Program Impact of Student Outcome Assessment in Physical Therapy Education

Journal of Physical Therapy Education, Fall 2006 by Tippett, Steve

Background and Purpose. As required by specialized accreditation, physical therapist education programs routinely conduct student outcome assessment. Outcome data should serve not only as an academic indicator but should also provide a means to reflect upon the program and act as a vehicle to facilitate meaningful programmatic change. The present study was designed to survey physical therapist education programs to determine how assessment findings are used to improve the programs.

Subjects. The chairpersons of 111 accredited professional (entry-level) physical therapist education programs in the United States were surveyed.

Methods. After preliminary telephone interviews and pilot testing of a survey instrument, a final survey was developed to quantify student outcomes and assess how student outcomes are used to modify the components of physical therapist education programs.

Results. Respondents indicated that all program areas assessed were affected as a result of student outcome assessment practices. Curricular content, however, was the only area significantly affected in more than half of the programs.

Discussion and Conclusion. Student outcome assessment findings serve as change agents for curricular issues, but appear to have a less significant impact on other key program areas such as student remediation, faculty development, departmental resources, and development efforts.

Key Words: Physical therapy education, Student outcome assessment, Value-added education.

INTRODUCTION

Student outcome assessment is not a novel concept in higher education. Individual faculty members, academic programs, and educational institutions have measured cognitive outcomes from the beginning of formal education. Student outcome assessment can be used for formative or summative purposes. A formative assessment is conducted to provide feedback to program stakeholders for program improvement. A summative assessment is conducted in order to judge the quality of the program in comparison to established standards.

Although many scholars have studied student outcome assessment in higher education, landmark efforts in outcome assessment are reflected in the research of Pace,1"7 Astin,8"" and Ewell.1"1 Some of the earliest study of student outcome assessment in higher education comes from the work of Pace.1"7 Pace viewed the student as raw material. He suggested the role of the faculty was to understand student background, student ability, and student aspirations in order to facilitate the growth and development of each student. Although this premise seems obvious to those involved in present-day teaching, at the time, Pace was criticized by external stakeholders as catering to the student and short-changing the educational process. Via comprehensive comparative and longitudinal work, Pace found that students in higher education learned about a broad number of subjects, but the majority of learning occurred in the area of the student's major.

The initial impact of assessment efforts was largely in the cognitive arena. As Pace continued work in the area of assessment, his focus grew to examine the relationship between the intellectual development and personal/social development of the student, institutional resources, and the outcomes of higher education. Of specific interest to Pace was the impact of student effort in utilizing institutional resources and the opportunities provided for student learning and development. Pace developed the College Student Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ)4 tp examine the impact of student effort in using available institutional resources and their impact on student outcomes. The CSEQ is still utilized today by hundreds of academic institutions across the country.

Astin, a protégée of Pace, furthered the work of Pace but differed in the analysis of the role played by the environment on student outcomes.8"" Astin utilized a longitudinal approach to assess student outcomes but did so using the Inputs-Environment-Outputs (I-E-O) model. Prior to the I-E-O model, studies on outcome assessment focused on a means-oriented or inputs-outputs (I-O) model where changes between a pretest and posttest were attributed to college impact. Input variables or individual student attributes in such a model play a direct role in subsequent outputs. Student performance on any outcome measure, therefore, depends to some degree on individual attributes. In the I-E-O model, Astin statistically factored out the impact of student input on student outcomes.

According to Astin the primary purpose of assessing outcomes is to produce information that can be used to make decisions, enhance educational development, and advance the educational mission of the college and university. In Astin's view, excellence in education is characterized by an ability to develop student and faculty talent to the greatest extent, adding the most value to the student's educational experience. As such, this view is known as "value-added education." Astin's framework for student outcome assessment is captured in a taxonomy encompassing cognitive and affective outcomes analyzed by psychological and behavioral data both during college and after graduation.