A comparison of the effectiveness of the team-based learning readiness assessments completed at home to those completed in class.

PURPOSE: The readiness assurance process (RAP) of team-based learning (TBL) is an important element that ensures that students come prepared to learn. However, the RAP can use a significant amount of class time which could otherwise be used for application exercises. The authors administered the TBL-associated RAP in class or individual readiness assurance tests (iRATs) at home to compare medical student performance and learning preference for physiology content. METHODS: Using cross-over study design, the first year medical student TBL teams were divided into two groups. One group was administered iRATs and group readiness assurance tests (gRATs) consisting of physiology questions during scheduled class time. The other group was administered the same iRAT questions at home, and did not complete a gRAT. To compare effectiveness of the two administration methods, both groups completed the same 12-question physiology assessment during dedicated class time. Four weeks later, the entire process was repeated, with each group administered the RAP using the opposite method. RESULTS: The performance on the physiology assessment after at-home administration of the iRAT was equivalent to performance after traditional in-class administration of the RAP. In addition, a majority of students preferred the at-home method of administration and reported that the at-home method was more effective in helping them learn course content. CONCLUSION: The at-home administration of the iRAT proved effective. The at-home administration method is a promising alternative to conventional iRATs and gRATs with the goal of preserving valuable in-class time for TBL application exercises.

Selectivity of physiotherapist programs in the United States does not differ by institutional funding source or research activity level.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare selectivity characteristics among institution characteristics to determine differences by institutional funding source (public vs. private) or research activity level (research vs. non-research). METHODS: This study included information provided by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) and the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy. Data were extracted from all students who graduated in 2011 from accredited physical therapy programs in the United States. The public and private designations of the institutions were extracted directly from the classifications from the 'CAPTE annual accreditation report,' and high and low research activity was determined based on Carnegie classifications. The institutions were classified into four groups: public/research intensive, public/non-research intensive, private/research intensive, and private/non-research intensive. Descriptive and comparison analyses with post hoc testing were performed to determine whether there were statistically significant differences among the four groups. RESULTS: Although there were statistically significant baseline grade point average differences among the four categorized groups, there were no significant differences in licensure pass rates or for any of the selectivity variables of interest. CONCLUSION: Selectivity characteristics did not differ by institutional funding source (public vs. private) or research activity level (research vs. non-research). This suggests that the concerns about reduced selectivity among physiotherapy programs, specifically the types that are experiencing the largest proliferation, appear less warranted.