1 Outcome Assessment Plan: Athletic Training Education€¦ · 18/06/2018 · 3.2 Adapt...
Transcript of 1 Outcome Assessment Plan: Athletic Training Education€¦ · 18/06/2018 · 3.2 Adapt...
1
Updated: 6/18/2018
Outcome Assessment Plan: Athletic Training Education
College: Piedmont College dedicates itself to the transformative power of education through reciprocal learning, the development of compassionate leaders, and the stewardship of our local and global communities. School of Nursing and Health Sciences Mission: The R.H. Daniel School of Nursing and Health Sciences at Piedmont College shall be recognized as an exemplary professional academic program. The arts & sciences are the foundation upon which the students’ intellectual endeavors are built, contributing to the provision of holistic care to clients that includes physical, psychosocial, spiritual, and environmental care. The School of Nursing and Health Sciences is dedicated to respect for diversity and to community outreach. Program Mission: The athletic training program seeks to prepare undergraduate students to pass the National Board of Certification Exam by providing exemplary classroom and clinical education in the five domains of athletic training set forth by the NATA. Furthermore, the program is dedicated to respecting individual diversity and engaging the community by exposing students to a variety of healthcare settings, practitioners, and patient populations.
Program Goals: 1. The Program is committed to recruiting ten quality students into each cohort, retaining 80% of students each year, and graduating them
three years after program admission. a. Piedmont Goal Reference: GOAL 8. Piedmont College will provide students the resources to achieve their academic
goals in a timely fashion and meet learning outcomes expected in their degree programs. b. Outcome (non-student learning): The number of students who matriculate into each cohort and persist. c. Measures:
1) Number of students admitted (10) 2) Retention rate each year by cohort and overall (80%) 3) Graduation rate each year by cohort (80%)
2. The Program seeks to have an 80% passing rate on the Board of Certification (BOC) Examination. We will also conduct level-appropriate
Competency Exams on campus to gauge student progress . a. Piedmont Goal Reference: GOAL 4. Piedmont College will offer traditional and innovative academic programs that are rigorous
in content and flexible in real-world application. b. SLO 1: Students will integrate knowledge, skills, and values from the arts and sciences to engage in critical and creative dialogue
through discovery, analysis, and communication.
2
Updated: 6/18/2018
1.1 Propose and apply methods of injury prevention and risk reduction for both healthy and at-risk individuals. 1.2 Design treatment plans for both healthy and at-risk individuals that meet their performance or wellness goals. 1.3 Demonstrate oral, written, and visual communication strategies that are organized, coherent, accurate, and
professionally prepared and delivered. 1.4 Critically evaluate research findings to develop differential diagnoses for injuries and illnesses. 1.5 Develop promotional strategies for healthy living and injury/disease prevention.
c. Measures: 1) Competency Exam section and overall scores (80% of students will score 70% on each section and overall) 2) SOAP Differential Diagnosis Project (80% of students will score 3.5 on the rubric) 3) Rehabilitation Project Paper and Presentation (80% of students will score 3.75 on the rubric) 4) SWOT Analysis Paper (80% of students will score 4.0 on the rubric)-QEP5 5) Pathology and Pharmacology Multimedia Project (80% of students will score 3.75 on the rubric)-QEP3 6) PSA Multimedia Project (80% of students will score 4.0 on the rubric)-QEP5 7) Research Methods Paper and Presentation (80% of students will score 3.75 on the rubric)-QEP1 8) Capstone Reflection (80% of students will score 3.0 on the rubric)-QEP2 9) Fitness Assessment Project (80% at 3.5 on the rubric)
3. The Program seeks to provide high quality instruction that integrates cognitive and psychomotor skills into active problem solving
abilities that will culminate in 90% of students having post-graduate placements (employment or graduate school) within six months of graduation.
a. Piedmont Goal Reference: GOAL 1. Piedmont College will attract and retain students, faculty, and staff, and engage alumni and friends, by providing experiences with the College that inspire in them a lifelong affinity with the institution.
b. SLO 2: Students will work collaboratively through interprofessional teams to provide or accommodate quality care to clients across the lifespan in a variety of settings, while respecting the diversity of individuals, groups, and communities.
2.1 Apply clinical reasoning skills throughout the physical examination process in order to assimilate data, select the appropriate assessment tests, formulate a differential diagnosis, provide care, and make appropriate referrals.
2.2 Use psychosocial techniques to enhance patient care and determine when abnormal behaviors require referral. 2.3 Adapt therapeutic interventions using clinician– and patient-oriented outcomes with consideration to the stage of
healing and goals to maximize patient participation and quality of life. 2.4 Implement, evaluate, and modify treatment plans for both healthy and at-risk individuals that meet their performance
or wellness goals through collaboration with allied healthcare providers. 2.5 Create, evaluate, and modify an environment conducive to safe activity participation. 2.6 Demonstrate cultural competence in the care of clients from diverse backgrounds.
3
Updated: 6/18/2018
c. Measures: 1) Kinesiology Project Paper and Presentation (80% of students will score 3.5 on the rubric) 2) Oral/Practical Examinations (80% of students will score 4.0 on rubric and 80% Overall) 3) Scenario Examinations (75% of students will score 3. 5 or higher on rubric and 70% Overall) 4) Senior Exit Survey (80% of program attributes will score 4.0 on the rubric) 5) Alumni Survey (80% of program attributes will score 4.0 and 75% of respondents will have passed the BOC) 6) Faculty Evaluations (100% of faculty evaluations will be scored at 75%) 7) Psychosocial Subscale Evaluation (75% of students will score 4.0 or higher on the rubric)
4. The Program is committed to providing quality clinical sites for experiential learning and seeks to have 100% of students experience
a minimum of three types of clinical education settings prior to graduation (i.e. high school, college, medical office, emergency medical services, physical therapy, and community medicine). a. Piedmont Goal Reference: GOAL 6. Piedmont College will educate the whole student through co-curricular programs, extra-
curricular activities, and experiential learning endeavors. b. SLO 3: Through civic engagement, personal growth, and ethical reasoning, students will demonstrate responsible, global
citizenship by upholding high professional standards. 3.1 Identify state and national regulations and demonstrate professional, moral and ethical judgment when delivering
patient-centered care. 3.2 Adapt evidence-based practice concepts when making clinical decisions and critically examining athletic training
practice. 3.3 Develop and evaluate facility design and management strategies in the context of a healthcare system (i.e. risk
management, healthcare delivery mechanisms, insurance and reimbursement documentation, patient privacy, and general facility management).
