emphasizing
cognitive and affective performance). Standardized patient assessments are used at the
beginning of the second and third year to assess students’ progress, emphasizing the cognitive
and affective domains, but also requiring students to perform psychomotor skills. In addition,
several other mechanisms of assessment are utilized including oral presentations in many
courses, written papers, development of patient educational materials, and other projects and
assignments.
Faculty assess student performance and provide feedback in a timely manner with the intention
that students learn from their work. Importantly, students are asked to self assess performance
following laboratory examinations, after many of their oral presentations and following many of
their group projects. Relative weighting for each assessment for the course grade is indicated in
each course syllabus. Students are expected to uphold professional behaviors in all interactions
with faculty, staff, and other students in classes, on campus, and during course or curricular
assessments. Explanations of specific assessment tools appear in course syllabi located in the
appendices to this document. Examples of evaluation methods and graded products will be
available on-site for review.
In most courses, students must pass both the cognitive and psychomotor/affective components
of the course in order to pass the course as a whole. The PT Program policy on repeating
examinations and practical examinations can be found in the Student P&P under the Curriculum
section, specifically under the Physical Therapy Program Minimum Grade Standard, Repetition
of Courses, and Probationary Status.
8
With regard to clinical education, students receive formal evaluations on their performance in
the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains at the mid-point and end of each clinical
education course. For this purpose, clinical instructors use the Physical Therapist Clinical
Performance Instrument (PT CPIWeb). Students complete their own self-assessment separately
from the CI using the PT CPIWeb at mid-point and the end of each clinical education course. In
addition, students receive ongoing feedback on their performance from their CIs throughout
each clinical education experience. During CE III & IV, students and CIs also review monthly
Program Benchmarks which are faxed to the DCE/Clinical Education Faculty Advisor for review.
Benchmarks are located in the course syllabi for Clinical Education III and Clinical Education IV,
in Appendices D in the Clinical Education Manual, and in the Appendices for Section P-11 of
this document.
No courses in the entry level program are taught through distance education methods.
Curricular Evaluation
CP-3.
There is on-going and formal evaluation of the professional curriculum. The
curriculum evaluation plan is written and addresses individual courses within
the curriculum, as well as the curriculum plan as a whole. The plan incorporates
consideration of the changing roles and responsibilities of the physical therapist
practitioner and the dynamic nature of the profession and the health care
delivery system. Data are collected from appropriate stakeholders, including, at
a minimum, program faculty, current students, graduates of the program, and at
least one other stakeholder group such as employers of graduates, consumers
of physical therapy services, peers, or other health care professionals. The
evaluation plan is used to determine strengths and weaknesses of the
curriculum and to determine if the practice expectations and specific mission,
goals, and expected student outcomes of the curriculum are met.
RESPONSE: Faculty regularly perform a systematic review of the curriculum (Table CP-3.1).
Information is reviewed and analyzed from multiple data and information sources to identify
strengths and weaknesses of the educational program and to determine whether the PT
Program’s mission, goals and objectives are being met. In addition, ongoing and regular
discussions are held as needed at the bi-weekly biweekly faculty meetings. Associated Faculty
are encouraged to participate in these meetings. Feedback also is provided from students
formally at Director’s Time (beginning of each semester), at committee meetings with class
representatives (e.g. Curriculum Committee and Recruitment, Admissions and Matriculation
Committee), course evaluation forms completed by students at the end of each course, focus
groups with graduating students, input from the surveys of recent graduates and their
employers, and national licensure exam scores. In addition, feedback on the curriculum is
solicited from clinical instructors during clinic calls and visits during each clinical education
experience and from our Core Affiliate Clinical Advisory Group during annual meetings.
