1 Outcome Assessment Plan: Athletic Training Education€¦ · 18/06/2018 · 3.2 Adapt evidence-based practice concepts when making clinical decisions and critically examining athletic

1

Updated: 6/18/2018

Outcome Assessment Plan: Athletic Training Education

College: Piedmont College dedicates itself to the transformative power of education through reciprocal learning, the development of compassionate leaders, and the stewardship of our local and global communities. School of Nursing and Health Sciences Mission: The R.H. Daniel School of Nursing and Health Sciences at Piedmont College shall be recognized as an exemplary professional academic program. The arts & sciences are the foundation upon which the students’ intellectual endeavors are built, contributing to the provision of holistic care to clients that includes physical, psychosocial, spiritual, and environmental care. The School of Nursing and Health Sciences is dedicated to respect for diversity and to community outreach. Program Mission: The athletic training program seeks to prepare undergraduate students to pass the National Board of Certification Exam by providing exemplary classroom and clinical education in the five domains of athletic training set forth by the NATA. Furthermore, the program is dedicated to respecting individual diversity and engaging the community by exposing students to a variety of healthcare settings, practitioners, and patient populations.

Program Goals: 1. The Program is committed to recruiting ten quality students into each cohort, retaining 80% of students each year, and graduating them

three years after program admission. a. Piedmont Goal Reference: GOAL 8. Piedmont College will provide students the resources to achieve their academic

goals in a timely fashion and meet learning outcomes expected in their degree programs. b. Outcome (non-student learning): The number of students who matriculate into each cohort and persist. c. Measures:

1) Number of students admitted (10) 2) Retention rate each year by cohort and overall (80%) 3) Graduation rate each year by cohort (80%)

2. The Program seeks to have an 80% passing rate on the Board of Certification (BOC) Examination. We will also conduct level-appropriate

Competency Exams on campus to gauge student progress . a. Piedmont Goal Reference: GOAL 4. Piedmont College will offer traditional and innovative academic programs that are rigorous

in content and flexible in real-world application. b. SLO 1: Students will integrate knowledge, skills, and values from the arts and sciences to engage in critical and creative dialogue

through discovery, analysis, and communication.

2

Updated: 6/18/2018

1.1 Propose and apply methods of injury prevention and risk reduction for both healthy and at-risk individuals. 1.2 Design treatment plans for both healthy and at-risk individuals that meet their performance or wellness goals. 1.3 Demonstrate oral, written, and visual communication strategies that are organized, coherent, accurate, and

professionally prepared and delivered. 1.4 Critically evaluate research findings to develop differential diagnoses for injuries and illnesses. 1.5 Develop promotional strategies for healthy living and injury/disease prevention.

c. Measures: 1) Competency Exam section and overall scores (80% of students will score 70% on each section and overall) 2) SOAP Differential Diagnosis Project (80% of students will score 3.5 on the rubric) 3) Rehabilitation Project Paper and Presentation (80% of students will score 3.75 on the rubric) 4) SWOT Analysis Paper (80% of students will score 4.0 on the rubric)-QEP5 5) Pathology and Pharmacology Multimedia Project (80% of students will score 3.75 on the rubric)-QEP3 6) PSA Multimedia Project (80% of students will score 4.0 on the rubric)-QEP5 7) Research Methods Paper and Presentation (80% of students will score 3.75 on the rubric)-QEP1 8) Capstone Reflection (80% of students will score 3.0 on the rubric)-QEP2 9) Fitness Assessment Project (80% at 3.5 on the rubric)

3. The Program seeks to provide high quality instruction that integrates cognitive and psychomotor skills into active problem solving

abilities that will culminate in 90% of students having post-graduate placements (employment or graduate school) within six months of graduation.

a. Piedmont Goal Reference: GOAL 1. Piedmont College will attract and retain students, faculty, and staff, and engage alumni and friends, by providing experiences with the College that inspire in them a lifelong affinity with the institution.

b. SLO 2: Students will work collaboratively through interprofessional teams to provide or accommodate quality care to clients across the lifespan in a variety of settings, while respecting the diversity of individuals, groups, and communities.

2.1 Apply clinical reasoning skills throughout the physical examination process in order to assimilate data, select the appropriate assessment tests, formulate a differential diagnosis, provide care, and make appropriate referrals.

2.2 Use psychosocial techniques to enhance patient care and determine when abnormal behaviors require referral. 2.3 Adapt therapeutic interventions using clinician– and patient-oriented outcomes with consideration to the stage of

healing and goals to maximize patient participation and quality of life. 2.4 Implement, evaluate, and modify treatment plans for both healthy and at-risk individuals that meet their performance

or wellness goals through collaboration with allied healthcare providers. 2.5 Create, evaluate, and modify an environment conducive to safe activity participation. 2.6 Demonstrate cultural competence in the care of clients from diverse backgrounds.