3.4 Use effective documentation to develop, participate in, and lead patient-centered care. 3.5 Use appropriate professional guidelines to develop, implement, evaluate, and modify emergency care strategies. 3.6 Demonstrate a commitment to professional growth and development.
c. Measures: 1) SWOT Analysis Presentation (80% of students will score 4.0 on the rubric)-QEP5 2) Preceptor Evaluations of Students (80% of students will score 4.0 on rubric)-QEP5 3) Student Evaluations of Preceptors (100% of preceptor evaluations will be scored at 75%) 4) Floorplan/EAP Project (80% of students will score 4.0 on the rubric) 5) CPRO Examination (100% of students will score 80%) 6) Student Evaluations of Sites (100% of clinical sites will be scored at 75%)-QEP3 7) Piedmont 1101 Reflection Paper (80% at 2 on the rubric)- QEP4,6
4
Updated: 6/18/2018
8) Capstone Project (80% at 4.0 on the rubric)-QEP5
5
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG 2; SLO1; M 1 Competency Exam
Description Practical Written Simulation
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S K K,A
Objectives Measured 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.5 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5
Assessment Result Individual and Overall Score
Benchmark 80% of Level B and C Students will score 70% or higher on each section and 70% Overall 75% of Level D Students will score 70% or higher on each section and 70% Overall
Sample Size and Source Level B, Level C, and Level D Students
Results
Name Level Written Written% Sim Sim % Practical Pract % Total Average Balkcum, Erica B 38.53 0.7706 7.6 0.76 37 0.925 83.13 0.8313 Johnson, Dakota B 41.28 0.8256 7.2 0.72 35.5 0.888 83.98 0.8398 Mikell, Logan B 39.91 0.7982 7.4 0.74 33.5 0.838 80.81 0.8081 Murria, Brandon B 36.24 0.74463 7.7 0.742 32.5 0.85417 76.44 0.78815 Walker, Brittany B 38.07 0.76171 8 0.729 38 0.85694 84.07 0.79649 Lippincott, Zach B 39.91 0.7982 6.6 0.66 35.5 0.888 82.01 0.8201 Aylward, Erin B 32.11 0.6422 8.2 0.82 33.5 0.838 73.81 0.7381 Lawson, LaKerra B 31.65 0.633 7.5 0.75 30 0.750 69.15 0.6915 Craven, Abbey C 72 0.72 22.36 0.745 66.88 0.955 161.2 0.8062 Maxwell, Megan C 77 0.77 22.9 0.763 50.46 0.721 150.4 0.7518 Whitlock, Kristin C 70 0.7 23.26 0.775 56.78 0.811 150 0.7502 Smith, Maggie C 87 0.87 23.7 0.79 58.54 0.836 169.2 0.8462 Turner, Andy C 75 0.75 25.28 0.843 58.08 0.830 158.4 0.7918 Atnip, Ashlyn C 74 0.74 23.73 0.791 52.26 0.747 150 0.74995 Thor, Courtney D 90 0.9 30 1 61 0.871 181 0.905 Woodward, Katie D 70 0.7 29.42 0.981 53.94 0.771 153.4 0.7668 Ruck, Logan D 85 0.85 30 1 61.14 0.873 176.1 0.8807
6
Updated: 6/18/2018
0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00
100.00
2014 2015 2016 2017
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Competency Exam: Students Meeting the Target
Written
Simulation
Practical
Target (80%)
Average 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2014 2015 2016 2017
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
*Students passingall 3 sections
Competency Exam Targets* By Level
Level B
Level C
Level D
Target
Average
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415
Perc
ent
Student
2017-2018 Competency Exam Scores
Written%
Sim %
Practical %
Average
0
20
40
60
80
100
2014 2015 2016 2017
Aver
age
Scor
e
Competency Exam: Section Scores
Written
Simulation
Practical
Target (70%)
Average
7
Updated: 6/18/2018
0
20
40
60
80
100
B C D
Aver
age
Scor
e
2015 Cohort Competency Exam Section Scores
Written
Simulation
Practical
Target (70%)
Average
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
B C D
# M
eetin
g Ta
rget
2015 Cohort Competency Exam Targets
Written
Simulation
Practical
Target (80%)
Average
0
20
40
60
80
100
B C D
Aver
age
Scor
e
2016 Cohort Competency Exam Section Scores
Written
Simulation
Practical
Target (70%)
Average
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
B C D#
Mee
ting
Targ
et
2016 Cohort Competency Exam Targets
Written
Simulation
Practical
Target (80%)
Average
8
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative
This goal was met; the 13 of 16 students met or exceeded the target score on all three sections and the overall average score (this is a significant improvement over last year). The written score improved by just over 40 points, the simulation by 20, and the practical by 33. These improved scores brought the overall score up 28 points. We believe that these improvements are partially due to seniors completing weekly practice exams during the spring semester, and efforts to improve students’ retention of basic anatomy and it’s relationship to the evaluation process.
Plan • The juniors and seniors will begin taking practice exams in the fall term in 2018 (done in pairs) • The anatomy exams begin in 2017-2018 will continue in both sophomore and junior level courses • Study sessions prior to the exam will be held through the AT club and practicum courses
Timeline for Improvement
• Practice exams will be included in the fall and spring with junior/senior student pairs prior to completing this competency exam (A. Dondanville) • Additional simulation/scenario days in practicum and enhance preceptor training will be implemented Fall 2018 (J. Fouts) • Flipped classroom techniques to improve student accountability will be tried again in HSCS2221 and ATRG3323 in the fall; (A. Dondanville)
0
20
40
60
80
100
B C D
Aver
age
Scor
e
2017 Cohort Competency Exam Section Scores
Written
Simulation
Practical
Target (70%)
Overall
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
B C D
# M
eetin
g Ta
rget
2017 Cohort Competency Exam Targets
Written
Simulation
Practical
Target (80%)
Overall
9
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG4; SLO3; M2 Practicum Evaluation
Description Preceptor Eval. of Student
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S,K,A
Objectives Measured 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark 80% of students will score class-appropriate % or higher (average of all evaluations); Level B = 3.5; Level C = 3.75; Level D = 4.0
Sample Size and Source Level B, Level C, and Level D Students
Results
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
All Students 64 77 80 81 Level B 64 56 68 77 Level C 87 83 82 Level D 88 85
0
20
40
60
80
100
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Student Evaluations by Preceptor Targets
Level B
Level C
Level D
Target
All Students
10
Updated: 6/18/2018
2015-2016
2016-2017
Gen Med
2017-2018
Ruck, Logan 73 90 94 89 Sullens, Dakota 82
Thor, Courtney 81 88 94 85 Woodward, Katelyn 64 78 87 82
2016-2017
2017-2018
Gen Med
2018-2019
Atnip, Ashlyn 87 87 93 Craven, Abbey 96 92 87 Maxwell, Megan 80 78 95 Smith, Maggie 85 81 94 Turner, Andrew 89 78 97 Whitlock, Kristin 92 74 94
020406080
100
Aver
age
Scor
e
Student Evaluations by PreceptorsFall 2015 Cohort
2015-2016
2016-2017
Gen Med
2017-2018
Senior Target
0
20
40
60
80
100
Aver
age
Scor
e
Student Evaluations by PreceptorsSpring 2016 Cohort
2016-2017
2017-2018
Gen Med
Senior Target
2018-2019
11
Updated: 6/18/2018
2017-2018
2018-2019
Gen Med
2019-2020
Aylward, Erin 77 Balckum, Erica 84 Johnson, Dakota 72 Lawson, LaKerra 76 Lippincott, Zach 69 Mikell, Logan 79 Murria, Brandon 75 Walker, Brittany 79
Narrative This goal was partially met, as only Level C and Level D met or exceeded their class-appropriate target on the Preceptor Evaluation of Student rubric (83% and 88%, respectively); 68% of Level B met the goal. However, the sophomores (as a group) did show a 12 percentage point improvement (which continues a three year upward trend).