Source of Data
Table CP-3.1: Annual review of the curriculum plan
Timeframe
Responsible people
Discussions at Curriculum
End of each semester
Faculty as a whole; Program
9
Review Meetings
2004 - 2009
Director
Program retreats
Annually
Faculty as a whole; Program
Director
Students
Beginning of each
semester
Class meeting with Program
Director
Curriculum Review Grids
Specific Course evaluations
2007, 2008 and 2009
End of each semester
Discussion by Core Course
Instructors
Exit Interviews
End of each semester
Curriculum Committee
Student evaluations, reviewed by
Course Coordinator and Program
Director
Core Course Faculty
Graduate Surveys
One year post graduation
Employer Surveys
16 months post graduation
Graduation week
Online survey is completed by
graduating students and analyzed
by Assistant Program Director and
faculty; Focus groups are led by
core faculty assisted by
administrative staff for note taking
Alumni complete the online survey
and the Assistant Program
Director analyzes the data
Employers of graduates complete
the online survey and the
Assistant Program Director
analyzes the data
Formal Curricular Reviews: The curriculum is reviewed in its entirety at annual faculty
retreats. The communication among faculty during these discussions has helped to integrate
information and build on previously presented content across courses and has assured faculty
that the learning objectives of each course are appropriate for the curricular sequence. The
faculty use the Normative Model of Physical Therapist Professional Education1 to assess course
objectives and descriptions.
From 2005-2008 (the first three years of the new curriculum) the faculty met for one day at the
end of each semester to review the curriculum (minutes of these meetings are available on
request). These meetings were held to assure that portions of the curriculum, taught for the first
time, met with expectations and intended outcomes. They were also held to assure that all
threads were indeed threaded throughout the curriculum and to review specific content areas.
To this end, at each meeting the discussion focused on the new curriculum for the semester that
was just completed, the performance of the curriculum as a whole, and a review of a specific
content area and/or threads. As examples, the musculoskeletal content was reviewed in Spring
2006; Psychosocial Aspects of Care was reviewed in Spring 2007. Adjustments were made as
needed to specific content areas as well as overall curriculum organization. Between 2005 and
2008, the curriculum was reviewed as a whole at the end of each year. Beginning this year,
meetings are now held each fall to review the curriculum as a whole.
1 American
Physical Therapy Association (APTA). Normative Model of Physical Therapist Professional Education:
Version 2004.
10
Sources of data used in these curricular reviews include the following:
 Student course evaluations
 Faculty assessment of performance in the course and in subsequent courses that build
on that content
 Performance on the licensure exam (NPTE)
 Student discussions with Program Director each semester (Director’s time)
 Exit interviews
 Graduate surveys
 Employers surveys
Minutes from the review meetings and the documents reviewed for each thread and/or content
area reviewed will be available for on-site review.
The changing roles and responsibilities of the physical therapist and the health care delivery
system are considered in curriculum assessment as they relate to the educational program
objectives and individual course objectives as well as learning activities and student
assessment strategies. This process is facilitated by the fact that a number of faculty members
(see Table F-2) maintain an active clinical practice, hence they are able to keep the PT Program
as a whole apprised of changes that should be reflected in the curriculum. The ongoing
assessment of program objectives and expected student outcomes assures us that the
curriculum reflects current best practice and all professional values and documents.
Information is obtained from a variety of stakeholders during the curriculum evaluation of the
curriculum. Included are students, graduates of the PT Program, employers of the graduates,
as well as the faculty. Performance of the graduates on the licensure examination (Table CO-3)
is also useful, as well as performance on specific sections of the examination.
Student evaluation of the curriculum occurs at various points within their educational
program. Students complete course evaluations at the conclusion of every semester. They also
meet with the PT Program Director at the beginning of every semester (‘Director’s Time’). The
information obtained from these two sources was particularly helpful during the first few years of
the implementation of the DPT curriculum and was used to refine both course content and
placement within the curriculum.
Graduate (alumni) surveys for the classes of 2007 and 2008: The PT Program began to
collect data from each cohort of graduates approximately one year after their graduation and
licensure. These Program graduates provide a first-hand perspective on how well the
curriculum prepared them for their initial entry into practice as a physical therapist. The first
cohort to evaluate the curriculum was the Class of 2007. As alumni, these graduates were
contacted and asked to complete a survey regarding the curriculum during the fall of 2008. This
timing was significant in that we wanted to survey them after most had likely been employed as
physical therapists for at least one year. Twenty-five of 36 graduates completed the survey for
a return rate of 69%. The process was then repeated in early fall 2009 to capture the responses
from the graduates of the Class of 2008 after they had been working as physical therapists for
about 1 year. The response rate was 77% with 33 of 43 graduates from the program
completing the survey. Given the challenges of contacting graduates once they leave the
program, and often leave the metropolitan area or state, these response rates are wellrepresentative of the cohort.
11
Questions were developed to gain an understanding of how well the curriculum addressed
content areas and threads. Generally, the alumni indicated overall satisfaction with the
curriculum and their preparation as physical therapists entering the profession. The courses
provided a foundation for critical thinking and problem solving and prepared the graduates of the
PT Program to promote health and wellness in individual patients and populations, practice
safely, work with a variety of patient types and diagnosis, and function as a doctor of physical
therapy and member of the healthcare team, recognized as an expert in movement related
function. A summary of survey results is in Table CP-3.2 and several areas of concern are
described in more detail in CP-3.4. The complete survey results will be available on-site.
Table CP-3.2: Summary of results of the Graduate Surveys
Survey Question
Percent of
Percent of
Respondents to Respondents
Agree and
to Agree and
Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
– Class 2007
– Class 2008
The Physical Therapy courses provided me with a
foundation for critical thinking and problem solving.
The PT Program prepared my communication skills in
these areas:
Verbal
Non-verbal
Written
The PT Program prepared me to value service learning.
The PT Program prepared me to promote health and
wellness with individual patients/clients.
The PT Program prepared me to promote health and
wellness with patient populations.
The PT Program prepared me to understand and apply
business-related concepts to patient care delivery in the
clinical setting.
Survey Question
The PT Program prepared me to appropriately utilize
support personnel (PT Assistants, Aides, etc.) within the
clinical setting.
The PT Program prepared me to consider myself as the
health care team member recognized for expertise in
movement analysis and the application of movement
related to function.
The PT Program prepared me for my first position as a
physical therapist.
Total
Respondents =
25/36 (69%)
90 %
Total
Respondents
= 33/43 (77%)
100 %
80
65
50
96
89
89
55
85
71
89
80
86
65
50
Percent of
Respondents to
Agree and
Strongly Agree
– Class 2007
Percent of
Respondents
to Agree and
Strongly Agree
– Class 2008
50
39
90
89
75
85
12
The PT Program prepared me to function within a
doctoring profession.
The PT Program prepared me to provide safe clinical
practice.
The PT Program prepared me to work with patients
across the lifespan.
The PT Program prepared me to work with many types
of patients (e.g. musculoskeletal, neurological,
medical).
The PT Program prepared me to work with populations
(e.g. groups of people who share similar diagnoses or
have similar health-related needs).
The PT Program included the necessary basic and
applied sciences (histology, physiology, anatomy,
movement science, etc.) that have allowed me to make
appropriate clinical decisions.
80
86
95
100
65
71
65
82
80
89
85
96
Employer surveys for the graduating classes of 2007 and 2008 were contacted to complete a
survey after the graduates returned the information letting us know where they were employed.
The ability to obtain information through a survey of employers required that the graduates
respond to our request about their employers and provided us with accurate information to
contact the employer. Overall, the results from thse employers indicated that they are highly
satisfied with the graduates from this program. Responses were received from 12 of the 25
employers provided by the graduates of the Class of 2007. This represents 48% of the
employers for these graduates or 33% of the total employers for all graduates of the Class of
2007. Responses were received from 13 of the 33 employers provided by the graduates of the
Class of 2008. This represents of 39% of the employers of graduates for these graduates or
30% of the total employers for all graduates of the Class of 2008. Findings from these surveys
are summarized in Table CP-3.3 with full results available on-site.