3

Updated: 6/18/2018

c. Measures: 1) Kinesiology Project Paper and Presentation (80% of students will score 3.5 on the rubric) 2) Oral/Practical Examinations (80% of students will score 4.0 on rubric and 80% Overall) 3) Scenario Examinations (75% of students will score 3. 5 or higher on rubric and 70% Overall) 4) Senior Exit Survey (80% of program attributes will score 4.0 on the rubric) 5) Alumni Survey (80% of program attributes will score 4.0 and 75% of respondents will have passed the BOC) 6) Faculty Evaluations (100% of faculty evaluations will be scored at 75%) 7) Psychosocial Subscale Evaluation (75% of students will score 4.0 or higher on the rubric)

4. The Program is committed to providing quality clinical sites for experiential learning and seeks to have 100% of students experience

a minimum of three types of clinical education settings prior to graduation (i.e. high school, college, medical office, emergency medical services, physical therapy, and community medicine). a. Piedmont Goal Reference: GOAL 6. Piedmont College will educate the whole student through co-curricular programs, extra-

curricular activities, and experiential learning endeavors. b. SLO 3: Through civic engagement, personal growth, and ethical reasoning, students will demonstrate responsible, global

citizenship by upholding high professional standards. 3.1 Identify state and national regulations and demonstrate professional, moral and ethical judgment when delivering

patient-centered care. 3.2 Adapt evidence-based practice concepts when making clinical decisions and critically examining athletic training

practice. 3.3 Develop and evaluate facility design and management strategies in the context of a healthcare system (i.e. risk

management, healthcare delivery mechanisms, insurance and reimbursement documentation, patient privacy, and general facility management).

3.4 Use effective documentation to develop, participate in, and lead patient-centered care. 3.5 Use appropriate professional guidelines to develop, implement, evaluate, and modify emergency care strategies. 3.6 Demonstrate a commitment to professional growth and development.

c. Measures: 1) SWOT Analysis Presentation (80% of students will score 4.0 on the rubric)-QEP5 2) Preceptor Evaluations of Students (80% of students will score 4.0 on rubric)-QEP5 3) Student Evaluations of Preceptors (100% of preceptor evaluations will be scored at 75%) 4) Floorplan/EAP Project (80% of students will score 4.0 on the rubric) 5) CPRO Examination (100% of students will score 80%) 6) Student Evaluations of Sites (100% of clinical sites will be scored at 75%)-QEP3 7) Piedmont 1101 Reflection Paper (80% at 2 on the rubric)- QEP4,6

4

Updated: 6/18/2018

8) Capstone Project (80% at 4.0 on the rubric)-QEP5

5

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG 2; SLO1; M 1 Competency Exam

Description Practical Written Simulation

Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S K K,A

Objectives Measured 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.5 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5

Assessment Result Individual and Overall Score

Benchmark 80% of Level B and C Students will score 70% or higher on each section and 70% Overall 75% of Level D Students will score 70% or higher on each section and 70% Overall

Sample Size and Source Level B, Level C, and Level D Students

Results

Name Level Written Written% Sim Sim % Practical Pract % Total Average Balkcum, Erica B 38.53 0.7706 7.6 0.76 37 0.925 83.13 0.8313 Johnson, Dakota B 41.28 0.8256 7.2 0.72 35.5 0.888 83.98 0.8398 Mikell, Logan B 39.91 0.7982 7.4 0.74 33.5 0.838 80.81 0.8081 Murria, Brandon B 36.24 0.74463 7.7 0.742 32.5 0.85417 76.44 0.78815 Walker, Brittany B 38.07 0.76171 8 0.729 38 0.85694 84.07 0.79649 Lippincott, Zach B 39.91 0.7982 6.6 0.66 35.5 0.888 82.01 0.8201 Aylward, Erin B 32.11 0.6422 8.2 0.82 33.5 0.838 73.81 0.7381 Lawson, LaKerra B 31.65 0.633 7.5 0.75 30 0.750 69.15 0.6915 Craven, Abbey C 72 0.72 22.36 0.745 66.88 0.955 161.2 0.8062 Maxwell, Megan C 77 0.77 22.9 0.763 50.46 0.721 150.4 0.7518 Whitlock, Kristin C 70 0.7 23.26 0.775 56.78 0.811 150 0.7502 Smith, Maggie C 87 0.87 23.7 0.79 58.54 0.836 169.2 0.8462 Turner, Andy C 75 0.75 25.28 0.843 58.08 0.830 158.4 0.7918 Atnip, Ashlyn C 74 0.74 23.73 0.791 52.26 0.747 150 0.74995 Thor, Courtney D 90 0.9 30 1 61 0.871 181 0.905 Woodward, Katie D 70 0.7 29.42 0.981 53.94 0.771 153.4 0.7668 Ruck, Logan D 85 0.85 30 1 61.14 0.873 176.1 0.8807

