Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35528290›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2022

Perceptions of Physical Therapy Students on their Psychomotor Examinations: a Qualitative Study.

Kelly Macauley, Stephanie Laprino, Tracy Brudvig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science educator, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Dual-Task Predictors in Graduate Healthcare Students with Athletic Backgrounds.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kelly MacauleyHusson University, 1 College Circle, Bangor, ME USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8010-0746
Stephanie LaprinoHusson University, 1 College Circle, Bangor, ME USA.
Tracy BrudvigAmerican International College, Springfield, MA USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Practical examinations are necessary to demonstrate learning in the psychomotor, cognitive, and affective domains. Student perceptions of the organization and execution of practical examinations are an important consideration in the development of practical examinations. Review of the Literature: Multiple other health professions have investigated students' perceptions of objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE). There is little in the physical therapy literature with respect to student perception regarding proctor presence during practical examinations or OSCEs. Subjects: The participants were members of the classes of 2019-2021 in a Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) program at a New England University. Methods: A qualitative thematic approach was applied to de-identified transcripts of student focus group interviews. Independently coded themes were identified, discussed, and refined iteratively. Results and Discussion: Four themes emerged with multiple subthemes: impact of proctor being present; realistic, patient-focused experience; preparation for the practical; and stress. Students valued preparation that included clear expectations, utilization of formative assessments, and peer feedback prior to the practical. They also noted that a distractive-free testing space, having no proctor present in the room, recording the practical, and the format of OSCE's decreased stress and improved performance. Conclusions: These findings add to the body of knowledge in physical therapy and provide guidance to faculty as they plan and organize practical examinations.

Indexed as

Physical therapyPhysical therapy educationPractical examinationProctor presencePsychomotor examination

Identifiers

PMID35528290
PMCPMC9054959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.