Table CP-3.3: Summary of results from the Employer Surveys
Survey Question
Percent of
Percent of
Respondents to Respondents to
Agree and
Agree and
Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
– Class 2007
– Class 2008
Total
Total
Respondents = Respondents =
12/25 (48%)
13/33 (39%)
The graduate makes appropriate clinical decisions for
100
88
his/her patients
The graduate was well prepared to begin practice as a
100
88
physical therapist compared with others PTs they have
employed or worked with in the past
The graduate practices in an ethical and legal manner
100
100
and the graduate demonstrates competence in meeting
the health care needs of patients/clients and society
The University of Colorado Denver Physical Therapy
92
88
Program prepared the graduate with the skills and
knowledge necessary for practice as a Doctor of
13
Physical Therapy
These data were supported by comments such as, “The graduate at my facility has consistently
exceeded my expectations for her level of experience. She is highly motivated, seeks out
additional responsibilities, and her clinical skills are outstanding. She has focused on the
development of a specialty program at our facility and while managing a high caseload keeps on
track with marketing this program and practicing evidence-based practice in all areas.”
Summaries of evaluation materials, including course evaluations, graduate and employer
surveys, and student exit interviews, will be available to review on-site.
Curriculum Strengths
All curriculum review data are used during the annual Curriculum Review Meetings. Curriculum
Strengths that were identified by the faculty in 2008 and noted again in 2009 included the
following:














Length of clinical education
Life span philosophy
Generalist approach
Patient centered focus
Clinical reasoning focus
Ability of students to integrate evidence into reasoning
Use of instructional technology in classes
Emphasis on cultural competence
Collaboration among faculty
o Integration across the curriculum
o Collaborative teaching in classes
o Collaborative activities and assignments to develop and implement threads and
overarching frameworks
Community volunteer program
Use of standardized patients
Student centered program
Rates of success on NPTE
Number of faculty with diverse academic backgrounds and perspectives
Areas that could be strengthened:
The curriculum review data also indicated the need for several changes in the program. Areas
needing improvement were identified in 2008, and several changes were made. These areas
needing attention included:




Placement of several courses in the curriculum
o Educational Methods
o Patient Care Seminar III
Limited emphasis on specific content in the curriculum
o Prosthetics and orthotics
o Integument
o Airway clearance techniques
o Utilization of support personnel
Inconsistency across syllabi organization and lack of clarity of course objectives
Inconsistency in grading and providing feedback on writing assignments
14
Based on the above, we took action in late 2008 and in 2009 to make curricular changes and
address these areas needing improvement. Actions taken to remediate are as follows:















Moved Educational Methods from Spring 2 to Fall 1
Moved Patient Care Seminar III Spring 3 to Fall 3
Enhanced course content in the Medical Conditions I and II to better address integument
and airway clearance techniques
Enhanced course content in Medical Conditions II to better address the GI/GU system
Enhanced course content in Health Promotions to address the need for women’s health
related to GI/GU system
Revised content of Applied Exercise Science to better address exercise progression
Revised course content in Health Care Delivery to include information on utilization of
support personnel including supervision and delegation in the clinical setting
Enhanced content related to prescription, application, and fabrication of devices and
equipment in patient management courses, in addition to what is covered in Prosthetics
and Orthotics
Adjustments to PCS course assignments to address timing with other workload
expectations
Reorganized the Neuromuscular II and III and Musculoskeletal Conditions III course
content to insure pediatric content within the lifespan approach
Enhanced course content in Radiology to incorporate imaging that focuses on
neuromuscular and medical conditions – previously focused primarily on the
musculoskeletal system
Improved consistency of syllabi using a template
Improved clarity of objectives for courses
Modified Director’s Time to be a more effective means of communication
Developed writing rubrics for consistent guidelines in written assignments across the
curriculum
A few areas continue to need attention. These were identified during the Curriculum Review
Meeting of Fall 2009 as part of our ongoing curriculum evaluation:




CP-4.
Consider the need to better balance workload in first year of program
o Consider moving a course from Summer I to Fall or Spring I
Defensible Documentation
o Consider additional opportunities for practice in courses
Ability of students to progress plan of care across continuum (goal setting and projecting
anticipated change in acute care and rehabilitation), including discharge planning
Experience with delegation and supervision of support personnel (PTAs and unlicensed
personnel)
There is ongoing and formal evaluation of the clinical education program.
RESPONSE: The clinical education program is evaluated on a regular basis with input from
multiple sources including the clinical education team, core faculty and Program Director, core
affiliate clinical advisory group, clinical education faculty (CIs and CCCEs), and students.