Plan
• Complete additional preceptor training prior to Fall 2018 to include additional teaching strategies to improve the quality of student-preceptor interactions and student confidence.
• All students will be given additional opportunities to practice displaying self-confidence and critical thinking (two of the lowest scoring areas on the rubric) by their preceptors.
Timeline for Improvement
• The yearly preceptor update training will take place in early August 2018 (J. Fouts) • The CEC will work with the preceptors devise strategies to improve their self-confidence and critical thinking abilities. (J. Fouts)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Aver
age
Scor
e
Student Evaluations by PreceptorsSpring 2017 Cohort
2017-2018
2018-2019
Gen Med
Senior Target
2019-2020
12
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG4; SLO3; M3 Practicum Evaluation
Description Student Eval of Preceptor
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude n/a
Objectives Measured n/a
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark 100% of preceptors will score 75% or higher across all evaluations (not average score)
Sample Size and Source All Preceptors currently assigned students
Results
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
All Preceptors 93 94 100 85 On-Campus 100 100 100 95 Off-Campus 83 71 100 100
GenMed 100 100 100
0102030405060708090
100
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Preceptor Evaluations by Student Targets
On-Campus
Off-Campus
GenMed
Target
All Preceptors
13
Updated: 6/18/2018
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Black, Chad
95 Burrell, Hailey
100 96 95
Chrisman, Connor
89 Cope, John
93 99 96
Dilbeck, Lindsay
99 100 97 Dwozan, Charlie
100
Jannakos, Alyssa
100 96 Jordan, Katie
95
Landress, Hannah
100 Lentz, Brian
92 96
Lentz, Dayna
99 95 McKinney, Matt 99 96 100 98
Narrative This goal was partially met. The “off-campus” and “gen med” preceptors continue to meet the 100% target, but “on-campus” preceptors fell short this year (down 15 points to 85% on target). This is attributed to low scores given to one preceptor. The CEC met with the individual, and moderate improvements were made in the spring.
Plan • Preceptor training will include additional information on building student confidence and place continued emphasis on student engagement and stimulation of critical thinking in preceptor training for all sites.
Timeline for Improvement • Additional preceptor training will be conducted in August 2018 for all preceptors (J. Fouts) • The CEC will meet individually with preceptors next year for more instructive feedback (J. Fouts)
0102030405060708090
100
Aver
age
Scor
e
Preceptor Evaluations by Student
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Target
14
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG4; SLO3; M6 Practicum Evaluation
Description Student Eval of Site
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude n/a
Objectives Measured n/a
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark 100% of sites will score 75% or higher across all evaluations (not average score)
Results
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
All 79 76 100 90 On-Campus 100 100 100 91 Off-Campus 57 86 100 100
GenMed 63 100 80
0
20
40
60
80
100
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Site Evaluations by Student Targets
On-Campus
Off-Campus
GenMed
Target
All
15
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative This goal was partially met. While off-campus sites continued to be 100% on target, but GenMed (80%) and on-campus (91%) declined by 20 and 9 points, respectively. Of the 11 low scoring site evaluations, 7 were GenMed (Gracegate, EMS, and Primary Care), and 4 were Piedmont (3 Level B students and 1 level D student). All sites averaged over 75%.
Plan
• Additional preceptor training for general medical and physical therapy preceptors improve communication of expectations and student engagement methods
• The CEC will do additional student orientation prior to beginning the general medical rotation to improve perceptions of the connections between the experiences and the AT program.
Timeline for Improvement
• Additional preceptor training will be conducted in August 2018 (J. Fouts) • The CEC will complete additional orientation for the level C students in August 2018 to discuss connections between the general medical
rotation and the AT program (J. Fouts)
0102030405060708090
100
Aver
age
Scor
e
Site Evaluations by Students
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Target
16
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG3; SLO2; M1 Paper Rubric Description Kinesiology Project
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K,S Objectives Measured 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.5 Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark 80% of students will score 3.5 or higher Sample Size and Source All AT majors in HSCS2221
Results
Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 All 39 89 80 91
ATRG 33 100 75 88 EXSS 63 100 89 92 SFAD 100 APHS 20 67 50 100
17
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative
This goal was met, as 88% of ATHL students earned an 3.5 or higher on the Paper Rubric (90% of all students met the target). This is a 13 point improvement over last year. When looking at individual content sections, students continue to underperform on the “anatomical analysis”, and showed no improvements in the three other areas. This is likely due to the poor preparation they receive in their foundational Human Anatomy course (BIOL2100) prior to taking this course. On the flip side, their general paper writing mechanics showed improvement. The use of anatomy mini-practicals was helpful and will be continued.
Plan
• To further prepare students for this course, it is being moved to the spring term of the sophomore year beginning in 2018-2019 to allow students to complete both BIOL2100 and BIOL2110 prior to taking this course. We hope this will improve students’ foundation knowledge and therefore the “anatomical analysis” content section score.
• Students still struggle with anatomy, often failing to retain information from one course to the next. Flipped classroom techniques where students have more accountability to learn anatomy will be tried next year.
Timeline for Improvement
• The curriculum revision will be enacted in Fall 2018 to better prepare students for this course in Spring 2019. (A. Dondanville) • Flipped classroom techniques to improve student accountability will be continued. (A. Dondanville)
18
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG2; SLO1; M3 Paper Rubric
Description Rehab Project
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K
Objectives Measured 1.2, 1.3, 2.3, 2.4, 3.2
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark 80% of students will score 3.75 or higher on the rubric
Sample Size and Source All AT majors in ATRG3322
Results
2015 2016 2017 2018
Target 80 80 80 80 All 50 100 100
0102030405060708090
100
2015 2016 2017 2018
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Rehab Project Targets
All
Target
19
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative This goal was met, as 100% of students met the target. When looking at content scores, students struggle with developing goals (which also affects the discharge criteria chosen). They also are uncomfortable reaching out to the public for interviews. The overall writing was also not as strong as last year.
Plan • Make the rough draft submission mandatory.
Timeline for Improvement
• Students will work in small groups to “brainstorm” goals, techniques, etc. for different types of injuries in Fall 2018. (J. Fouts) • Give feedback on the rough draft Fall 2018 (J. Fouts.)
