Journal, physical therapy education · 2025
Beyond Academics: Holistic Predictors of Success in Physical Therapy Education.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wooten Liana, Casertano Lorenzo, Mulligan Edward P, Wilkinson Tawna, Gisselman Angela Spontelli, Burgemeister Melissa, Dao Kim D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Numerous studies have identified traditional, academic metrics as predictors for student success within residential, nonaccelerated Physical Therapy Education Programs (PTEPs). The purpose of this study was to explore nontraditional variables in the context of holistic admissions processes and their relationship with early student success in an accelerated, hybrid PTEP.
SUBJECTS: This sample included students enrolled in a single accelerated, hybrid PTEP.
METHODS: Preadmission and within-PTEP data were collated for two PTEP cohorts in an accelerated, hybrid model. Associations and predictive value of various independent variables on cumulative grade point average after semester 2 (cGPA2) were assessed using correlations and regressions. T-tests were performed to compare student performance across multiple time points based on first-generation status.
RESULTS: Sixty-three students (33 females) consented. Twenty-six percent of the variance in cGPA2 was explained by student identification as a first-generation college student and work status during the program (r 2 = 0.260, P = .032). Both first-generation (r = -0.258, P = .047) and work status during the program (r = -0.422, P = .032) were inversely related to programmatic success as measured by cGPA2. Significant differences ( P < .05) in cGPA2 were also observed by the end of semester 2: first-generation status students' GPA 3.03 ± 0.34 (mean ± SD) and not first-generation status students' GPA 3.22 ± 0.36. In addition, the last 60 credits of undergraduate grade point average (u60GPA) explained 12% of cGPA2 (R 2 = 0.124, P = .005).
DISCUSSION: Findings of this study highlight that students who identify as first-generation college students and those who work during the program may benefit from further supports to improve likelihood of success in an accelerated, hybrid PTEP. In addition, utilization of an applicant's u60GPA may be a valuable datapoint for admissions committees to use when reviewing applicants for this model of program.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study may aid in admissions decision making and, importantly, assist in early identification of students who need additional academic supports. Research should continue to assess nontraditional variables of success in PTEPs using National Physical Therapy Examination data to support admissions committee decision making. As the field of physical therapy aims to diversify the workforce, ensuring admissions processes evaluate holistic factors predictive of success is imperative.
SUBJECTS: This sample included students enrolled in a single accelerated, hybrid PTEP.
METHODS: Preadmission and within-PTEP data were collated for two PTEP cohorts in an accelerated, hybrid model. Associations and predictive value of various independent variables on cumulative grade point average after semester 2 (cGPA2) were assessed using correlations and regressions. T-tests were performed to compare student performance across multiple time points based on first-generation status.
RESULTS: Sixty-three students (33 females) consented. Twenty-six percent of the variance in cGPA2 was explained by student identification as a first-generation college student and work status during the program (r 2 = 0.260, P = .032). Both first-generation (r = -0.258, P = .047) and work status during the program (r = -0.422, P = .032) were inversely related to programmatic success as measured by cGPA2. Significant differences ( P < .05) in cGPA2 were also observed by the end of semester 2: first-generation status students' GPA 3.03 ± 0.34 (mean ± SD) and not first-generation status students' GPA 3.22 ± 0.36. In addition, the last 60 credits of undergraduate grade point average (u60GPA) explained 12% of cGPA2 (R 2 = 0.124, P = .005).
DISCUSSION: Findings of this study highlight that students who identify as first-generation college students and those who work during the program may benefit from further supports to improve likelihood of success in an accelerated, hybrid PTEP. In addition, utilization of an applicant's u60GPA may be a valuable datapoint for admissions committees to use when reviewing applicants for this model of program.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study may aid in admissions decision making and, importantly, assist in early identification of students who need additional academic supports. Research should continue to assess nontraditional variables of success in PTEPs using National Physical Therapy Examination data to support admissions committee decision making. As the field of physical therapy aims to diversify the workforce, ensuring admissions processes evaluate holistic factors predictive of success is imperative.