Information is collected and analyzed annually on components of the clinical education program
using the following Outcome Tools/Assessment Methods:
 Clinical Performance Instrument
15













Monthly Benchmarks for Clinical Education III and IV
Course Assignments during Clinical Education Experiences
Benchmarks/Recommended Qualifications of Clinical Instructors
APTA Student Evaluation of Clinical Education Experience and Instruction Forms
Student Exit Interviews
Student Exit Interview Focus Groups
Annual Commitment Forms for internship offers
Clinical Site Information Forms
Student and CI/CCCE surveys
Information gathered during site visits and calls (forms)
Discussions during meetings with the Core Affiliate Clinical Advisory Group
Annual Review with Program Director
Discussions during Clinical Education Team Meetings
Samples of these tools can be found in the Appendices. Completed tools and meeting minutes
will be available on-site. Proposed changes based on the ongoing and annual reviews are
presented to the PT Program Director during monthly meetings with DCE and Core faculty
during biweekly faculty meetings.
A summary of evaluation results and changes made along with plans for 2009-10 follow on
subsequent pages.
Placement of Clinical Education in the Curriculum. Based on feedback from de-briefing
meetings and exit interviews with students, meetings with core affiliate advisory group, and
clinical education team meetings, the placement of clinical education in the curriculum is
appropriate. No changes have been made and no changes are planned.
Length of Clinical Education in the Curriculum. Input from several individuals (students,
CCCEs, CIs, Clinical Education Team, Core faculty and Program Director, and an outside
consultant) was used in 2006 to evaluate the length of clinical education in the new DPT
curriculum. Feedback indicated that six weeks was too long for CE I, since students had limited
knowledge and skills after just two semesters in the curriculum. In addition, students could
benefit from additional time in order to more fully meet the goals and expectations during CE II.
Based on this information, the length of Clinical Education I was shortened from six weeks to
four weeks and the length of Clinical Education II was lengthened from six weeks to eight
weeks. The length of Clinical Education III and IV was lengthened from 12 weeks to 16 weeks
as a precursor to considering the possibility of incorporating a six-month or year-long internship,
as well as providing students more time to practice with autonomy. Feedback from the Classes
of 2008 and 2009 on the Exit Surveys and informal discussions with CIs during clinic calls and
visits about the increased length of CE III and IV is not conclusive. A survey of CIs and CCCEs
will be conducted in 2010 to formally analyze the effectiveness of the changes made in the
length of CE III and CE IV. Given these changes, the overall length (44 weeks) of fulltime
clinical education appears adequate for students to achieve the Expected Student Outcomes.
Practice in Clinical Education Sites. Overall feedback about clinical sites has been positive.
Students report they are able to practice patient-centered care. Information gathered during
meetings with students (de-briefing sessions after Fieldwork I and CE II), review of course
assignments related to outcome measures (Health Care Delivery) and evidence-based practice
(Scientific Inquiry III), and review of Item 9 on the APTA Student Evaluations of Clinical
Education Experience related to professional practice and growth indicate that areas needing to
16
be improved are a) consistent application of evidence-based practice and b) outcome measures
in clinical practice. In addition, Program information sent to sites prior to each clinical education
experience does not always reach the students’ specific CI/s. Changes that have been
implemented include: 1) creation of the “Clinical Instructor’s Community,” a web-based resource
site for CIs and CCCEs; 2) creation of pod-cast learning modules for CIs and CCCEs on EBP
and using outcomes in the clinic; 3) increased use of electronic communication with CIs and
CCCEs to share Program expectations for each clinical education experience; and 4) increased
coaching with students to take responsibility for sharing Program information (in addition to
Program sending ahead of time). Plans for 2009-2010: 1) create pod-cast learning modules for
CIs and CCCEs regarding preparation for taking a student for each clinical education
experience (fall 2009 – spring 2010); 2) improve accessibility of Clinical Instructors Community
by creating a common user name and password for all users; 3) host a Content Update Course
on EBP for CIs and CCCEs (spring or summer 2010), and 4) host the Advanced CI Education
and Credentialing course annually (content includes EBP and review of the elements of the
Patient/Client Management from The Guide to Physical Therapist Practice).