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
Axis
Titl
e
Rehab Paper Rubric Scores
2015
2016
2017
Target
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
Aver
age
Scor
e
Rehab Paper Content Scores
2015
2016
2017
Target
20
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG2; SLO1; M4 Paper Rubric
Description SWOT Analysis
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K,A
Objectives Measured 1.2, 1.3, 2.3, 2.4, 3.2, 3.6
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark 80% of students will score 4 or higher
Sample Size and Source All AT majors in ATRG4420
Results
Spring 2017
Spring 2018
Spring 2019
Target 80 80 80 Paper 83 67
Presentation 83 100
0102030405060708090
100
Spring2017
Spring2018
Spring2019
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
SWOT Project Targets
Paper
Presentation
Target
21
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative This goal was partially met, as 100% of students earned a 4.0 or greater on the presentation rubric, but only 67% did so on the related paper (33 point reduction from 2017). Since there were only 3 students in this course, the one low scored paper caused the group to not meet the target. The individual student was mentored between paper and presentation submission, and the second half of the project was greatly improved.
Plan • While the EBP discussions and associated PICO/CAT analyses were intended to help improve their critical thinking skills, changes were not
noticed until after mid-semester. Therefore, additional focus will be placed on integrating the SWOT thought process in with those assignments.
Timeline for Improvement • The SWOT thought process will be conjoined into the PICO/CAT EBP assignments in ATRG4420 in spring 2019 (A. Dondanville)
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
Axis
Titl
e
SWOT Paper Scores
2017
2018
2019
Target
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00
Axis
Titl
e
SWOT Presentation Scores
2015
2016
2017
Target
22
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG3; SLO2; M1 Presentation Rubric Description Kinesiology Project
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K,S Objectives Measured 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.5 Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark 80% of students will score 3.5 or higher Sample Size and Source All AT majors in HSCS2221
Results
Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017
All 56 50 80 80 ATRG 67 75 88 75 EXSS 45 100 67 77 SFAD
100
APHS
100 100 0
23
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative This goal was not met. While 80% of all students earned a 70% or better on the Presentation Rubric, only 75% of ATHL students met the target. This does represent a 13 percentage point reduction from last year. When examining the content scores, both mechanical analysis (3.12) and anatomical analysis (2.72) underperformed for a third year likely due to several students failing to include any of this information in their presentation.
Plan
• To further prepare students for this course, it is being moved to the spring term of the sophomore year beginning in 2018-2019 to allow students to complete both BIOL2100 and BIOL2110 prior to taking this course. We hope this will improve students’ foundation knowledge and therefore the “anatomical analysis” content section score.
• Students still struggle with anatomy, often failing to retain information from one course to the next. Flipped classroom techniques where students have more accountability to learn anatomy will be tried next year.
Timeline for Improvement
• The curriculum revision will be enacted in Fall 2018 to better prepare students for this course in Spring 2019. (A. Dondanville) • Flipped classroom techniques to improve student accountability will be continued. (A. Dondanville)
24
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG2; SLO1; M3 Presentation Rubric
Description Rehab Project
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K
Objectives Measured 1.2, 1.3, 2.3, 2.4, 3.2
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark 80% of students will score 3.75 or higher
Sample Size and Source All AT majors in ATRG3322
Results Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 Target 80 80 80 All 83 100 100
0102030405060708090
100
Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017%
Mee
ting
Targ
et
Rehab Presentation Rubric Targets
All
Target
25
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative This goal was met, as 100% of students met the target. However, when looking at the individual rubric and content scores, “goals” and “discharge criteria” fell below the target and were bolstered by other higher scoring sections. The “delivery and eye contact” score was significantly improved from 3.7 to 4.3). Even though they were improved from last year, the protocols provided were of lower quality than desired.
Plan • Give additional examples of content (i.e. goals, techniques, etc.) and helping them make connections to protocol design.
Timeline for Improvement • Students will work in small groups to “brainstorm” goals, techniques, etc. for different types of injuries in Fall 2018. (J. Fouts)
0
1
2
3
4
5Av
erag
e Sc
ore
Rehab Presentation Rubric Scores
2015
2016
2017
Target
0123456
Aver
age
Scor
e
Rehab Presentation Content Scores
2015
2016
2017
Target
26
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG4; SLO3; M1 Presentation Rubric
Description SWOT Analysis
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K,A
Objectives Measured 1.2, 1.3, 3.2, 3.6
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark 80% of students will score 4 or higher
Sample Size and Source All AT majors in ATRG4420
Results
Spring 2017
Spring 2018
Spring 2019
Target 80 80 80 Paper 83 67
Presentation 83 100
0102030405060708090
100
Spring2017
Spring2018
Spring2019
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
SWOT Project Targets
Paper
Presentation
Target
27
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative This goal was partially met, as 100% of students earned a 4.0 or greater on the presentation rubric, but only 67% did so on the related paper (33 point reduction from 2017). Since there were only 3 students in this course, the one low scored paper caused the group to not meet the target. The individual student was mentored between paper and presentation submission, and the second half of the project was greatly improved.
Plan • While the EBP discussions and associated PICO/CAT analyses were intended to help improve their critical thinking skills, changes were not
noticed until after mid-semester. Therefore, additional focus will be placed on integrating the SWOT thought process in with those assignments.
Timeline for Improvement • The SWOT thought process will be conjoined into the PICO/CAT EBP assignments in ATRG4420 in spring 2019 (A. Dondanville)
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
Axis
Titl
e
SWOT Paper Scores
2017
2018
2019
Target
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00
Axis
Titl
e
SWOT Presentation Scores
2015
2016
2017
Target
28
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG2; SLO1; M5 Multimedia
Description Gen/Med Project
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K,S
Objectives Measured 1.3, 1.5,2.6, 3.2, 3.6
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark 80% of students will score 3.75 or higher
Sample Size and Source All AT majors in HSCS3302
Results
2016 2017 2018
All 88 88 97 APHS 100 100
ATRG 100 100 83 CVTE 100 100 100 EXSS 100 100 100
HCAD-Ath 83 67 100 HCAD-Dem 50 0 100
OTHER
100
29
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative This goal was met, as 97% of all students and 83% of ATHL students met the target. This is a 10 percentage point group improvement from last year. The overall poster quality was very good; this could perhaps be related to their prior experience completing a similarly formatted project as freshmen.
Plan • Continue the project as designed and using the same rubric.
Timeline for Improvement • This same assignment will be given in Spring 2019. (E. McKinney)
30
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG2; SLO1; M6 Multimedia
Description PSA Project
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K,A
Objectives Measured 1.3, 1.5,2.6, 3.2, 3.6
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark 80% of students will score 4/5 or higher
Sample Size and Source All students in ATRG4420
Results Spring 2017 Spring 2018 Spring 2019 Target 80 80 80 ATRG 100 100
0102030405060708090
100
Spring 2017 Spring 2018 Spring 2019
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
PSA Multimedia Targets
ATRG
Target
31
Updated: 6/18/2018
Spring 2017
Spring 2018
Spring 2019
Content 5 4 Use of Evidence 4.83 4 Concept 4.83 5 Organization 5 5 Quality 4.67 5 Credits / Citations 2.5 5 Submission Format 5 4.33
Narrative While this goal was met with 100% of students earning >4.0 on the rubric (no change from 2017), most neglected to meet the minimum time for the PSA video. All three students showed creative effort, also an improvement from last year.
