Four studies have investigated inter-rater reliability of physiot

Four studies have investigated inter-rater reliability of physiotherapy clinical performance assessment instruments. Intraclass correlations (2,1) of 0.87 for the total Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI) score were found for joint evaluators of physiotherapy students and 0.77 for joint assessments of physiotherapy assistants (Task Force for the Development of Student Clinical Performance Duvelisib concentration Instruments

2002). Coote et al (2007) reported an ICC of 0.84 for the Common Assessment Form (CAF), and Meldrum et al (2008) reported an ICC of 0.84 for a predecessor to the CAF. Loomis (1985) reported ICCs of 0.62 and 0.59 for third and fourth year total scores respectively on the Evaluation of Clinical Competence form. A range of expressions of test

reliability have been provided in this study. Although the ICC and SEM are related, they do not convey the same information. The ICC provides information on the level of agreement, whereas the SEM provides information on the magnitude of error expressed in the scale units of measurement. The SEM for the APP (3.2) represents 4% of the 0–80 scale width. The reliability of the APP compares favourably with reliability estimates reported by others who have developed instruments for Vorinostat order assessing competency to practise physiotherapy. Coote et al (2007) and Meldrum et al (2008) reported data that enabled calculation of the SEM and it appears that for the Common Assessment Form and its predecessor this was also 3% to 4% on a 0–80 scale. The evidence suggests that clinicians are reasonably consistent in their judgements of student ability to practise and that this consistency is evident across different scales, countries, and practice conditions. The 95% confidence band around a single score for this data was 6.5 APP points. The high retest correlations shown in this study

provide evidence that educators using the APP are consistent in rating the relative ability of students. This is important for conferral of academic awards and for monitoring improvement in performance relative to peers. With a scale width of 0–80, an error margin of 6.5 TCL (95% CI) is acceptable. This error enables a high level of accuracy in ranking student performance as evidenced by the test/ retest correlation of 0.92. Additionally in other data that we have collected (Dalton 2011), students commencing workplace-based education typically obtain mean scores of approximately 45 APP points; by the end of their clinical training average scores are in the order of 60 APP points. Hence an error margin of 6.5 allows a clear view of average student progress across the workplace practice period. Across the practice period 77% of students change by more than the MDC90 of 8 points.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>