1997 OPEN FORUM Abstracts
AFFECTIVE EVALUATION OF STUDENT CLINICAL PERFORMANCE
Phillip D, Hoberty, EdD, RRT and F. Herbert Douce, MS, RRT, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Current accreditation standards require evaluation of student performance in clinical skills and behaviors; however, the specific affective attributes and methods of evaluating them are not delineated. The 1991 Delphi study (DS) of the AARC identified at least 22 affective characteristics, traits, and attributes of the future RC practitioner, but the DS did not identify a minimal frequency at which each attribute needs to be displayed. The purpose of the present study was to determine the minimum expected frequency and to design an evaluation instrument for student affective performance in clinical courses. Method: We designed an questionnaire that listed the 22 attributes and distributed it to 159 educator and manager attendees of the general sessions of the AARC 1996 Summer Forum in Orlando, Florida, and 70 (44%) responded. For each of the 22 attributes, attendees were asked to identify the minimal frequency as "always", "usually", "sometimes" or "rarely" for a satisfactory rating at time of graduation. The results of the survey were used to construct a suitable student evaluation instrument. Results: On 7 attributes a frequency of "always" was required for a satisfactory rating by >=80% of respondents. The remaining 15 attributes were rated by >=80% as requiring less than "always." Based on the survey research we constructed a clinical affective evaluation of student performance. The 7 attributes which require "always" as minimal frequency of performance are rated on a "satisfactory/unsatisfactory" (S/U) scale because any performance less frequently observed would be less than satisfactory. The other 15 attributes are rated on an "outstanding / satisfactory / unsatisfactory" (O/S/U) scale because a clear dichotomy in minimal performance was not identified. Points are added to the minimal pass level for each "outstanding" rating in the latter category. Conclusion: Based on a survey of educators and managers, 7 affective attributes were identified as appropriate for a S/U rating scale on clinical evaluation. The other 15 attributes were placed on a O/S/U scale. A rating of outstanding in attributes in this latter group can be used to justify a grade greater than satisfactory in the affective domain.