Plan • Continue the project as designed for an additional 1-2 years to determine trends.
Timeline for Improvement • This assignment will be completed in ATRG4420 in spring 2019 (A. Dondanville)
0.001.002.003.004.005.00
Aver
age
Scor
e
PSA Multimedia Section Scores
Spring 2017
Spring 2018
Spring 2019
Target
32
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG2; SLO1; M7 Paper Rubric
Description Research Methods Paper
Objectives Measured PG4, SLO3, QEP1
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark (Criteria for Success)
80% of students will score ≥3.75 on the rubric
Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in HSCS4410
Results
2015 2016 2017 All 90 63 63 APHS 100 33 50 ATRG 83 67 CVTE 100 67 25 EXSS 100 56 100 HCAD-Ath 75 67 100 HCAD-Dem 100 67 25 SFAD 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Research Methods Paper Rubric Targets
2015
2016
2017
Target
33
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative
This goal was NOT met, as only 63% of all students AND 67% of ATHL majors met the target. While this is a 16 point reduction from last year, it represents one student not meeting the goal. Many students continue having difficulty determining a research direction and envisioning the fundamental supporting information. We believe that part of this may be due to only one third of these students having completed scaffolding papers in previous classes (CVTE and HCAD do not have previous experience with this type of assignment).
Plan
• This assignment will be given again in the same format and assessed using the same rubric next year to give a more clear picture of the data meaning.
• Additional opportunities for students to work on their writing and citation skills will be given in this class next year. • More emphasis will be placed on developing the outline next year.
Timeline for Improvement
• This assignment will be given in Fall 2018. (A. Dondanville) • Additional in class group assignments for students to work on sentence construction and citation use will be implemented next year (A. Dondanville)
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
Aver
age
Scor
e
Research Methods Paper Rubric Scores
2015
2016
2017
Target
34
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG2; SLO1; M7 Presentation Rubric
Description Research Methods Presentation
Objectives Measured PG4, SLO3, QEP1
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark (Criteria for Success)
80% of students will score ≥3.75 on the rubric
Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in HSCS4410
Results
2015 2016 2017 All 83 64 73 APHS 100 67 100 ATRG 50 67 CVTE 50 100 63 EXSS 100 67 100 HCA-Ath 75 67 80 HCA-Dem 100 50 50 SFAD 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Research Methods Presentation Rubric Targets
2015
2016
2017
Target
35
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative This target was not met, as 73% of all students and 67% of ATHL students met the target. While this is a 17 point improvement from last year, it represents two students meeting and one student not meeting the goal. Similar to the related paper, students scored lowest on ‘discussion and recommendations’; again, this likely relates to their difficulty connecting concepts into large frameworks.
Plan
• This assignment will be given again in the same format and assessed using the same rubric next year to give a more clear picture of the data meaning.
• Additional opportunities for students to work on their writing and citation skills will be given in this class next year. • More emphasis will be placed on developing the outline next year.
Timeline for Improvement
• This assignment will be given in Fall 2018. (A. Dondanville) • Additional in class group assignments for students to work on sentence construction and citation use will be implemented next year (A. Dondanville)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Aver
age
Scor
e
Research Methods Presentation Section Scores
2015
2016
2017
Target
36
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG3; SLO2; M2 Evaluation Skills
Description Contrived
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S,K
Objectives Measured 1.3, 2.1, 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5
Assessment Result Rubric Score and Overall Score
Benchmark 80% of Level A, B, and C students will score 4.0 or higher on rubric and 80% Overall (Level D Scenarios 75% at 3.5)
Sample Size and Source Level A, Level B, and Level C students (note: there were no Level A or Level C students in 2014-2015 and no Level A students in 2017-2018)
Results
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Level A
92 89 Level B 74 83 92 96
Level C
89 90 98 Level D*
50 67
All 74 88 90 92
0102030405060708090
100
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
O/P Exam Targets
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Target
37
Updated: 6/18/2018
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
BLS 100 93 98.5 98.7 History 80 90 94.1 96.2
Observation 57 85 85.3 89.7 Palpation 58 89 87.8 98.7
Neuro 64 91 87.8 97.4 ROM 75 98 90.2 96.1
Special Test 70 81 85.3 94.9 FCN-End 75 94 92.7 100
Average of Overall % Average of Rubric Score
Group Average Overall %
Group Average
Rubric Score O/P B C B C
Ankle
0.96
4.85 0.96 4.85 Chest 0.94 0.95 4.91 4.88 0.95 4.89 Elbow
0.96
4.91 0.96 4.91
GenMed 0.93
4.75
0.93 4.75 Head 0.96 0.99 4.81 5.00 0.97 4.86 Hip
0.92
4.70 0.92 4.70
Knee
0.95
4.90 0.95 4.90 Low Back
0.91
4.64 0.91 4.64
Neck 0.91 0.96 4.53 4.83 0.93 4.68 Shoulder 0.94 0.97 4.69 4.93 0.95 4.80 Wrist
0.97
4.94 0.97 4.94
Grand Total 0.93653278 0.949029122 4.72826087 4.834090909 0.945344303 4.802884615
0102030405060708090
100
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
O/P Exam Section Rubric Targets
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Target
38
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative
This goal was met, as 92% of students earned a level-appropriate score on the rubric. This represents improvements of 6, 8, and 17 percentage points (Level B to D, respectively). Of particular note is the marked improvement in palpation, neurological assessment, and special testing skills over last year’s data (approximately a 10 point improvement in each). This may be due to the anatomy practicals and increased student responsibility for class preparation in the Orthopedic Assessment courses. When exploring the results by body part, the lowest scoring continues to be Neck; this is likely due to the fact that this is the first OP sophomores complete in ATRG3303 (Orthopedic Assessment of the Upper Extremity), and hence they are still learning how to fully prepare for the assessment.
Plan • Continue the changes made to HSCS2221, ATRG3303, and ATRG3323 next year and collect a third year of data to analyze. • Continue to require students to complete two formal practice attempts each semester that a skill is introduced.
Timeline for Improvement
• The revised curricula in ATRG3323 (fall) and HSCS2221 (spring) will be continued for the 2018-2019 academic year to incorporate more hands on practice and anatomical models. ATRG3303 will not be taught next year. (A. Dondanville)
• Students in ATRG3323 (A. Dondanville) and ATRG3301 (J.Fouts) will be required to complete two formal practice attempts at all O/P evaluations prior to attempting the exam with a faculty or preceptor.
