PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare and contrast the contents of each state's occupational therapy (OT) regulatory board requirements regarding licensees' acquisition of continuing education units in the United States of America. METHODS: Data related to continuing education requirements from each OT regulatory board of all 50 states and the District of Columbia in the United States were reviewed and categorized by two reviewers. Analysis was conducted based on the categorization of the continuing education requirements and activities required, allowed, and not allowed/not mentioned for continuing education units. RESULTS: Findings revealed non-uniformity and inconsistency of continuing education requirements for licensure renewal between OT regulatory boards and was coupled with lack of specific criteria for various continuing education activities. Continuing education requirements were not tailored to meet the needs of individual licensee's current and anticipated professional role and job responsibilities, with a negative bias towards presentation and publication allowed for continuing education units. Few boards mandated continuing education topics on ethics related to OT practice within each renewal cycle. CONCLUSION: OT regulatory boards should move towards unifying the reporting format of continuing education requirements across all states to reduce ambiguity and to ensure licensees are equipped to provide ethical and competent practice. Efforts could be made to enact continuing education requirements specific to the primary role of a particular licensee. Finally, assigning the amount of continuing education credits to be awarded for different activities should be based on research evidence rather than arbitrary determination.
Americas* ; Awards and Prizes ; Bias (Epidemiology) ; Education, Continuing* ; Ethics ; Licensure ; Occupational Therapy* ; Professional Competence ; Professional Role ; Publications ; United States*

PURPOSE: This study aimed to test the construct validity of an instrument to measure student professional behaviors in entry-level occupational therapy (OT) students in the academic setting. METHODS: A total of 718 students from 37 OT programs across the United States answered a self-assessment survey of professional behavior that we developed. The survey consisted of ranking 28 attributes, each on a 5-point Likert scale. A split-sample approach was used for exploratory and then confirmatory factor analysis. RESULTS: A three-factor solution with nine items was extracted using exploratory factor analysis [EFA] (n=430, 60%). The factors were ‘Commitment to Learning' (2 items), ‘Skills for Learning' (4 items), and ‘Cultural Competence' (3 items). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the validation split (n=288, 40%) indicated fair fit for this three-factor model (fit indices: CFI=0.96, RMSEA=0.06, and SRMR=0.05). Internal consistency reliability estimates of each factor and the instrument ranged from 0.63 to 0.79. CONCLUSION: Results of the CFA in a separate validation dataset provided robust measures of goodness-of-fit for the three-factor solution developed in the EFA, and indicated that the three-factor model fitted the data well enough. Therefore, we can conclude that this student professional behavior evaluation instrument is a structurally validated tool to measure professional behaviors reported by entry-level OT students. The internal consistency reliability of each individual factor and the whole instrument was considered to be adequate to good.
Dataset ; Factor Analysis, Statistical ; Humans ; Occupational Therapy* ; Professionalism ; Self-Assessment ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; United States*

PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate students' academic outcomes after implementation of the team-based learning (TBL) approach in patient/client management courses in an entry-level doctor of physical therapy (DPT) curriculum. METHODS: The research design of this study involved comparing written and practical exam scores from DPT student cohorts taught with the traditional instructional methods (lecture-based) to those of students from subsequent cohorts taught using the TBL approach in two patient/client management courses: basic skills and cardiopulmonary. For this comparison, the exams used, the number of contact hours and labs, and the instructors who taught these courses remained the same during the transition between these two instructional methods (traditional vs. TBL). The average of all individual course exam scores was used for data analysis. RESULTS: In both courses, there were no meaningful differences in the mean exam scores among students across years of cohorts receiving the same instructional method, which allowed clustering students from different years of cohorts in each course receiving the same instructional method into one group. For both courses, the mean exam score was significantly higher in the TBL group than in the traditional instruction group: basic skills course (P<0.001) and cardiopulmonary course (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Student cohorts taught using the TBL approach academically outperformed those who received the traditional instructional method in both entry–level DPT patient/client management courses.
Cohort Studies ; Curriculum* ; Education, Professional ; Educational Measurement ; Health Occupations ; Humans ; Learning* ; Methods ; Physical Therapists ; Research Design ; Retrospective Studies ; Statistics as Topic ; United States*

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to cross-validate the factor structure of the previously developed Student Perceptions of Team-Based Learning (TBL) Scale among students in an entry-level doctor of physical therapy (DPT) program in the United States. METHODS: Toward the end of the semester in 2 patient/client management courses taught using TBL, 115 DPT students completed the Student Perceptions of TBL Scale, with a response rate of 87%. Principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to replicate and confirm the underlying factor structure of the scale. RESULTS: Based on the PCA for the validation sample, the original 2-factor structure (preference for TBL and preference for teamwork) of the Student Perceptions of TBL Scale was replicated. The overall goodness-of-fit indices from the CFA suggested that the original 2-factor structure for the 15 items of the scale demonstrated a good model fit (comparative fit index, 0.95; non-normed fit index/Tucker-Lewis index, 0.93; root mean square error of approximation, 0.06; and standardized root mean square residual, 0.07). The 2 factors demonstrated high internal consistency (alpha=0.83 and 0.88, respectively). DPT students taught using TBL viewed the factor of preference for teamwork more favorably than preference for TBL. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide evidence supporting the replicability of the internal structure of the Student Perceptions of TBL Scale when assessing perceptions of TBL among DPT students in patient/client management courses.
Educational Measurement ; Factor Analysis, Statistical ; Humans ; Learning* ; Passive Cutaneous Anaphylaxis ; Physical Therapists ; Principal Component Analysis ; United States*