Number and Variety of Clinical Sites/Need for Additional Sites. Currently the PT Program has
~280 active clinical sites. In 2008-2009, 311 internship slots were offered, 25 slots were
canceled, and 177 slots were used. The PT Program added 25 new sites during this time
period: 13 out patient orthopedic; 6 pediatric; 4 in patient rehabilitation; 2 hospital; and 1 home
health. Students perceive there are not enough sites available, however all students are able to
meet Program requirements and to gain the type of experiences in which they are interested. In
2008, the Clinical Education Team implemented individual meetings with clinical education
advisees in the spring 2 semester to identify the types of sites and experiences needed for
Clinical Education III and IV. This has helped the team to focus recruitment on specific
sites/experiences needed to ensure that adequate number of sites are available to students
making selections. In addition, this has prevented recruiting excessive slots that will not be
used. Plans for 2009-10: Although the number of clinical sites was adequate in 2008-09, the
Clinical Education Team anticipates the need to increase the number of active clinical sites
approximately 10 to 15% in 2009-10 (~30-45 sites). The increased number of sites will
accommodate the increased number of students in the class of 2012. Also, the plans recruit
more Acute Care and Rehab/Neuro sites (as as not to over-utilize/tax our established sites in
these areas) and specialty practice sites ( e.g. Pediatric & Advanced Ortho /Sports sites) to
respond to student’s requests for internships in these settings. In order to do so, as well as to
accommodate local trends in healthcare that have affected clinical education (e.g., staffing
changes, increased productivity demands, etc. that have led to more internship slot
cancellations and decreased number of commitments), an additional faculty member was added
to the Clinical Education Team (25% FTE) in 2009-10 to assist with developing new sites and
meeting other team responsibilities.
Clinical Education Documents/Assessment Tools. Documents, forms, and assessment tools
are evaluated by the Clinical Education Team on an annual basis. Based on information
gathered during clinic calls and visits, meetings with the core affiliate clinical advisory group,
and Clinical Education Team meetings, feedback about the PT Program’s clinical education
documents has been positive. The Clinical Education Manual was converted to an electronic
document in 2008-09, which has been more economical and easier to distribute, making it more
accessible to students, Center Coordinators of Clinical Education (CCCEs), and CIs. Center
Coordinators of Clinical Education and CIs also have the option to request a hard copy or CDROM, although very few requests have been made. The PT Program implemented the use of
the CPIWeb in 2008-09. The greatest challenge for CIs has been accessing the APTA training
and CPIWeb initially. Once users are in the system, the tool is easy to use. The new CPIWeb
17
has enabled the Clinical Education Team to better track student progress, more clearly identify
whether students have met Program’s criteria for “Passing,” assess accuracy of the CIs’
evaluation of student performance, and facilitate communication between the Team and
CIs/CCCEs. The DCE and Administrative Assistant created a pod-cast learning module to assist
CIs, CCCEs, and students in accessing the CPIWeb. Clinical Education Forms (such as
commitment forms, commitment verification forms, Benchmarks for CE III and CE IV, request to
open a new site, etc.) have facilitated communication and contributed to smooth operations in
the Clinical Education Program. The majority of tools used to assess the Clinical Education
Program provide qualitative data. In 2008-09, two assessment tools were created to provide
more comprehensive, quantitative data: 1) a database that tracks aggregate CI and site data
from the APTA Student Evaluation of the Clinical Experience and Instruction (to assess quality
of student experiences and CIs) and 2) a formal survey to assess the effectiveness of the DCE
and Clinical Education Team. These tools coupled with the qualitative assessment tools used
provide a more complete data set about the effectiveness of the Clinical Education Program.
Quality of Clinical Education Faculty. The quality of Clinical Education Faculty is assessed
using the APTA Student Evaluation of the Clinical Experience and Instruction and by the Clinical
Education Team during clinic calls and visits and reviewing CI comments in the CPIWeb. These
are effective mechanisms. Results can be found in detail in Sections F-23 and 24.