6

Updated: 6/18/2018

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

2014 2015 2016 2017

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Competency Exam: Students Meeting the Target

Written

Simulation

Practical

Target (80%)

Average 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2014 2015 2016 2017

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

*Students passingall 3 sections

Competency Exam Targets* By Level

Level B

Level C

Level D

Target

Average

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415

Perc

ent

Student

2017-2018 Competency Exam Scores

Written%

Sim %

Practical %

Average

0

20

40

60

80

100

2014 2015 2016 2017

Aver

age

Scor

e

Competency Exam: Section Scores

Written

Simulation

Practical

Target (70%)

Average

7

Updated: 6/18/2018

0

20

40

60

80

100

B C D

Aver

age

Scor

e

2015 Cohort Competency Exam Section Scores

Written

Simulation

Practical

Target (70%)

Average

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

B C D

# M

eetin

g Ta

rget

2015 Cohort Competency Exam Targets

Written

Simulation

Practical

Target (80%)

Average

0

20

40

60

80

100

B C D

Aver

age

Scor

e


Written

Simulation

Practical

Target (70%)

Average

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

B C D#

Mee

ting

Targ

et


Written

Simulation

Practical

Target (80%)

Average

8

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative

This goal was met; the 13 of 16 students met or exceeded the target score on all three sections and the overall average score (this is a significant improvement over last year). The written score improved by just over 40 points, the simulation by 20, and the practical by 33. These improved scores brought the overall score up 28 points. We believe that these improvements are partially due to seniors completing weekly practice exams during the spring semester, and efforts to improve students’ retention of basic anatomy and it’s relationship to the evaluation process.

Plan • The juniors and seniors will begin taking practice exams in the fall term in 2018 (done in pairs) • The anatomy exams begin in 2017-2018 will continue in both sophomore and junior level courses • Study sessions prior to the exam will be held through the AT club and practicum courses

Timeline for Improvement

• Practice exams will be included in the fall and spring with junior/senior student pairs prior to completing this competency exam (A. Dondanville) • Additional simulation/scenario days in practicum and enhance preceptor training will be implemented Fall 2018 (J. Fouts) • Flipped classroom techniques to improve student accountability will be tried again in HSCS2221 and ATRG3323 in the fall; (A. Dondanville)

0

20

40

60

80

100

B C D

Aver

age

Scor

e


Written

Simulation

Practical

Target (70%)

Overall

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

B C D

# M

eetin

g Ta

rget


Written

Simulation

Practical

Target (80%)

Overall

9

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG4; SLO3; M2 Practicum Evaluation

Description Preceptor Eval. of Student

Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S,K,A

Objectives Measured 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6

Assessment Result Rubric Score

Benchmark 80% of students will score class-appropriate % or higher (average of all evaluations); Level B = 3.5; Level C = 3.75; Level D = 4.0

Sample Size and Source Level B, Level C, and Level D Students

Results

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

All Students 64 77 80 81 Level B 64 56 68 77 Level C 87 83 82 Level D 88 85

0

20

40

60

80

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Student Evaluations by Preceptor Targets

Level B

Level C

Level D

Target

All Students

10

Updated: 6/18/2018

2015-2016

2016-2017

Gen Med

2017-2018

Ruck, Logan 73 90 94 89 Sullens, Dakota 82

Thor, Courtney 81 88 94 85 Woodward, Katelyn 64 78 87 82

2016-2017

2017-2018

Gen Med

2018-2019

Atnip, Ashlyn 87 87 93 Craven, Abbey 96 92 87 Maxwell, Megan 80 78 95 Smith, Maggie 85 81 94 Turner, Andrew 89 78 97 Whitlock, Kristin 92 74 94

020406080

100

Aver

age

Scor

e

Student Evaluations by PreceptorsFall 2015 Cohort

2015-2016

2016-2017

Gen Med

2017-2018

Senior Target

0

20

40

60

80

100

Aver

age

Scor

e

Student Evaluations by PreceptorsSpring 2016 Cohort

2016-2017

2017-2018

Gen Med

Senior Target

2018-2019

11

Updated: 6/18/2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

Gen Med

2019-2020

Aylward, Erin 77 Balckum, Erica 84 Johnson, Dakota 72 Lawson, LaKerra 76 Lippincott, Zach 69 Mikell, Logan 79 Murria, Brandon 75 Walker, Brittany 79

Narrative This goal was partially met, as only Level C and Level D met or exceeded their class-appropriate target on the Preceptor Evaluation of Student rubric (83% and 88%, respectively); 68% of Level B met the goal. However, the sophomores (as a group) did show a 12 percentage point improvement (which continues a three year upward trend).