39
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG3; SLO2; M3 Evaluation Skills
Description Scenario
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S,K,A
Objectives Measured 1.3, 2.1, 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5
Assessment Result Rubric Score and Overall Score
Benchmark 75% of students will score 3.5 or higher on rubric and 70% Overall
Sample Size and Source Level D students
Results
Target 2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
Level D 75 50 67
0102030405060708090
100
Level D%
Mee
ting
Targ
et
Scenario Exam Targets
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
Target
40
Updated: 6/18/2018
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 BLS 71 75 History 58 83.3 Observation 43 72.7 Palpation 54 66.7 Neuro 48 70 ROM 56 57.1 Special Test 68 40 FCN-End 71 83.3
Narrative This goal was not met, as only 67% of students earned a 70% (3.5 on the rubric). However, this represents a 17 point improvement over last year, and there were only 2 scores below the 70% target (the remaining 10 scores were greater than 70% and averaged 4.09 on the rubric). Overall, students struggled with remembering special tests (the only area that showed a decrease), but did a good job developing a differential diagnosis.
Plan • Continue additional scenario discussions in Practicum courses. • Continue student identification of “red flags” during the reverse SOAP note discussions in Orthopedic Assessment courses.
Timeline for Improvement
• Graduated scenario discussions will be implemented in all practicum courses as appropriate for the level of student learning in 2018-2019. (J.Fouts)
• Students will be asked to make evaluation notes of “red flags” during the SOAP discussions in Fall 2018 and Spring 2018. (A. Dondanville) • Juniors and seniors will be paired to complete practice exams in fall and spring (A. Dondanville)
0102030405060708090
100
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Scenario Exam Section Targets
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
Target
41
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG2; SLO1; M2 Differential Diagnosis Description SOAP Project Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K Objectives Measured 1.4, 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 3.4 Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark 80% of students will score 4.0 or higher Sample Size and Source All AT majors in ATRG3303 and ATRG3323
Results
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
All 67 97.5 89 100 ATRG3303 67 100 83 100 ATRG3323
95 100 100
0102030405060708090
100
All ATRG3303 ATRG3323
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Differential Diagnosis Cohort Targets
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Target
42
Updated: 6/18/2018
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Information 3.67 3.5 3.5 4.04 Organization 4.33 4.45 4.94 4.78 Citations 3.75 4.9 4.5 5 Presentation 4.83 5 4.94 4.89
Narrative
This goal was met, as 100% of students achieved a 4 on the associated rubric. This is an 11 point improvement from last year. When evaluating the rubric sections, the weakest area continues to be “supporting information”, which is slightly improved from last year. This areas of weakness corresponds to those found in the other courses and assessments and relates to students having difficulty clearly explaining their meaning and providing enough details to prevent the reader/listener from having the infer the message. While we had assumed last year that this weakness was due to their difficulty interpreting the scientific literature, we now believe that it’s more likely related to their inability to critically think through physical findings to determine a diagnosis.
Plan • Additional opportunities to link physical findings to diagnoses via class activities and discussions will be provided in both ATRG3303 and ATRG3323. • Add student recognition of “red flags” during the presentations in both courses.
Timeline for Improvement
• Exercises will be included in physical assessment labs to better link to specific diagnoses; “reverse” thinking will also be used to have students formulate expected physical findings based on anatomical constraints and MOI. (A. Dondanville)
• Students will be asked to make evaluation notes of “red flags” during the SOAP discussions in 2018-2019. (A. Dondanville)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Aver
ag S
core
e
Differential Diagnosis Section Scores
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Target
43
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG3; SLO2; M7 Psychosocial Behavior Description Preceptor Evaluation Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K,S,A Objectives Measured 2.2 Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark 80% of students will meet or exceed the level-appropriate target (Level B = 3.5, Level C =3.75, and Level D= 4.0) or higher on the preceptor evaluation subscale (2.2)
Sample Size and Source All students enrolled in a practicum course.
Results
Percent of students on target:
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Level B 67 50 72 89 Level C
84 100 97
Level D
88 87
0102030405060708090
100
Level B Level C Level D
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Psychosocial Subscale Targets
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Target
44
Updated: 6/18/2018
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Ruck, Logan 3.65 4.79 4.59 Thor, Courtney 4.17 4.78 4.35
Woodward, Katelyn 3.33 4.54 4.34
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Atnip, Ashlyn 4.45 4.62
Craven, Abbey 4.41 4.63 Maxwell, Megan 3.83 4.39 Smith, Maggie 4.65 4.42 Turner, Andrew 4.13 4.43 Whitlock, Kristin 4.8 4.23
012345
Aver
age
Scor
e
Psychosocial Subscale ScoresFall 2015 Cohort
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Senior Target
0
1
2
3
4
5
Aver
age
Scor
e
Psychosocial Subscale ScoresSpring 2016 Cohort
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
Senior Target
45
Updated: 6/18/2018
2017-2018 2018-2019 2018-2019 Aylward, Erin 3.86
Balkcum, Erica 4.23 Johnson, Dakota 3.81 Lawson, LaKerra 4.07 Lippincott, Zach 3.67 Mikell, Logan 4.16 Murria, Brandon 3.77 Walker, Brittany 4.18
Narrative
This goal was met, as all Levels met their appropriate targets on the 2.2 Subscale of the Preceptor Evaluation. This represents a 17 point improvement for Level B students and no change for Levels C and D. It is not surprising that less experienced students (Level B) score lower on this subscale than more experienced students (Level C and Level D), likely relating to the different lengths of their respective clinical experiences (i.e. newer students have less developed awareness than those with more experience). The revised assessment targets in relation to Level seem appropriate, but preceptors must use different strategies to engage less motivated students.
Plan • Preceptors will also be given additional pedagogy strategies to help develop student confidence at the clinical site.
Timeline for Improvement • A minimum of twice each semester, preceptors will be given a brief handout or newsletter highlighting a pedagogical strategy or technique
to improve clinical learning and engage the student to build confidence. (E. McKinney) • Preceptor training in the fall will be focused on improving preceptor interactions to enhance engagement. (J. Fouts)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Aver
age
Scor
e
Psychosocial Subscale ScoresSpring 2017 Cohort
2017-2018
2018-2019
2018-2019
Senior Target
46
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG4; SLO3; M4 Administration and Emergency Care Competency
Description Floorplan/ EAP Project
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K,A
Objectives Measured 1.1, 2.5, 3.3, 3.5
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark 80% of students will score 4.0 or higher
Sample Size and Source All AT students in ATRG2201 and ATRG 4402
Results
Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 ATRG2201 82 100 100 100 ATRG4402
100 100
All
100 100
0102030405060708090
100
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Floorplan Project Targets
ATRG2201
ATRG4402
Target
All
47
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative This goal was met, as 100% of students scored 4 or better on the assignment rubric (no change from last year). When looking at the individual content scores, the EAP and presentation areas were lower. The seniors also had lower overall scores than the sophomores, mostly attributed to effort (and lack thereof).
Plan • Continue the assignment as designed, but ensure that sophomore students receive 2 clinical placements in each term of that year (4 total) to widen their perspective.