Clinical Faculty Development Plan. The clinical faculty development plan is designed to
enhance communication between the academic program and clinical sites and to meet the
needs of clinical faculty based on the DCE’s analysis of information gathered during clinic calls
and site visits, Student Evaluations and meetings, discussion with the Clinical Education Team,
and input from the Core Affiliate Advisory Group. The plan is evaluated on an annual basis.
Clinical Faculty needs for development as identified in 2008/09:
 Increase number of credentialed clinical instructors
 Better understanding and implementation of evidence based practice
 Development of site objectives/plan for clinical education experiences
 Strategies to communicate expectations and student concerns clearly and early on in the
experience
 Use of the CPIWeb
The DCE also identified trends related to the CCCE:
 Increasing numbers of CCCEs are not physical therapists, and therefore do not have a
clear understanding of physical therapy education
 There is high turnover in the CCCE position, and therefore many do not have a clear
understanding of the important and multifaceted role of the CCCE
 CCCEs have limited time available for developing a structured clinical education
program and for mentoring CIs and students
Clinical Faculty Development Activities in 2008-09:
 Taught 6 APTA CI Education and Credentialing Programs
o 4 basic level courses (April, 08; August, 08; October 08; October 09)
o 2 advanced level courses (October 08 and May 09)
 Hosted 3 Content Update Courses
o 2 Ortho, including best evidence and suggested outcome measures (July 08;
May 09)
o 1 Neuro, including best evidence and suggested outcome measures (Sept 09)
18




Hosted 1 discussion group for PTs in acute care with faculty content expert and Colleen
Kigin PT, DPT, FAPTA, national expert (April 09)
Increased accessibility of the Clinical Instructors’ Community by creating a common user
name and password for all users
Created 3 pod-cast learning modules for the Clinical Instructors Community
o Accessing and using the CPI
o Preparing for students in Clinical Education III & IV
o Preparing for students in Clinical Education I
Co-hosted regional Clinical Education Conference with Regis University and sponsored
with Northwest Intermountain Consortium (September 09)
o Juggling the roles of the CCCE
o Facilitating clinical reasoning in the clinical setting
o APTA regional forum on standards in clinical education
Plans for 2009-10 include: 1) Promote and track the use of Clinical Instructors Community; 2)
create CI learning modules on preparing to mentor students (CE III & IV completed in August
2009; CE I completed in December 2009; plans underway for CE II); 3) increase
communication/support for CIs during each clinical education experiences; 4) continue outreach
to CIs working in acute care to facilitate the process of defining the role of the PT in acute care;
5) conduct meetings with CIs from similar areas of clinical practice (e.g., pediatric, SNF, acute
care, OP Orthopedics) to discuss/define “entry level” practice and facilitate the development of
objectives for clinical education experiences; 6) provide update course on Evidence Based
Practice in spring or summer 2010; and 7) Dr. Jody Gandy will assist the Program with
developing a strategic plan for the Clinical Education Program (including clinical faculty
development) in April 2010.
Clinical Education Resources. Clinical Education resources are evaluated by the Clinical
Education Team and Program Director. Evaluation in 2008-09 indicates: 1) the budget is
adequate to support the current Clinical Education Program activities (separate from salary
support); 2) there is a need to expand the Clinical Education Team in order to enhance the
quantity and quality of the clinical education program; and 3) the PT Program will benefit from
expanding the Core Affiliate Advisory Group. Changes made based on evaluation in 2008-09:
1) The Clinical Education Team was able to keep costs low for all CIs and provide financial
assistance to 5 CIs to attend clinical faculty development activities; 2) Program Director
approved DCE’s proposal to add a faculty member (25% FTE) and administrative support
(additional 25% FTE); and 3) five additional members were added to the Core Affiliate Advisory
Group representing different practice settings and patient populations, an invaluable resource
that guides the Clinical Education Team in carrying out the activities of the Clinical Education
Program.
As mentioned above, Dr. Jody Gandy has been hired as a consultant and will assist the
Program in developing a three year strategic plan for the clinical education program. The clinical
education team, Program Director, Assistant Program Director, core faculty, CCCEs, CIs,
managers, and employers will participate in this process as well.
19