Plan

• Complete additional preceptor training prior to Fall 2018 to include additional teaching strategies to improve the quality of student-preceptor interactions and student confidence.

• All students will be given additional opportunities to practice displaying self-confidence and critical thinking (two of the lowest scoring areas on the rubric) by their preceptors.


• The yearly preceptor update training will take place in early August 2018 (J. Fouts) • The CEC will work with the preceptors devise strategies to improve their self-confidence and critical thinking abilities. (J. Fouts)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Aver

age

Scor

e

Student Evaluations by PreceptorsSpring 2017 Cohort

2017-2018

2018-2019

Gen Med

Senior Target

2019-2020

12

Updated: 6/18/2018


Description Student Eval of Preceptor

Skill, Knowledge, Attitude n/a

Objectives Measured n/a


Benchmark 100% of preceptors will score 75% or higher across all evaluations (not average score)

Sample Size and Source All Preceptors currently assigned students

Results

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

All Preceptors 93 94 100 85 On-Campus 100 100 100 95 Off-Campus 83 71 100 100

GenMed 100 100 100

0102030405060708090

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Preceptor Evaluations by Student Targets

On-Campus

Off-Campus

GenMed

Target

All Preceptors

13

Updated: 6/18/2018

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Black, Chad

95 Burrell, Hailey

100 96 95

Chrisman, Connor

89 Cope, John

93 99 96

Dilbeck, Lindsay

99 100 97 Dwozan, Charlie

100

Jannakos, Alyssa

100 96 Jordan, Katie

95

Landress, Hannah

100 Lentz, Brian

92 96

Lentz, Dayna

99 95 McKinney, Matt 99 96 100 98

Narrative This goal was partially met. The “off-campus” and “gen med” preceptors continue to meet the 100% target, but “on-campus” preceptors fell short this year (down 15 points to 85% on target). This is attributed to low scores given to one preceptor. The CEC met with the individual, and moderate improvements were made in the spring.

Plan • Preceptor training will include additional information on building student confidence and place continued emphasis on student engagement and stimulation of critical thinking in preceptor training for all sites.

Timeline for Improvement • Additional preceptor training will be conducted in August 2018 for all preceptors (J. Fouts) • The CEC will meet individually with preceptors next year for more instructive feedback (J. Fouts)

0102030405060708090

100

Aver

age

Scor

e

Preceptor Evaluations by Student

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Target

14

Updated: 6/18/2018


Description Student Eval of Site

Skill, Knowledge, Attitude n/a

Objectives Measured n/a


Benchmark 100% of sites will score 75% or higher across all evaluations (not average score)

Results

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

All 79 76 100 90 On-Campus 100 100 100 91 Off-Campus 57 86 100 100

GenMed 63 100 80

0

20

40

60

80

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Site Evaluations by Student Targets

On-Campus

Off-Campus

GenMed

Target

All

15

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative This goal was partially met. While off-campus sites continued to be 100% on target, but GenMed (80%) and on-campus (91%) declined by 20 and 9 points, respectively. Of the 11 low scoring site evaluations, 7 were GenMed (Gracegate, EMS, and Primary Care), and 4 were Piedmont (3 Level B students and 1 level D student). All sites averaged over 75%.

Plan

• Additional preceptor training for general medical and physical therapy preceptors improve communication of expectations and student engagement methods

• The CEC will do additional student orientation prior to beginning the general medical rotation to improve perceptions of the connections between the experiences and the AT program.


• Additional preceptor training will be conducted in August 2018 (J. Fouts) • The CEC will complete additional orientation for the level C students in August 2018 to discuss connections between the general medical

rotation and the AT program (J. Fouts)

0102030405060708090

100

Aver

age

Scor

e

Site Evaluations by Students

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Target

16

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG3; SLO2; M1 Paper Rubric Description Kinesiology Project

Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K,S Objectives Measured 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.5 Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark 80% of students will score 3.5 or higher Sample Size and Source All AT majors in HSCS2221

Results

Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 All 39 89 80 91

ATRG 33 100 75 88 EXSS 63 100 89 92 SFAD 100 APHS 20 67 50 100

17

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative

This goal was met, as 88% of ATHL students earned an 3.5 or higher on the Paper Rubric (90% of all students met the target). This is a 13 point improvement over last year. When looking at individual content sections, students continue to underperform on the “anatomical analysis”, and showed no improvements in the three other areas. This is likely due to the poor preparation they receive in their foundational Human Anatomy course (BIOL2100) prior to taking this course. On the flip side, their general paper writing mechanics showed improvement. The use of anatomy mini-practicals was helpful and will be continued.

