Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Phys Ther. 2022 Jul 4;102(7). doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzac067.
The Benchmarking in Academic Physical Therapy study uses the Physical Therapist-Graduation Questionnaire (PT-GQ) survey to develop comprehensive performance benchmarks for physical therapist education. These benchmarks facilitate interprofessional comparisons and have application to accreditation self-study reporting. The purpose of this study is to report updated benchmarks from enrollment Wave 2 of the study, with an emphasis on curricular areas that align with accreditation standards.
Seventy doctor of physical therapy (DPT) programs (26.5% national sample) administered the survey to graduates during 2020-2021. Where possible, respondent data were contextualized by statistical comparison with published medical student data (Welch t test, Hedges g).
There were 1894 respondents who participated in the study (response rate: 63.9%). The average survey duration was 32.9 minutes. White-only, non-Hispanic/Latino/a/x individuals (78.8%) exceeded the 2020 US Census prevalence (60.1%), and only one-half of respondents perceived a benefit to their training from the diversity present in their programs. Over 94% of respondents indicated that their curricula were characterized by "problem solving/critical thinking" and "clinical reasoning," but nearly one-half indicated "busywork" was prevalent. High curricular satisfaction ratings clustered in content areas relating to profession-specific technical skills and low ratings clustered in foundational sciences. DPT respondents reported significantly lower tolerance for ambiguity, significantly more exhaustion, and significantly less disengagement than medical students. Respondents endorsed higher levels of "adaptive" perfectionism (striving for high performance) than "maladaptive" perfectionism (concern over negative evaluations). Respondents with loans (27.7%) had debt exceeding $150,000, the benchmark above which the DPT degree loses economic power.
PT-GQ benchmarks revealed strengths (eg, curricula emphasizing problem solving/critical thinking and clinical reasoning) and challenges (eg, low diversity, problematic student debt) in physical therapist education.
Programs can use benchmarking for quality-improvement efforts and as a data source for accreditation self-study reports. The ongoing study will refine national benchmarks and pilot items to address new research questions.
学术物理治疗基准研究使用物理治疗师毕业问卷（PT-GQ）调查为物理治疗教育制定全面的绩效基准。这些基准促进了专业间的比较，并可用于认证自我评估报告。本研究的目的是报告研究第二波入学的最新基准，重点是与认证标准一致的课程领域。
70 个物理治疗博士（DPT）项目（全国样本的 26.5%）在 2020-2021 年期间向毕业生发放了该调查。在可能的情况下，通过与已发表的医学生数据进行统计比较（Welch t 检验，Hedges g）对受访者数据进行背景分析。
共有 1894 名受访者参与了研究（回应率：63.9%）。调查的平均持续时间为 32.9 分钟。仅白人、非西班牙裔/拉丁裔/美洲原住民（78.8%）超过了 2020 年美国人口普查的流行率（60.1%），只有一半的受访者认为他们所在项目的多样性对他们的培训有好处。超过 94%的受访者表示，他们的课程以“解决问题/批判性思维”和“临床推理”为特征，但近一半的受访者表示，“忙碌工作”很普遍。高课程满意度评分集中在与专业特定技术技能相关的内容领域，而低评分则集中在基础科学领域。DPT 受访者报告的模糊容忍度明显低于医学生，精疲力竭程度明显高于医学生，脱岗程度明显低于医学生。受访者对“适应性”完美主义（追求高绩效）的认可度高于“不适应性”完美主义（对负面评价的担忧）。有贷款（27.7%）的受访者的债务超过 15 万美元，这一基准使物理治疗博士学位失去了经济实力。
PT-GQ 基准揭示了物理治疗教育的优势（例如，课程强调解决问题/批判性思维和临床推理）和挑战（例如，多样性低，学生债务问题）。
计划可以利用基准进行质量改进工作，并将其作为认证自我评估报告的数据来源。正在进行的研究将完善国家基准和试点项目，以解决新的研究问题。
