Standardising Radiation Therapy Undergraduate Competency levels

1. Standardising Radiation Therapy Undergraduate Competency levels Mary-Ann Carmichael Lecturer Radiation Therapy

2. Presentation Overview • Rationale • Study Aims and Objectives • Method • Results • Discussion • Conclusion

3. Background • Changes to course at QUT • Removal of staged assessment • New clinical achievements

4. Rationale • Inconsistencies in perceived levels of student competency • Student feedback indicates discrepancies in marking and assessing between clinical centres • Student feedback also indicates discrepancies in marking and assessing amongst staff in the same clinical centre

5. Aims and Objectives • Standardise levels of clinical achievement for each year group • Collate staff opinions of levels of student progression • Evaluate degree of correlation between staff seniority and perception of student levels

6. Methods • Anonymous questionnaire to find out what these perceived levels of student competency were • Questionnaire consisted of a series of statements – RTs asked to assign which year level of student should be able to perform each task (in their opinion) • The questionnaire was distributed to all RTs in Queensland

7. Results • Questionnaires provided to all RTs in Queensland • Responses received from 89 RTs of various staff grades:

8. Results

9. Results

10. Results • No correlation at all between the staff grade and what they expect students to be capable of • Pearson Correlation Coefficient range: • 0.00068 - 0.2432

11. Discussion • Limitations • High standard deviations of responses • Suggests wide variation of staff perceptions • Further work needed to achieve agreement

12. Discussion • “The assessment should reflect the consistency and standard of performance across the placement, taking into consideration the experience level of the student.” Australian Universities Radiation Therapy Student Clinical Assessment Form User Guide – version 1a

13. Discussion “Professional competency is more than factual knowledge and the ability to solve problems with clear cut solutions; it is defined by the ability to manage ambiguous problems, tolerate uncertainty and make decisions with limited information” (Schon, 1983)

14. Conclusions • Results suggest considerable variation in staff perceptions of student levels • Staff agree that amount of direction is an indicator of level of student ability • No correlation between staff grade and perception of student achievement for levels

15. References • Australian Universities Radiation Therapy Student Clinical Assessment Form - User Guide – version 1a • Baartman, L.K., Bastiaens, T.J., Kirschner, .P.A. and van derVlueten, C.P.M (2007) Evaluating Assessment Quality in Competence-Based Education – A Qualitative Comparison of Two Frameworks. Educational Research Review 2: 114-129 • Schon, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: NY Basic Books

16. Acknowledgements • Pete Bridge • Queensland RT Clinical Educators • Participating Clinical Staff