Plan

• To further prepare students for this course, it is being moved to the spring term of the sophomore year beginning in 2018-2019 to allow students to complete both BIOL2100 and BIOL2110 prior to taking this course. We hope this will improve students’ foundation knowledge and therefore the “anatomical analysis” content section score.

• Students still struggle with anatomy, often failing to retain information from one course to the next. Flipped classroom techniques where students have more accountability to learn anatomy will be tried next year.


• The curriculum revision will be enacted in Fall 2018 to better prepare students for this course in Spring 2019. (A. Dondanville) • Flipped classroom techniques to improve student accountability will be continued. (A. Dondanville)

18

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG2; SLO1; M3 Paper Rubric

Description Rehab Project

Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K

Objectives Measured 1.2, 1.3, 2.3, 2.4, 3.2


Benchmark 80% of students will score 3.75 or higher on the rubric

Sample Size and Source All AT majors in ATRG3322

Results

2015 2016 2017 2018

Target 80 80 80 80 All 50 100 100

0102030405060708090

100

2015 2016 2017 2018

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Rehab Project Targets

All

Target

19

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative This goal was met, as 100% of students met the target. When looking at content scores, students struggle with developing goals (which also affects the discharge criteria chosen). They also are uncomfortable reaching out to the public for interviews. The overall writing was also not as strong as last year.

Plan • Make the rough draft submission mandatory.


• Students will work in small groups to “brainstorm” goals, techniques, etc. for different types of injuries in Fall 2018. (J. Fouts) • Give feedback on the rough draft Fall 2018 (J. Fouts.)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Axis

Titl

e

Rehab Paper Rubric Scores

2015

2016

2017

Target

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Aver

age

Scor

e

Rehab Paper Content Scores

2015

2016

2017

Target

20

Updated: 6/18/2018


Description SWOT Analysis

Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K,A

Objectives Measured 1.2, 1.3, 2.3, 2.4, 3.2, 3.6


Benchmark 80% of students will score 4 or higher


Results

Spring 2017

Spring 2018

Spring 2019

Target 80 80 80 Paper 83 67

Presentation 83 100

0102030405060708090

100

Spring2017

Spring2018

Spring2019

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

SWOT Project Targets

Paper

Presentation

Target

21

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative This goal was partially met, as 100% of students earned a 4.0 or greater on the presentation rubric, but only 67% did so on the related paper (33 point reduction from 2017). Since there were only 3 students in this course, the one low scored paper caused the group to not meet the target. The individual student was mentored between paper and presentation submission, and the second half of the project was greatly improved.

Plan • While the EBP discussions and associated PICO/CAT analyses were intended to help improve their critical thinking skills, changes were not

noticed until after mid-semester. Therefore, additional focus will be placed on integrating the SWOT thought process in with those assignments.

Timeline for Improvement • The SWOT thought process will be conjoined into the PICO/CAT EBP assignments in ATRG4420 in spring 2019 (A. Dondanville)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Axis

Titl

e

SWOT Paper Scores

2017

2018

2019

Target

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00

Axis

Titl

e

SWOT Presentation Scores

2015

2016

2017

Target

22

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG3; SLO2; M1 Presentation Rubric Description Kinesiology Project

Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K,S Objectives Measured 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.5 Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark 80% of students will score 3.5 or higher Sample Size and Source All AT majors in HSCS2221

Results

Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017

All 56 50 80 80 ATRG 67 75 88 75 EXSS 45 100 67 77 SFAD

100

APHS

100 100 0

23

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative This goal was not met. While 80% of all students earned a 70% or better on the Presentation Rubric, only 75% of ATHL students met the target. This does represent a 13 percentage point reduction from last year. When examining the content scores, both mechanical analysis (3.12) and anatomical analysis (2.72) underperformed for a third year likely due to several students failing to include any of this information in their presentation.

Plan

• To further prepare students for this course, it is being moved to the spring term of the sophomore year beginning in 2018-2019 to allow students to complete both BIOL2100 and BIOL2110 prior to taking this course. We hope this will improve students’ foundation knowledge and therefore the “anatomical analysis” content section score.

• Students still struggle with anatomy, often failing to retain information from one course to the next. Flipped classroom techniques where students have more accountability to learn anatomy will be tried next year.


