The use of the Delphi technique as part of the process of developing a tool to evaluate physiotherapy clinical education programmes

Main Article Content

V Naidoo
A Stewart
D Maleka

Abstract





Objectively evaluating the quality and effectiveness of a physiotherapy clinical education programme has been unsuccessful to date, due to its complexity and the lack of a standardised tool. We undertook to develop a standardised programme evaluation tool and used the Delphi method to obtain consensus (set at 80%) to determine the face and content validity of the items and domains of the tool, the scoring system and a name for the tool. Academics, clinical physiotherapists and clinical physiotherapy educators participated in the Delphi rounds. Three Delphi rounds ensued: in Delphi round 1, a 71% response rate was obtained and 49 questions obtained 80% consensus. In Delphi round 2, a 91% response rate was obtained and 59 questions obtained 80% consensus. In Delphi round 3, a 42% response rate was obtained, several names were suggested, and the scoring system was established. The provisional tool of 85 items ultimately emerged as the Vaneshveri Naidoo Clinical Programme Evaluation Tool (VN-CPET).





Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
The use of the Delphi technique as part of the process of developing a tool to evaluate physiotherapy clinical education programmes. (2023). African Journal of Health Professions Education, 15(4), 57-61. https://doi.org/10.7196/AJHPE.2023.v15i4.1670
Section
Research Articles

How to Cite

The use of the Delphi technique as part of the process of developing a tool to evaluate physiotherapy clinical education programmes. (2023). African Journal of Health Professions Education, 15(4), 57-61. https://doi.org/10.7196/AJHPE.2023.v15i4.1670

References

World Physiotherapy. Education Policy Statement, 2020. https://world.physio/ (accessed 3 June 2020).

Jette DU, Nelson L, Palaima L, Wetherbee E. How do we improve quality in clinical education? Examination of structures, processes, and outcomes. J Phys Ther Educ 2014;28:6-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001416-

-00004

McCallum CA, Mosher PD, Jacobson PJ, Gallivan SP, Giuffre SM. Quality in physical therapist clinical education: A systematic review. Phys Ther 2013;93(10):1298-1311. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120410

Meyer IS, Louw A, Ernstzen D. Physiotherapy students’ perceptions of the dual role of the clinical educator as mentor and assessor: Influence on the teaching-learning relationship. S Afr J Physiother 2017;73(1):1-9. https:// doi.org/10.4102/sajp.v73i1.349

Strohschein J, Hagler P, May L. Assessing the need for change in clinical education practices. Phys Ther 2002;82(2):160-172. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/82.2.160

Health Professions Council of South Africa. Professional boards: physiotherapy, podiatry and biokinetics. https:// www.hpcsa.co.za/ (accessed 13 August 2020).

Wenger E. Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems: The Career of a Concept in Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. London: Springer, 2010:179-198.

Baldry Currens JA, Bithell CP. Clinical education: Listening to different perspectives. Physiotherapy 2000;86(12):645-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9406(05)61302-8

Chetty V, Maddocks S, Cobbing S, et al. Physiotherapy clinical education at a South African university. Afr J Health Professions Educ 2018;10(1):13. https://doi.org/10.7196/ajhpe.2018.v10i1.987

Delany C, Bragge P. A study of physiotherapy students’ and clinical educators’ perceptions of learning and teaching. Med Teach 2009;31(9):e402-e411. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590902832970

HiggsJ.Managingclinicaleducation:Theprogramme.Physiotherapy1993;79(4):239-246.https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0031-9406(10)60705-5

Stachura K, Garven F, Reed M. Quality assurance: Measuring the quality of clinical education provision. Physiotherapy 2000;86(3):117-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9406(05)61154-6

Eseryel D. Approaches to evaluation and training: Theory and practice. J Educ Technol Soc 2002;5(2):93-98.

Trevelyan EG, Robinson N. Delphi methodology in health research: How to do it? Eur J Integr Med 2015;7(4):423-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2015.07.002

Powell C. The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. J Adv Nurs 2003;41(4):376-382. https://doi.org/10.1046/

j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x

Hsu C, Sandford B. The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval 2007;12(10):1-7.

https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90

Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, et al. Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67(4):401-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclinepi.2013.12.002

Maleka DM, Stewart AV, Hale LA. The development of a community reintegration outcome measure to assess people with stroke living in low socioeconomic areas. J Disabil Rehabil 2017;3:11-24. https://doi.org/10.5348/ D05-2017-26-OA-2

Okoli C, Pawlowski SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Inform Manage 2004:42(1):15-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002

Bigdeli M, Rouffy B, Downs Lane B, et al. Health systems governance: The missing links. BMJ Global Health 2020;5(8):1-5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002533

Stufflebeam DL. International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003:31-62.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > >>