I.
Ohio University
College of Health and Human Services
School of Physical Therapy
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Report
September 15, 2001
Overview of Outcome Assessment Procedures
The School of Physical Therapy uses several different indicators of the quality of student instruction and outcome. Student evaluations of courses are used during the students’ curriculum to provide feedback to faculty concerning specific courses.
Since the Director also gets a copy of all student evaluations, these serve as a counseling tool for faculty. We utilize de-briefing sessions (examples are attached) with students when they return from their clinical experiences (they have these throughout the curriculum with the first long-term practicum after the first year).
This serves two purposes. It helps us to know, as a faculty, what the students do not know concerning the material that they have already been taught, but it also assists us in knowing the content in which practicing clinicians believe the students need additional work. We also receive input from clinical educators, mostly reported by the
Academic Coordinator of Clinical Education (ACCE) at faculty meetings. They note the preparedness of our students for clinical decision-making. Of course, we also receive information from the ACCE concerning any students having difficulty on their clinical practica.
The formal procedures for assessment involve the following:

Monitoring the success of graduates on the national licensing examination administered by the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy

End of the program survey of all graduates: an open-ended form asking about every course and content area in the curriculum as well as about program goals and objectives (attached)

Twelve month survey of the curricula: this instrument is based on the
Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) standards rather than individual courses since these standards are the expected end-product of an accredited program’s curriculum (attached)

Employer surveys: this instrument is also based on CAPTE standards and are sent to all known employers of that year’s graduates at the 12 month mark
(attached)

Comparison of our program with other accredited programs that are reported to CAPTE every two years. We compare ourselves with Ohio programs as well as benchmark programs we, as a faculty, have identified. In addition, we look at other programs that have transitioned to a DPT degree since that is our goal.

At the annual fall faculty meeting faculty review all students who are in academic difficulty to determine a course of action that will assist them in meeting the goals of the program. We also review the competencies for entry-level clinicians that have been identified by the various sections of the

American Physical Therapy Association. Currently, we have competencies for neurological, orthopedic, and pediatric coursework. The review is done to assure that we are meeting the needs of the graduates for entry-level competency.

At the end of the students’ final practicum in the third year, each student presents what could be termed a “portfolio” of skills. The instrument is called the Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI) and was developed by our professional association, the APTA. These are reviewed individually for each student to determine that we are meeting the standards of practice for the
American Physical Therapy Association (APTA). In addition, individual counseling sessions are held with the students concerning their performance on the CPI after each practicum. The student performs a self-assessment and the supervising clinician fills out the document based on the students’ performance during that practicum (attached). Although this is filled out for each practicum that the student enters into (which assists in placement for the prospective practica), it is the final summary that is important in determining if the student is ready to graduate.

Finally, we have two documents that were produced by the American
Physical Therapy Association that guide content of courses. These are A
Normative Model of Physical Therapist Professional Education and the
Guide to Physical Therapist Practice.
II.
Synopsis of Outcomes

For the past two years, the graduates have had a passing rate of 94% and 100% respectively for students taking the national examination for the first time. All students passed the examination on the second attempt. These scores compare favorably with the national passing rates (76% in 1999 and 91.9% in 2000).

The surveys for the graduates of the program in 2001 have just been sent out and the surveys for the Class of 2000 at the one year anniversary (employers and students) have also just been mailed due to the move to Grover Center this past summer when they normally would have been mailed. Since the outcomes report is due in September this year rather than December as occurred last year, there is not enough information to compile this report. For the Class of 2000 end of program surveys, the following information was reported from a return rate of only 44%. The students generally felt that they had been well prepared in all areas. For the second year in a row, prognosis was considered the weakest area of preparation and this has been addressed with faculty. It will be addressed in faculty meetings throughout the quarter to make sure that we are teaching the students this important skill. The only other area of weakness was
Pathophysiology and Medical-Surgical Issues. These courses have already been changed and the students this year are reporting much more favorably on course evaluations.

Comparison of our programs with all other physical therapy programs in Ohio demonstrated that we have the highest percentage of PhD prepared faculty teaching in the curriculum (78%) and that we are tied for first place with the number of publications reported in the two year period that was requested. Ohio

University ranks 6 th
in the nation in the number of faculty who are PhD prepared.
This information was taken from the information that CAPTE provides from the biennial reports, that is, information provided to them by each program.
Nationally, of those programs offering DPT programs, Ohio University School of
Physical Therapy ranked 9 th
in the number of publications in the time frame of
1998-2000. We ranked 6 th out of nine benchmark schools for the same criterion measure.

At fall faculty meeting, we reviewed students who were having academic difficulty. One person was dismissed from the program for serious difficulty while plans were formulated for the two students whose GPA had fallen below a
3.0. The plan included weekly meetings with professors as well as additional work with the laboratory instructors in order for them to meet the program goals.
We also reviewed the competencies for the neurological and pediatric patient and determined that we are in compliance with these competencies.

Chris Petrosino, ACCE, reviewed all of the Clinical Performance Instruments from the graduating class of 2001 prior to certification for graduation. Only one student had a questionable report in which one clinical instructor had given her what would be considered a passing grade while the other clinical instructor did not. Because this involved entry-level skills, the Director and the ACCE decided it was in the best interest of the student to complete an additional 3 week practicum to demonstrate that she possessed the skills required by our professional association. She did pass and was scheduled for August graduation.

The Guide to Physical Therapist Practice has been incorporated into many of the courses in the curriculum and the Normative Model of Physical Therapist
Education is used as a reference by faculty in preparation of courses and sequencing of courses. We were recently accredited in 1999 based on our compliance with these documents as well as with CAPTE standards. Based on that accreditation, we will not undergo an on-site visit until 2007.
III.
Summary of Changes
Based on input that was received from students on faculty evaluations last year, the
Clinical Modalities course was re-vamped. This year, the course evaluations indicated that the changes were well received. Another change was to have two sections of PT 660 to allow for more active student learning. Although the class is currently being offered, it appears that the students are performing at a much higher level due to this change.
Faculty members clearly like the change and opportunity to work more closely with students in class. We totally revised the Research Design class due to feedback from the students, graduates, and faculty. We changed it to reflect more closely what the student is expected to do in his/her professional paper research. The results of student evaluations indicate the changes were successful; we will not know about the entire research experience until graduation. We offered an additional elective on a particular exercise technique that we deleted form PT 660 and, for the 9 students who took the class, it was successful. Since we are working on the DPT curriculum and reviewing the
Guide and the Normative Model for Physical Therapist Education, we have added additional material to some of the courses to assist us in moving in the direction of a DPT

rather than adding additional courses. It will be hard to evaluate this until the students graduate, however.
IV.
Description of Planned Changes
We are not currently planning for any major changes in the assessment process since our students and graduates, overall, are performing at the level we expect. We are pleased with the process and the information that it provides to us to manage the professional curriculum. The only thing that must be changed its that students will complete the end of program survey prior to graduation since this year was the lowest return rate of 5 years at only 44%. Since the majority of responses were very positive, it is difficult to use this information to improve the program.
Respectfully submitted:
Averell S. Overby, Dr.P.H.
For
Faculty, School of Physical Therapy