• The curriculum revision will be enacted in Fall 2018 to better prepare students for this course in Spring 2019. (A. Dondanville) • Flipped classroom techniques to improve student accountability will be continued. (A. Dondanville)

24

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG2; SLO1; M3 Presentation Rubric

Description Rehab Project

Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K

Objectives Measured 1.2, 1.3, 2.3, 2.4, 3.2


Benchmark 80% of students will score 3.75 or higher


Results Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 Target 80 80 80 All 83 100 100

0102030405060708090

100

Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017%

Mee

ting

Targ

et

Rehab Presentation Rubric Targets

All

Target

25

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative This goal was met, as 100% of students met the target. However, when looking at the individual rubric and content scores, “goals” and “discharge criteria” fell below the target and were bolstered by other higher scoring sections. The “delivery and eye contact” score was significantly improved from 3.7 to 4.3). Even though they were improved from last year, the protocols provided were of lower quality than desired.

Plan • Give additional examples of content (i.e. goals, techniques, etc.) and helping them make connections to protocol design.

Timeline for Improvement • Students will work in small groups to “brainstorm” goals, techniques, etc. for different types of injuries in Fall 2018. (J. Fouts)

0

1

2

3

4

5Av

erag

e Sc

ore

Rehab Presentation Rubric Scores

2015

2016

2017

Target

0123456

Aver

age

Scor

e

Rehab Presentation Content Scores

2015

2016

2017

Target

26

Updated: 6/18/2018


Description SWOT Analysis


Objectives Measured 1.2, 1.3, 3.2, 3.6


Benchmark 80% of students will score 4 or higher


Results

Spring 2017

Spring 2018

Spring 2019

Target 80 80 80 Paper 83 67

Presentation 83 100

0102030405060708090

100

Spring2017

Spring2018

Spring2019

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

SWOT Project Targets

Paper

Presentation

Target

27

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative This goal was partially met, as 100% of students earned a 4.0 or greater on the presentation rubric, but only 67% did so on the related paper (33 point reduction from 2017). Since there were only 3 students in this course, the one low scored paper caused the group to not meet the target. The individual student was mentored between paper and presentation submission, and the second half of the project was greatly improved.

Plan • While the EBP discussions and associated PICO/CAT analyses were intended to help improve their critical thinking skills, changes were not

noticed until after mid-semester. Therefore, additional focus will be placed on integrating the SWOT thought process in with those assignments.

Timeline for Improvement • The SWOT thought process will be conjoined into the PICO/CAT EBP assignments in ATRG4420 in spring 2019 (A. Dondanville)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Axis

Titl

e

SWOT Paper Scores

2017

2018

2019

Target

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00

Axis

Titl

e

SWOT Presentation Scores

2015

2016

2017

Target

28

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG2; SLO1; M5 Multimedia

Description Gen/Med Project

Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K,S

Objectives Measured 1.3, 1.5,2.6, 3.2, 3.6



Sample Size and Source All AT majors in HSCS3302

Results

2016 2017 2018

All 88 88 97 APHS 100 100

ATRG 100 100 83 CVTE 100 100 100 EXSS 100 100 100

HCAD-Ath 83 67 100 HCAD-Dem 50 0 100

OTHER

100

29

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative This goal was met, as 97% of all students and 83% of ATHL students met the target. This is a 10 percentage point group improvement from last year. The overall poster quality was very good; this could perhaps be related to their prior experience completing a similarly formatted project as freshmen.

Plan • Continue the project as designed and using the same rubric.

Timeline for Improvement • This same assignment will be given in Spring 2019. (E. McKinney)

30

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG2; SLO1; M6 Multimedia

Description PSA Project


Objectives Measured 1.3, 1.5,2.6, 3.2, 3.6


Benchmark 80% of students will score 4/5 or higher

Sample Size and Source All students in ATRG4420

Results Spring 2017 Spring 2018 Spring 2019 Target 80 80 80 ATRG 100 100

0102030405060708090

100

Spring 2017 Spring 2018 Spring 2019

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

PSA Multimedia Targets

ATRG

Target

31

Updated: 6/18/2018

Spring 2017

Spring 2018

Spring 2019

Content 5 4 Use of Evidence 4.83 4 Concept 4.83 5 Organization 5 5 Quality 4.67 5 Credits / Citations 2.5 5 Submission Format 5 4.33

Narrative While this goal was met with 100% of students earning >4.0 on the rubric (no change from 2017), most neglected to meet the minimum time for the PSA video. All three students showed creative effort, also an improvement from last year.

Plan • Continue the project as designed for an additional 1-2 years to determine trends.

