School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
J Physiother. 2020 Apr;66(2):113-119. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2020.03.009. Epub 2020 Apr 11.
Do one or two factors best represent clinical performance scores obtained via the Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice (APP) and what is the nature of their characterisation? To what extent are the same number of factors and their interpretation, and item scaling captured equally over time and across contexts (eg, clinical subdisciplines) for assessments of clinical performance via the APP?
Archival and longitudinal study of undergraduate students' clinical performances for each of four final-year clinical placements.
A total of 561 undergraduate physiotherapy students from one Australian university who were enrolled to complete their final-year clinical placements between 2014 and 2017.
Clinical educators' assessments of student performance across seven key domains of clinical practice: professional behaviour, communication, assessment, analysis and planning, intervention, evidence-based practice and risk management.
Factor analyses supported the superiority of a two-factor representation of the APP, including dimensions characterised by professional and clinical domains, when compared with a unidimensional structure of an overarching 'clinical performance' factor. It was also found that the two-factor representation and item scaling was consistent across four clinical placements covering typical areas of physiotherapy practice. In other words, the same constructs are being assessed equally well across context and time.
The APP is the nationally adopted assessment tool that is used to evaluate clinical competence to practise as a physiotherapist in Australia and New Zealand. These findings provide new evidence for an updated scoring protocol in which clinical factors are distinguished from professional competencies.
通过评估物理治疗实践(APP)获得的临床绩效评分是否由一两个因素最佳代表,以及其特征是什么?在多大程度上,相同数量的因素及其解释和项目标度在时间和跨环境(例如,临床子学科)方面同样适用于通过 APP 评估的临床绩效?
对一名澳大利亚大学的 561 名本科物理治疗学生在四个最后一年临床实习中的每个实习的临床绩效进行的档案和纵向研究。
共有 561 名来自澳大利亚一所大学的本科物理治疗学生,他们在 2014 年至 2017 年期间注册完成最后一年的临床实习。
临床教育者对学生在七个关键临床实践领域的表现评估:专业行为、沟通、评估、分析和计划、干预、循证实践和风险管理。
因素分析支持 APP 的两因素表示优于单一的“临床绩效”因素的整体结构,包括由专业和临床领域特征的维度。还发现,两因素表示和项目标度在涵盖物理治疗实践典型领域的四个临床实习中是一致的。换句话说,相同的结构在跨环境和时间方面得到了同样的评估。
APP 是全国采用的评估工具,用于评估在澳大利亚和新西兰作为物理治疗师执业的临床能力。这些发现为更新的评分方案提供了新的证据,该方案将临床因素与专业能力区分开来。