ArticleBMC psychology2024
Improving assessment of procedural skills in health sciences education: a validation study of a rubrics system in neurophysiotherapy.
Article in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe development of procedural skills is essential in health sciences education. Rubrics can be useful for learning and assessing these skills. To this end, a set of rubrics were developed in case of neurophysiotherapy maneuvers for undergraduates. Although students found the rubrics to be valid and useful in previous courses, the analysis of the practical exam results showed the need to change them in order to improve their validity and reliability, especially when used for summative purposes. After reviewing the rubrics, this paper analyzes their validity and reliability for promoting the learning of neurophysiotherapy maneuvers and assessing the acquisition of the procedural skills they involve.
methodsIn this cross-sectional and psychometric study, six experts and 142 undergraduate students of a neurophysiotherapy subject from a Spanish university participated. The rubrics' validity (content and structural) and reliability (inter-rater and internal consistency) were analyzed. The students' scores in the subject practical exam derived from the application of the rubrics, as well as the rubrics' criteria difficulty and discrimination indices were also determined.
resultsThe rubrics´ content validity was found to be adequate (Content Validity Index > 0.90). These showed a unidimensional structure, and an acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.71) and inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' ƙ=0.44, ICC = 0.94). The scores of the subject practical exam practically covered the entire range of possible theoretical scores, showing all the criterion medium-low to medium difficulty indices - except for the one related to the physical therapist position-. All the criterion exhibited adequate discrimination indices (rpbis > 0.39), as did the rubric as a whole (Ferguson's δ = 0.86). Students highlighted the rubrics´ usefulness for learning the maneuvers, as well as their validity and reliability for formative and summative assessment.
conclusionsThe changed rubrics constitute a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating the execution quality of neurophysiotherapy maneuvers from a summative evaluation viewpoint. This study facilitates the development of rubrics aimed at promoting different practical skills in health-science education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.