Timeline for Improvement • This assignment will be completed in ATRG4420 in spring 2019 (A. Dondanville)

0.001.002.003.004.005.00

Aver

age

Scor

e

PSA Multimedia Section Scores

Spring 2017

Spring 2018

Spring 2019

Target

32

Updated: 6/18/2018


Description Research Methods Paper

Objectives Measured PG4, SLO3, QEP1


Benchmark (Criteria for Success)

80% of students will score ≥3.75 on the rubric

Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in HSCS4410

Results

2015 2016 2017 All 90 63 63 APHS 100 33 50 ATRG 83 67 CVTE 100 67 25 EXSS 100 56 100 HCAD-Ath 75 67 100 HCAD-Dem 100 67 25 SFAD 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Research Methods Paper Rubric Targets

2015

2016

2017

Target

33

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative

This goal was NOT met, as only 63% of all students AND 67% of ATHL majors met the target. While this is a 16 point reduction from last year, it represents one student not meeting the goal. Many students continue having difficulty determining a research direction and envisioning the fundamental supporting information. We believe that part of this may be due to only one third of these students having completed scaffolding papers in previous classes (CVTE and HCAD do not have previous experience with this type of assignment).

Plan

• This assignment will be given again in the same format and assessed using the same rubric next year to give a more clear picture of the data meaning.

• Additional opportunities for students to work on their writing and citation skills will be given in this class next year. • More emphasis will be placed on developing the outline next year.


• This assignment will be given in Fall 2018. (A. Dondanville) • Additional in class group assignments for students to work on sentence construction and citation use will be implemented next year (A. Dondanville)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Aver

age

Scor

e

Research Methods Paper Rubric Scores

2015

2016

2017

Target

34

Updated: 6/18/2018


Description Research Methods Presentation






Results

2015 2016 2017 All 83 64 73 APHS 100 67 100 ATRG 50 67 CVTE 50 100 63 EXSS 100 67 100 HCA-Ath 75 67 80 HCA-Dem 100 50 50 SFAD 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Research Methods Presentation Rubric Targets

2015

2016

2017

Target

35

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative This target was not met, as 73% of all students and 67% of ATHL students met the target. While this is a 17 point improvement from last year, it represents two students meeting and one student not meeting the goal. Similar to the related paper, students scored lowest on ‘discussion and recommendations’; again, this likely relates to their difficulty connecting concepts into large frameworks.

Plan

• This assignment will be given again in the same format and assessed using the same rubric next year to give a more clear picture of the data meaning.

• Additional opportunities for students to work on their writing and citation skills will be given in this class next year. • More emphasis will be placed on developing the outline next year.


• This assignment will be given in Fall 2018. (A. Dondanville) • Additional in class group assignments for students to work on sentence construction and citation use will be implemented next year (A. Dondanville)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Aver

age

Scor

e

Research Methods Presentation Section Scores

2015

2016

2017

Target

36

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG3; SLO2; M2 Evaluation Skills

Description Contrived

Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S,K

Objectives Measured 1.3, 2.1, 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5

Assessment Result Rubric Score and Overall Score

Benchmark 80% of Level A, B, and C students will score 4.0 or higher on rubric and 80% Overall (Level D Scenarios 75% at 3.5)

Sample Size and Source Level A, Level B, and Level C students (note: there were no Level A or Level C students in 2014-2015 and no Level A students in 2017-2018)

Results

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Level A

92 89 Level B 74 83 92 96

Level C

89 90 98 Level D*

50 67

All 74 88 90 92

0102030405060708090

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

O/P Exam Targets

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Target

37

Updated: 6/18/2018

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

BLS 100 93 98.5 98.7 History 80 90 94.1 96.2

Observation 57 85 85.3 89.7 Palpation 58 89 87.8 98.7

Neuro 64 91 87.8 97.4 ROM 75 98 90.2 96.1

Special Test 70 81 85.3 94.9 FCN-End 75 94 92.7 100

Average of Overall % Average of Rubric Score

Group Average Overall %

Group Average

Rubric Score O/P B C B C

Ankle

0.96

4.85 0.96 4.85 Chest 0.94 0.95 4.91 4.88 0.95 4.89 Elbow

0.96

4.91 0.96 4.91

GenMed 0.93

4.75

0.93 4.75 Head 0.96 0.99 4.81 5.00 0.97 4.86 Hip

0.92

4.70 0.92 4.70

Knee

0.95

4.90 0.95 4.90 Low Back

0.91

4.64 0.91 4.64

Neck 0.91 0.96 4.53 4.83 0.93 4.68 Shoulder 0.94 0.97 4.69 4.93 0.95 4.80 Wrist

0.97

4.94 0.97 4.94

Grand Total 0.93653278 0.949029122 4.72826087 4.834090909 0.945344303 4.802884615

