Rating of physiotherapy student clinical performance in a paediatric setting: are assessors consistent in their rating of a simulated clinical student performance?

Background: During workplace-based clinical placements, best practice assessment states students should expect consistency between assessors rating their performance. To assist clinical educators (CEs) to provide consistent assessment of physiotherapy student performance, nine paediatric vignettes depicting various standards of simulated student performance, as assessed by the Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice (APP), were developed. The APP defines adequate on the global rating scale (GRS) as the minimally acceptable standard for an entry-level physiotherapist. The project aimed to evaluate consistency of paediatric physiotherapy educators assessing simulated student performance using the APP GRS.

Methods: Three paediatric scenarios representing neurodevelopment across three age ranges, infant, toddler and adolescent, were developed and scripted that depicted a 'not adequate', 'adequate' and 'good-excellent' performance based on the APP GRS. An expert panel (n = 9) conducted face and content validation. Once agreement was reached for all scripts, each video was filmed. A purposive sample of physiotherapists providing paediatric clinical education in Australia were invited to participate in the study. Thirty-five CEs, with minimum 3-years clinical experience and had supervised a student within the past year, were sent three videos at four-week intervals. Videos depicted the same clinical scenario, however performance varied with each video. Participants rated the performance on the four categories: 'not adequate', 'adequate', 'good' and 'excellent' Consistency among raters was assessed using percentage agreement to establish reliability.

Results: The vignettes were assessed a combined total of 59 times. Across scenarios, percentage agreement at the not adequate level was 100%. In contrast, the adequate scenarios for the Infant, Toddler and Adolescent video failed to meet the 75% agreement level. However, when combining adequate or good-excellent, percentage agreement was > 86%. The study demonstrated strong consensus when comparing not adequate to adequate or better performance. Importantly, no performance scripted as not adequate was passed by any assessor.

Conclusions: Experienced educators demonstrate consistency in identifying not adequate from adequate or good-excellent performance when assessing a simulated student performance using the APP. Recommendation for practice: These validated video vignettes will be a valuable training tool to improve educator consistency when assessing student performance in paediatric physiotherapy.