Clinical Performances of Physical Therapist Students in Problem-Based, Mixed-Model, and Traditional Curricula

Background and final cause Problem-based learning (PBL) is a curricular approach that has gained significant popularity in physical therapist education. The major objective of physical therapist education is the preparation of endowed clinicians. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether differences existed between the clinical performance of physical therapist pupils in PBL curricula, mixed-model PBL curricula, and traditional curricula, as measured through the Physical Therapy Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI).

Subject A total of 22 physical therapist education programs participated in this investigation The total number of pupils participating was 110, with 20 in the PBL curriculum cluster 40 in the mixed-model PBL curriculum clump and 50 in the traditional curriculum group

Method The mid-term CPI ratings for each student's first clinical education experience following completion of academic coursework during the 2002-2003 academic year were bring togethered in a retrospective manner. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for each of the 24 CPI items to evaluate differences between the curriculum clusters related to clinical performance. In addition, the mean overall CPI score was calculated for each bring under rule and an ANOVA was performed to analyze differences between curriculum assemblages ANOVAs were performed to analyze differences between the 3 assemblages for subsets of CPI scores measuring professional behavior, clinical question solving, and clinical skills.

Result No statistically significant differences between the means of the ratings for any of the 24 individual CPI items were base This study found no statistically significant difference (F^sub 2^ = 223 P > 05) in the mean overall CPI rating between the PBL curriculum clump (mean = 86.95), the mixed-model PBL curriculum cluster (mean = 87.01), and the traditional curriculum clump (mean = 85.32). In addition, this inquiry found no statistically significant differences between the clumps for the mean subset scores of professional behavior, clinical moot point solving, and clinical skills.

Discussion and Conclusion. There was no difference in clinical performance as measured by means of the CPI between physical therapy learners in PBL curricula, mixed-model curricula, and traditional curricula. Additionally, there were no differences between assemblages for the subset scores of professional behavior, clinical moot point solving, and clinical skills. Implementation of PBL as a curricular approach neither positively nor negatively affects CPI scores. PBL is clearly not the alone alternative to traditional, lecture-based methodology. Prospective scholars and faculty should select a program that provides a serviceable fit for their individual learning preferences

Key Words: Education, Problem-based learning, Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a curricular approach that has gained significant popularity in medical education and physical therapist professional education above the last 2 decades. This incline has been facilitated by the evolution of clinical practice and the increasing complexity of health care delivery combination of parts to form a wholes These changes have necessitated the disentanglement of practitioners who possess a broad material substance of knowledge, are able to expound complex clinical problems, and are unimpaired decision makers. Faculty in medical and physical therapist education programs have recognized that conventional classroom instruction was not completely preparing learners to transfer the knowledge and skills learned in the academic program to the increasing demands of clinical practice.1,2

Over the last decade, educators within the field of physical therapy and other medical professions have discussed the ne for curricular change, a discussion that primarily has focused upon the merits of PBL versus traditional curricula. Proponent of the use of PBL methodology argue that PBL better prepares the practitioner for the challenges of clinical practice than does traditional curricula,3,4 while others argue that insufficient evidence exists to justify implementation of PBL curricula.5 The question of whether the change to a PBL curriculum is warranted is a deep one, since such a change requires significant resources and faculty commitment, and lower-than-expected results can have potentially devastating issues for the academic program as a whole. Reports upon the efficacy of PBL have approach primarily from medical student education; however, PBL efficacy research in physical therapist education is true limited.

The major objective of physical therapist education is to prepare endowed clinicians. The purpose of this inquiry was to determine whether a significant difference exists between the performance of physical therapist scholars in PBL curricula, traditional curricula, and mixed curricula during their first clinical education experience following completion of all academic coursework, as measured by means of the Physical Therapy Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI) exhibited by the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA).6 This research was guided by the following research questions: