- CBX 112
Georgia College
Milledgeville, GA 31061
USA - 478-445-2136
- Associate Professor of Athletic Training and Program Coordinator.edit
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Context: Researchers have reported that interacting with standardized patients (SPs) is a worthwhile and realistic experience for athletic training (AT) students. These encounters enhance students' interviewing skills, confidence as a... more
Context: Researchers have reported that interacting with standardized patients (SPs) is a worthwhile and realistic experience for athletic training (AT) students. These encounters enhance students' interviewing skills, confidence as a clinician, clinical skill development, and interpersonal communication.
Objective: To determine how SP encounters impacted students' confidence in performing clinical evaluations.
Design: Pretest-posttest survey design.
Setting: Athletic training simulation lab.
Patients or Other Participants: Thirty-five students from the junior (n = 20) and senior (n = 15) AT cohorts from a public liberal arts institution in the Southeast.
Intervention(s): Athletic training students completed 2 SP encounters per semester throughout an academic year in the AT program, totaling 4 SP encounters.
Main Outcome Measure(s): Each student completed a 17-item Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) that rated confidence levels immediately before and after each SP encounter. The confidence rating assessed students' confidence regarding how the SP encounter affected their confidence in completing patient evaluations (eg, identifying history questions, interpreting results of special tests). We computed descriptive statistics for all items Wilcoxon signed rank tests determined differences in pre-encounter and should be postencounter confidence ratings.
Results: Overall, students from both cohorts reported that the SP encounter improved confidence in completing clinical evaluations. Specifically, students reported a significant increase from pre-encounter to postencounter confidence ratings after nutrition-based (Z = −2.991, P = .004), knee (Z = −3.261, P = 0.001), concussion (Z = −3.294, P = .001), psychosocial intervention (Z = −3.062, P = .002), and general medical (Z = −3.524, P > .001) SP encounters.
Conclusions: The authenticity and fidelity of the SP encounter provided the AT students a real-time clinical evaluation in a nonthreatening environment. Students reported that their confidence improved after each encounter. By providing these experiences, AT students can become comfortable interacting with patients in clinical evaluations.
Objective: To determine how SP encounters impacted students' confidence in performing clinical evaluations.
Design: Pretest-posttest survey design.
Setting: Athletic training simulation lab.
Patients or Other Participants: Thirty-five students from the junior (n = 20) and senior (n = 15) AT cohorts from a public liberal arts institution in the Southeast.
Intervention(s): Athletic training students completed 2 SP encounters per semester throughout an academic year in the AT program, totaling 4 SP encounters.
Main Outcome Measure(s): Each student completed a 17-item Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) that rated confidence levels immediately before and after each SP encounter. The confidence rating assessed students' confidence regarding how the SP encounter affected their confidence in completing patient evaluations (eg, identifying history questions, interpreting results of special tests). We computed descriptive statistics for all items Wilcoxon signed rank tests determined differences in pre-encounter and should be postencounter confidence ratings.
Results: Overall, students from both cohorts reported that the SP encounter improved confidence in completing clinical evaluations. Specifically, students reported a significant increase from pre-encounter to postencounter confidence ratings after nutrition-based (Z = −2.991, P = .004), knee (Z = −3.261, P = 0.001), concussion (Z = −3.294, P = .001), psychosocial intervention (Z = −3.062, P = .002), and general medical (Z = −3.524, P > .001) SP encounters.
Conclusions: The authenticity and fidelity of the SP encounter provided the AT students a real-time clinical evaluation in a nonthreatening environment. Students reported that their confidence improved after each encounter. By providing these experiences, AT students can become comfortable interacting with patients in clinical evaluations.
Research Interests:
Context: Providing students reliable objective feedback regarding their clinical performance is of great value for ongoing clinical skill assessment. Since a standardized patient (SP) is trained to consistently portray the case, students... more
Context: Providing students reliable objective feedback regarding their clinical performance is of great value for ongoing clinical skill assessment. Since a standardized patient (SP) is trained to consistently portray the case, students can be assessed and receive immediate feedback within the same clinical encounter; however, no research, to our knowledge, has documented the reliability of the SP at assessing student performance.
Objective: To determine if SPs provide a reliable assessment of athletic training students’ performance in obtaining a patient history and completing a physical examination relative to athletic training faculty.
Design: Reliability study.
Setting: Athletic training simulation lab.
Patients or Other Participants: Two SPs and 2 athletic training faculty assessed 35 students (n ¼ 20 junior; n ¼ 15 senior) in athletic training cohorts from a public liberal arts institution in southeast United States.
Intervention(s): Athletic training students completed 2 SP encounters per semester throughout 1 academic year in the athletic training program, totaling 4 SP encounters.
Main Outcome Measure(s): After each SP encounter, athletic training faculty and SPs completed the same clinical performance checklist developed specifically for each encounter. The checklist included yes/no items related to obtaining a patient history (10–12 items each) and completing a physical examination (12–15 items each). For each SP encounter, composite scores were computed for both history and physical examination items from the athletic training faculty and SPs. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) determined interrater reliability between athletic training faculty and SPs for history and physical exam items.
Results: Reliability coefficients between the SP and athletic training faculty indicated fair to strong agreement for most history and physical examination items. Significance was found for history items in the cervical spine emergency (ICC ¼ 0.671, P ¼ .002), knee (ICC ¼ 0.696, P ¼ .003), low back (ICC ¼ 0.622, P ¼ .002), concussion (ICC ¼ 0.764, P ¼ .004), general medical (ICC ¼ 0.571, P ¼ .008), and psychosocial intervention (ICC ¼ 0.572, P ¼ .008) encounters. The reliability coefficients were significant regarding physical exam items for the cervical spine emergency (ICC ¼ 0.588, P ¼ .01), low back (ICC¼0.766, P . .001), concussion (ICC¼0.792, P¼.001), and general medical (ICC¼0.878, P . .001) encounters.
Conclusions: Overall, the SPs provided a reliable assessment of the athletic training students’ clinical performance for obtaining a patient history and completing a physicalexamination. Given these results, devoting additional time during SP training should increase the reliability of the SP.
Objective: To determine if SPs provide a reliable assessment of athletic training students’ performance in obtaining a patient history and completing a physical examination relative to athletic training faculty.
Design: Reliability study.
Setting: Athletic training simulation lab.
Patients or Other Participants: Two SPs and 2 athletic training faculty assessed 35 students (n ¼ 20 junior; n ¼ 15 senior) in athletic training cohorts from a public liberal arts institution in southeast United States.
Intervention(s): Athletic training students completed 2 SP encounters per semester throughout 1 academic year in the athletic training program, totaling 4 SP encounters.
Main Outcome Measure(s): After each SP encounter, athletic training faculty and SPs completed the same clinical performance checklist developed specifically for each encounter. The checklist included yes/no items related to obtaining a patient history (10–12 items each) and completing a physical examination (12–15 items each). For each SP encounter, composite scores were computed for both history and physical examination items from the athletic training faculty and SPs. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) determined interrater reliability between athletic training faculty and SPs for history and physical exam items.
Results: Reliability coefficients between the SP and athletic training faculty indicated fair to strong agreement for most history and physical examination items. Significance was found for history items in the cervical spine emergency (ICC ¼ 0.671, P ¼ .002), knee (ICC ¼ 0.696, P ¼ .003), low back (ICC ¼ 0.622, P ¼ .002), concussion (ICC ¼ 0.764, P ¼ .004), general medical (ICC ¼ 0.571, P ¼ .008), and psychosocial intervention (ICC ¼ 0.572, P ¼ .008) encounters. The reliability coefficients were significant regarding physical exam items for the cervical spine emergency (ICC ¼ 0.588, P ¼ .01), low back (ICC¼0.766, P . .001), concussion (ICC¼0.792, P¼.001), and general medical (ICC¼0.878, P . .001) encounters.
Conclusions: Overall, the SPs provided a reliable assessment of the athletic training students’ clinical performance for obtaining a patient history and completing a physicalexamination. Given these results, devoting additional time during SP training should increase the reliability of the SP.