1
Comparing Outcomes of Professional Behavior in Traditional and Collaborative Fieldwork Models Caryn Johnson, MS, OTR/L, FAOTA; Sandee Chalik, MS, OTR/L; Genna Wallerstein, MS OTR/L PURPOSE This study is part of ongoing research to support the collaborative model of fieldwork education(CMFE) as an effective pedagogy for level II fieldwork. It supports the Centennial Vision by promoting expanded training of OT students to satisfy the need for occupational therapists in today’s society. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE • Strong professional behavior skills are critical to successful completion of fieldwork (FW) and are integral to the CMFE 1,2 • Evidence supports the use of the CMFE as a highly successful model of FW education 3, 4, 5 • The CMFE maximizes the capacity for fieldwork education by increasing numbers of students trained 5, 6 • FW educators have been reluctant to embrace this model due to a lack of understanding and training 7, 8 REASEARCH QUESTION Is there a difference in professional behavior scores on level II fieldwork between students who exclusively experienced the traditional 1:1 model and those who experienced the collaborative model? DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION • Results show students perform equally on professional behavior/communication, and overall performance regardless of supervision model • Support is given to the value of collaborative model; FW educators may embrace CMFE without sacrificing the value of FWII learning experience • Limitations • Groups were not randomized & were different in size • Groups included students from only TJU & took place over 3 years. • FWPE was designed as a pass/fail tool, and not designed to measure beyond entry-level clinical competency. REFERENCES Key points: The CMFE • Train more than one student at a time • Effective method for responding to shortage of FW placements • Students experience greater emphasis on communication, team work, accountability, and initiation, building their capacity for professionalism, leadership and clinical competency • Growing body of evidence suggests CMFE is highly effective and yields advantages over traditional 1:1 model of supervision Contact Information: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] DESIGN AND METHODS • Retrospective, quasi-experimental design comparing two groups • Convenience sampling of level II FW students from TJU • CG= 139; experienced only the traditional model of supervision • IG= 65; experienced at least one fieldwork with the CMFE. • Fieldwork Performance Evaluation (FWPE) final and subcategory (professional behavior and communication) scores from both level II placements were compared FUTURE DIRECTIONS RESULTS Means of FWPE Professional Behaviors/Communication Scores for Both Groups Traditional 1:1 Model Collaborative Model Mean 75.63 75.69 Standard Deviation 5.92 5.36 n 139 65 Means of FWPE Totals for Both Groups Traditional 1:1 Model Collaborative Model Mean* 275.32 279.48 Standard Deviation 16.54 16.25 n 139 65 *no difference in means between groups *Mean trend showing Collaborative Model FWPE scores slightly higher than Traditional 1:1 Model scores. t-Test Results t 0.08 p 0.47* t-Test Results t 1.68 p 0.469* *no significant difference between traditional 1:1 model and CMFE professional behaviors/ communication scores; t(202)= 0.08, p=0.47. *no significant difference between traditional 1:1 model and CMFE final FWPE scores; t(202) = 1.68, p=0.05. Impact on Fieldwork Education: • This study supports the effectiveness of the collaborative model • The collaborative model can help to address the shortage of fieldwork sites without sacrificing quality • Increased use of the collaborative model will build capacity for training level II fieldwork students, thus supporting the Centennial Vision. • Does CMFE enhance productivity? • Which practice environments are more receptive to implementing the CMFE? • Does CMFE produce a workforce better suited to the changing healthcare environment? 1.(Koenig et al, 2003; 2. Hayes et all, 2014) 3. Hubbard et al, 2007). CJ 4. Ladyshewsky, R.K. (2010) 5. Secomb, J. (2008) 6. Rindflesch, A., et al (2009) 7. Dawes, J., Lambert, P. (2010) 8. O’Connor, A., et al, (2012)
