2013-2014 Annual Program Assessment Report
Please submit report to your department chair or program coordinator, the Associate Dean of your College, and to
[email protected], director of assessment and program review, by Tuesday, September 30, 2014. You may submit a
separate report for each program which conducted assessment activities.
College: Health and Human Development
Department: Physical Therapy
Program:
Assessment liaison: Witaya Mathiyakom, PT, PhD, KEMG
1. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s). For the academic year 2013-2014, the intended assessment plan for the
Department of Physical Therapy focused on evaluating our Department’s SLO 2 - Communicate in a professional manner to
diverse population in classroom activities and in clinical setting. This assessment plan was developed as part of the 5-year
assessment plan.
To assess the outcome of this SLO, we used the results from clinical performance instrument (CPI) obtained during clinical
internship of the students and compared the results to the benchmark provided by the American Physical Therapy Association
(APTA) specific to each clinical experience level (beginner (Cohort 58), intermediate (Cohort 57), and final (Cohort 56) clinical
experience). The results of CPI allow us to compare the overall level of performance of our students to the level of performance
expected by community of Physical Therapy.
In addition to the CPI results, we also analyzed students’ performance in classroom during practical exams of two classes of
Cohort 57: Neurologic Practice Management II (PT 733/L) and Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Practice Management (PT 734/L).
The outcomes of this part of analysis allow us to identify the level of performance for this SLO within a classroom environment
with consistent assessors for each class.
1
2. Assessment Buy-In. The Department of Physical Therapy’s Assessment Plan was under the oversight of the assessment liaison,
Witaya Mathiyakom, and the Department Chair, Sheryl Low. Assessment was discussed at a few faculty meeting throughout the
academic year under facilitation of Witaya Mathiyakom.
3. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project. Answer items a-f for each SLO assessed this year. If you assessed an additional
SLO, copy and paste items a-f below, BEFORE you answer them here, to provide additional reporting space.
3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Communicate in a professional manner to diverse population in classroom activities and in clinical setting.
3b. Does this learning outcome align with one or more of the university’s Big 5 Competencies? (Delete any which do not apply)
 Oral Communication
3c. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?



Clinical Performance Instruments – Professional Behavior: Communication – Communicates in ways that are congruent with
situational needs.
Rubrics during practical exams of PT 733/L Neurologic Practice Management
Rubrics during practical exams of PT 734/L Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Practice Management
3d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different
points) or was a cross-sectional comparison used (Comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points
used.
 For the overall communication results, we used the cross-sectional design to compare the levels of performance of our
students to the benchmark provided by the American Physical Therapy Association.
 Additionally, we also look at the outcomes of performance specific to two classes which require a great deal of
communication skills.
3e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the results were analyzed and highlight findings from
the collected evidence.
2
3.e.1. Communicates in ways that are congruent with situational needs in real-life clinical situations
For the beginning clinical experience (Figure 1), it was expected that, students should be able to perform at the beginner to
intermediate level at the end of the clinical experience (Highlighted area). The results of CPI Item 4 of cohort 59 (first clinical
experience, Figure 1) indicated that, at mid-term evaluation, 61 % (17 of 28 students) already performed at the expected
performance level, while 39% (11 of 28) performed at the level beyond the expected level. At the final evaluation, 29% (8 of 28)
and 71% (20 of 28) students performed at the expected and above expected levels, respectively.
3
For the intermediate clinical experience (Figure 2), it was expected that students should be able to perform at the level of
advanced beginner to advanced intermediate clinical performance at the end of their internship (highlighted area). The results
of the CPI Item 4 of cohort 58 indicated that, at mid-term evaluation, 57% (16 of 28) students performed at the expected levels,
while 43% performed at the levels above the expected level. At final evaluation, only 18% (5 of 28 students) and 82% (23 of 28
students) performed at the expected and above expected level, respectively.
4
For the final clinical experience (Figure 3), students should achieve ratings of entry-level or beyond at the end of their internship
(Highlighted area). The results of CPI for communication of cohort 57 indicated that, at mid-term evaluation, 62% (20 of 32)
students performed at the levels below entry-level and only 38% performed at the entry-level and beyond. However, at the end
of their internship all students were able to perform at the entry level and beyond.
Although all students were able to achieve the expected levels of performance, the results of mid-term evaluation particularly
for the final clinical experience (many students performed at the level below the expectation) highlight the needs for early
assessment, feedback, and consultation to improve performance in the area of communication.
5
3.e.2 Effective communication during practical exam (evaluation and treatment) in a classroom environment
As shown in figure 4, most students performed at an excellent level (>90% of communication score for each exam) during the
three practical exams of Neurological Practice Management II (PT733/L) and the two practical exams of Cardiovascular and
Pulmonary Practice Management (PT734/L). The main objectives of the communication skill of these two class focus on how to
communicate in a clear, concise, precise, and professional manner during the evaluation and treatment procedures. The most
common pitfalls observed in students who performed at good and pass levels were a) the use of jargons, b) missing name tag or
introduction, and c) inaccurate information provided. The results of these analyses also highlight the values of early feedback
and consultation after the first examination such that greater than 90% of the students were able to perform at an excellent
level after the first practical exam. High level of performance of this group of students also show up in the level of performance
in their clinical practice (Intermediate clinical performance) where none of the students underperformed at mid-term and
majority of the students performed at the level beyond the expected level of performance (Figure 2).
6
3f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Describe how assessment results were used to improve student learning. Were
assessment results from previous years or from this year used to make program changes in this reporting year? (Possible
changes include: changes to course content/topics covered, changes to course sequence, additions/deletions of courses in
program, changes in pedagogy, changes to student advisement, changes to student support services, revisions to program SLOs,
new or revised assessment instruments, other academic programmatic changes, and changes to the assessment plan.)
Fortunately, our faculty have consistently provided feedback to our students on a regular basic (e.g., written and oral feedback
for individual students after each exam). Additionally, students’ performance is a topic of discussion in our faculty meetings such
that the whole faculty can provide early preventive measures (e.g., group and individual feedback, better matching students to
faculty mentor or clinical instructor) in order to improve students’ performance. We continue to use the results of each class as
well as overall assessment as shown in this report to improve our students’ performance
4. Assessment of Previous Changes: Present documentation that demonstrates how the previous changes in the program resulted in
improved student learning. None for this SLO.
5. Changes to SLOs? Please attach an updated course alignment matrix if any changes were made. (Refer to the Curriculum Alignment
Matrix Template, http://www.csun.edu/assessment/forms_guides.html.) None
6. Assessment Plan: Evaluate the effectiveness of your 5 year assessment plan. How well did it inform and guide your assessment
work this academic year? What process is used to develop/update the 5 year assessment plan? Please attach an updated 5 year
assessment plan for 2013-2018. (Refer to Five Year Planning Template, plan B or C,
http://www.csun.edu/assessment/forms_guides.html.) The updated plan will be submitted.
7. Has someone in your program completed, submitted or published a manuscript which uses or describes assessment activities in your
program? Please provide citation or discuss. No
8. Other information, assessment or reflective activities or processes not captured above.
7