Timeline for Improvement • Students will continue doing two 8-week clinical rotations each term in 2018-2019. (J.Fouts)
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
Aver
age
Scor
e
Floor Plan Project Section Scores
Fall 2014
Fall 2015
Fall 2016
Fall 2017
Target
48
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG4; SLO3; M5 Emergency Care Competency
Description FA and CPR Exams
Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S,K
Objectives Measured 3.5, 3.6
Assessment Result Overall Score
Benchmark 100% of students will score 80% or higher
Sample Size and Source All students in ATRG2201, ATRG3301, and ATRG4401
Results
Fall 2014
Fall 2015
Fall 2016
Fall 2017
ATRG-2201 100 100 100 100 ATRG-3301
100 100 100
ATRG-4401
100 100
0102030405060708090
100
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
CPRO/BLS Exam Targets
ATRG-2201
ATRG-3301
ATRG-4401
Target
49
Updated: 6/18/2018
Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 Average 89 90 94 95
Level B 89 90 94 94 Level C 90 96 94 Level D 94 99
Narrative This goal was met, as 100% of students earned an 80% or higher on the exam (average of 95%). The scores are virtually unchanged, with Level D students seeing the greatest improvement (5 points). Overall, the plan to add a few days of concentrated review every fall term appears to be working, as scores are trending upwards.
Plan • Continue with same plan (review at the very beginning of the fall semester).
Timeline for Improvement • CPRO and FA review sessions with labs will be held in the three fall practicum classes. (J.Fouts)
0102030405060708090
100
Scor
e Fr
eque
ncy
CPRO/BLS Exam Scores
Level B
Level C
Level D
Target
Average
50
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG1; M1 PG1; M2 PG1; M3
Overall
Description Retention/Graduation Rates Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S,K,A Objectives Measured All Assessment Result Number of persisting in the program and graduating each year. Benchmark 80% of students will persist each academic year and graduate 3 years after admission Sample Size and Source All students matriculating yearly
Results
ATHL Semester in the Program
Cohort Entrance Semester Interview Accept A B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 Retent. %
Avg. Enroll.
Target Enroll.
Spring 2014 13 13 11 11 6 6 6 6 6 0.54 6.00 10.00 Fall 2015 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 0.6 3.00 8.00 Spring 2016 16 14 13 8 6 6 6 0.46 6.00 8.00 Spring 2017 13 9 9 8 8 0.89 8.00 8.00
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Spring 2014 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Spring 2017
Enro
llmen
t
Cohort
Overall Retention By Cohort
A
B1
B2
C1
C2
D1
D2
Interview
Accept
51
Updated: 6/18/2018
Program Fall 2016 S to F Spring 2017 F to S Fall 2017 S to F Spring 2018 F to S
Applied Health Science 9 1.1 6 0.67 3 0.5 3 1 Athletic Training (all) 33 1.6 29 0.88 29 1 30 1.03 Cardiovascular Tech (Clinical) 5 5 5 1 10 2 9 0.9 Exercise & Sport Science 42 1.6 37 0.88 34 0.92 34 1 Health Care Admin 26 1.5 20 0.77 13 0.65 13 1 Pre-Cardiovascular Tech 11 1.1 13 1.18 14 1.08 14 1 Sport &Fitness Admin 1 4 4 6 1.5 6 1
*this charts includes all students in a declared major (including those not yet accepted into the program
Narrative Program retention met the target this academic year, as 100% of students retained in all three levels. With the impending transition to the MSAT, we did not admit any students this year. Those enrollment targets may need to be revised in the future. All three graduating seniors did so in four years.
Plan
• Begin the transition to the 3+2 masters program in the fall 2017. No new students will be admitted into the ATRG program until summer 2019.
• We will continue to participate in HOSA Healthcare Occupation Day and speak at local high schools as recruiting efforts to attract students interested in the profession.
• Host a high school athletic training symposium on campus. • Utilize the new office of marketing and the ATCAS system to improve brand awareness.
Timeline for Improvement • HOSA Healthcare Occupations Day will be April 2019. (J. Fouts, E. McKinney, and A. Dondanville) • The goal is to speak to at least two admissions events in 2018-2019. (J. Fouts and A. Dondanville) • Meet with marketing and ATCAS in June 2018 (A. Dondanville)
52
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG3; SLO2; M4 Overall Description Senior Exit Survey/Placement Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S,K,A Objectives Measured All Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark students will score 80% of program attributes at 5.25 and will have post-graduation placements secured within 6mo of graduating Sample Size and Source Graduating Seniors
Results
2015 2016 2017 2018 Average 5.05 5.03 5.66 5.7 Preparation for field 4.90 4.81 5.66 5.83 Diverse Coursework 5.54 4.90 5.63 5.66 Professional Exploration 4.63 4.72 5.40 5.72
Faculty Current 5 5.27 5.9 5.38 Employment Prospects 5.18 5.45 5.66 5.88
% on target 2017 2018 ATRG 83 100 CVTE-BS 67 86 CVTE-ND 50 EXSS 67 100 HCAD-Ath 50 33 HCAD-Dem 0
APHS 67 SFAD 100
53
Updated: 6/18/2018
Did you complete an internship or work in your anticipated field while in school?
2015 2016 2017 2018
None 8 8 8 4 Internship 1 1 7 4 Compass Points 0 7 7 Worked 2 2 5 6 Clinical Education 6 7
In the first 6 months following graduation, what will you do?
2015 2016 2017 2018
Attend UG college
2 2 1 Attend grad school 2 2 6 7 Work as GA in field
1 2 2
Work as GA out of field Work in field 9 7 17 7 Other work 7 4 Undecided/Not employed
2
54
Updated: 6/18/2018
Do you plan to complete additional degrees?
2015 2016 2017 2018
None 3 3 11 7 BA/BS 1 3 NURS 1 2 1 1 MS/MA/MAT 1 3 9 4 MBA 6 2 2 2 PhD/EdD/Other Professional 1 8 5
Have you completed (or plan to complete) additional professional certifications before or after graduating from Piedmont College?
2015 2016 2017 2018 None 9 6 15 10 Other 1 2 CSCS/PES 3 4 1 Personal Trainer or Group Exer. Leader 4 5 1 OrthoTech
1 1
CVTE 2 3 3 BOC ATC
8 4
Narrative
This goal was met, as 100% of ATHL students’ responses met the target. The average number of students scoring the program on target increased by 22 percentage points from last year. All but four students also completed some form of experiential learning activity, and all but two report having employment or graduate school placement secured. However, not all graduating seniors completed the survey, and as it is anonymous, we are unsure if those who did not complete it have employment or not.
Plan • Repeat the survey next year as distributed this year. Timeline for Improvement • This survey will be given in Spring 2019. (J. Koshuta and A.Dondanville)
55
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG3; SLO2; M5 Overall Description Alumni Survey Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S,K,A Objectives Measured All Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark respondents will score 80% of program attributes at 4.0 and 75% will have taken and passed the BOC. Sample Size and Source All Alumni Results This survey was not administered in 2016-2017; it will be given for the first time in 2019-2020. Narrative n/a Plan n/a Timeline for Improvement n/a
56
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG3; SLO2; M6 Overall Description Faculty Evaluations Skill, Knowledge, Attitude n/a Objectives Measured n/a Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark 100% of faculty will score 75% or higher across all evaluations (not average) Sample Size and Source All Faculty currently assigned students in courses containing ATRG competencies.
Results
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
All 85 81 97 90 Full-Time 81 79 97 89 Part-Time 100 100 100 100
0102030405060708090
100
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Faculty Evaluation Targets
Full-Time
Part-Time
Target
All
57
Updated: 6/18/2018
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Dondanville, Abbey 89.5 97 96 94 Fouts, Jeremy 85.1 88 91 87 McKinney, Erika 91.3 99 97 99 McKinney, Matt
91 99
Narrative When using all scores across all classes taught, this goal was not met, as only 94% of evaluations met the target. This is a 2 point reduction from last year. Interestingly, of the 77 evaluations completed, only 5 fell below 75%, and all Part-time instructors outscored Full-time faculty.
Plan • The students are having difficulty relating class activities to the BOC examination and have requested additional formal test practice. • Students want additional hands-on practice for skills beyond the in-class labs; therefore, we will add “open lab” time during the week
again for students to come in and practice/ask questions.
Timeline for Improvement
• The faculty will schedule “open lab” time during the week and on Sundays as interest dictates to allow students additional guided hands-on practice. (A. Dondanville, J. Fouts, E. McKinney)
• The practicum classes will be reevaluated/redesigned to include additional “test-like” situations for both scenario/simulation assessment and dedicated skill practice. (J. Fouts)
0102030405060708090
100
Aver
age
Scor
e
Faculty Evaluation Targets
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
Target
58
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG4; SLO3; M7 Reflection Rubric
Description Piedmont 1101 Community Service Reflection Paper
Objectives Measured PG4, SLO3, QEP4, QEP6
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark (Criteria for Success) 80% of students will score ≥2.0 on the rubric
Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in PDMT1101
Results
Narrative This assessment measure will be implemented in 2018-2019.
Plan •
Timeline for Improvement •
59
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG2; SLO1; M8 Reflection Rubric
Description Capstone Reflection Paper
Objectives Measured PG2, SLO1, QEP2
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark (Criteria for Success) 80% of students will score ≥3.0 on the rubric
Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in HSCS4450 and ATRG4420
Results
2018 All 87 APHS 100 ATRG 67 CVTE 88 EXSS HCAD-Ath HCAD-Dem 100 SFAD
0102030405060708090
100
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Capstone Reflection Targets
2018
2019
2020
2021
Target
60
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative This assessment measure was implemented for the first time in 2017-2018. It is important to note that this measure is on a 4-point scale, while all others are on a 5-point scale. This target was not met, as only 67% (2 of 3) students met the goal score on the rubric. Since it is the first year of data collection and the sample is small, the same assessment will be implemented in 2018-2019.
Plan • Continue data collection in Spring 2019 (A. Dondanville, J. Koshuta)
Timeline for Improvement • Continue data collection in Spring 2019 (A. Dondanville, J. Koshuta)
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
4
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Capstone Reflection Section Scores
2018
2019
2020
2021
Target
61
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG4;SLO3;M3 Through civic engagement, personal growth, and ethical reasoning, students will demonstrate responsible, global citizenship by upholding high professional standards.
Description Capstone Paper
Objectives Measured PG4, SLO3, QEP5
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark (Criteria for Success)
80% of students will score ≥4.0 on the rubric
Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in HSCS4450
Results
2015 2016 2017 2018 All 62 80 96 88 APHS 100 100 100 ATRG 100 100 CVTE 100 63 EXSS 100 100 100 HCAD-Ath 83 80 75 100 HCAD-Dem 43 50 100 100 SFAD 100
0102030405060708090
100
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Capstone Paper Targets
2015
2016
2017
2018
Target
62
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative
This goal was met, as 88% of all students and 100% of ATHL students met the target on the rubric. This does represent a small decline for the group from last year due to a few low-performing students in a different program (but ATHL remain unchanged). However, individual section scores showed weaknesses in “evidence”, “discussion”, and the statistical analysis, with many students failing to connect their findings to previous research. The general grammar and paper mechanics were slightly improved from last year.
Plan • Reiterate the paper outline in both this course and HSCS4410 so students are more clear for “what goes where” • Use the OWL at Purdue as a resource.
Timeline for Improvement • The general paper outline will be given more weight and peer-review time in HSCS4410 in the Fall 2018. (A. Dondanville)
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Capstone Paper Section Scores
2015
2016
2017
2018
Target
63
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG4;SLO3;M8 Through civic engagement, personal growth, and ethical reasoning, students will demonstrate responsible, global citizenship by upholding high professional standards.
Description Capstone Presentation
Objectives Measured PG4, SLO3, QEP5
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark (Criteria for Success)
80% of students will score ≥4.0 on the rubric
Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in HSCS4450
Results
2015 2016 2017 2018 All 100 95 89 88 APHS 100 100 100 ATRG 100 100 CVTE 67 75 EXSS 100 90 100 HCAD-A 100 80 75 100 HCAD-D 100 100 100 100 SFAD 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Capstone Presentation Targets
2015
2016
2017
2018
Target
64
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative This goal was met, as 88% of all students and 100% of ATHL students met the target on the rubric. This represents no change for the group as a whole or for ATHL majors. With the exception of ‘organization and visual aids’ which improved significantly (4.4 to 5.0) from last year, all other measures were virtually unchanged.
Plan • Reiterate the paper outline in both this course and HSCS4410 so students are more clear for “what goes where” • Use the OWL at Purdue as a resource.
Timeline for Improvement • The general paper outline will be given more weight and peer-review time in HSCS4410 in the Fall 2018. (A. Dondanville)
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
% M
eetin
g Ta
rget
Capstone Presentation Section Scores
2015
2016
2017
2018
Target
65
Updated: 6/18/2018
PG2;SLO1;M9 Students will integrate knowledge, skills, and values from the arts and sciences to engage in critical and creative dialogue through discovery, analysis, and communication.
Description Fitness Assessment Project
Objectives Measured PG3, SLO1
Assessment Result Rubric Score
Benchmark (Criteria for Success)
80% of students will score ≥3.5 on the rubric
Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in HSCS3321
Results
2016 2017 2018 All 97 100 96
EXSS 100 100 92 ATRG 100 100 100 SFAD 100 APHS 86 100 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
All EXSS ATRG SFAD APHS%
Mee
ting
Targ
et
Fitness Assessment Project Targets
2016
2017
2018
Target
66
Updated: 6/18/2018
Narrative This goal was met, as 96% of all students overall and 100% of ATHL students met the target on the rubric. While this is a slight decrease from last year for the group (representing one student falling below the mark), it is the 3rd year of 100% performance for ATHL majors. The weakest portion of the project was the correct use of citations.
Plan • Based on student feedback, the project will be slightly modified next year to include a more developed programming component. A ‘refresher’ on how to cite using both AMA and APA styles will also be included early in the course.
Timeline for Improvement • This assignment will be given in Fall 2018. (A. Dondanville)
012345
Aver
age
Scor
e
Fitness Assessment Project Section Scores
2016
2017
2018
Target