0102030405060708090

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

O/P Exam Section Rubric Targets

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Target

38

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative

This goal was met, as 92% of students earned a level-appropriate score on the rubric. This represents improvements of 6, 8, and 17 percentage points (Level B to D, respectively). Of particular note is the marked improvement in palpation, neurological assessment, and special testing skills over last year’s data (approximately a 10 point improvement in each). This may be due to the anatomy practicals and increased student responsibility for class preparation in the Orthopedic Assessment courses. When exploring the results by body part, the lowest scoring continues to be Neck; this is likely due to the fact that this is the first OP sophomores complete in ATRG3303 (Orthopedic Assessment of the Upper Extremity), and hence they are still learning how to fully prepare for the assessment.

Plan • Continue the changes made to HSCS2221, ATRG3303, and ATRG3323 next year and collect a third year of data to analyze. • Continue to require students to complete two formal practice attempts each semester that a skill is introduced.


• The revised curricula in ATRG3323 (fall) and HSCS2221 (spring) will be continued for the 2018-2019 academic year to incorporate more hands on practice and anatomical models. ATRG3303 will not be taught next year. (A. Dondanville)

• Students in ATRG3323 (A. Dondanville) and ATRG3301 (J.Fouts) will be required to complete two formal practice attempts at all O/P evaluations prior to attempting the exam with a faculty or preceptor.

39

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG3; SLO2; M3 Evaluation Skills

Description Scenario

Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S,K,A

Objectives Measured 1.3, 2.1, 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5

Assessment Result Rubric Score and Overall Score

Benchmark 75% of students will score 3.5 or higher on rubric and 70% Overall

Sample Size and Source Level D students

Results

Target 2016-2017

2017-2018

2018-2019

Level D 75 50 67

0102030405060708090

100

Level D%

Mee

ting

Targ

et

Scenario Exam Targets

2016-2017

2017-2018

2018-2019

Target

40

Updated: 6/18/2018

2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 BLS 71 75 History 58 83.3 Observation 43 72.7 Palpation 54 66.7 Neuro 48 70 ROM 56 57.1 Special Test 68 40 FCN-End 71 83.3

Narrative This goal was not met, as only 67% of students earned a 70% (3.5 on the rubric). However, this represents a 17 point improvement over last year, and there were only 2 scores below the 70% target (the remaining 10 scores were greater than 70% and averaged 4.09 on the rubric). Overall, students struggled with remembering special tests (the only area that showed a decrease), but did a good job developing a differential diagnosis.

Plan • Continue additional scenario discussions in Practicum courses. • Continue student identification of “red flags” during the reverse SOAP note discussions in Orthopedic Assessment courses.


• Graduated scenario discussions will be implemented in all practicum courses as appropriate for the level of student learning in 2018-2019. (J.Fouts)

• Students will be asked to make evaluation notes of “red flags” during the SOAP discussions in Fall 2018 and Spring 2018. (A. Dondanville) • Juniors and seniors will be paired to complete practice exams in fall and spring (A. Dondanville)

0102030405060708090

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Scenario Exam Section Targets

2016-2017

2017-2018

2018-2019

Target

41

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG2; SLO1; M2 Differential Diagnosis Description SOAP Project Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K Objectives Measured 1.4, 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 3.4 Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark 80% of students will score 4.0 or higher Sample Size and Source All AT majors in ATRG3303 and ATRG3323

Results

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

All 67 97.5 89 100 ATRG3303 67 100 83 100 ATRG3323

95 100 100

0102030405060708090

100

All ATRG3303 ATRG3323

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Differential Diagnosis Cohort Targets

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Target

42

Updated: 6/18/2018

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Information 3.67 3.5 3.5 4.04 Organization 4.33 4.45 4.94 4.78 Citations 3.75 4.9 4.5 5 Presentation 4.83 5 4.94 4.89

Narrative

This goal was met, as 100% of students achieved a 4 on the associated rubric. This is an 11 point improvement from last year. When evaluating the rubric sections, the weakest area continues to be “supporting information”, which is slightly improved from last year. This areas of weakness corresponds to those found in the other courses and assessments and relates to students having difficulty clearly explaining their meaning and providing enough details to prevent the reader/listener from having the infer the message. While we had assumed last year that this weakness was due to their difficulty interpreting the scientific literature, we now believe that it’s more likely related to their inability to critically think through physical findings to determine a diagnosis.

Plan • Additional opportunities to link physical findings to diagnoses via class activities and discussions will be provided in both ATRG3303 and ATRG3323. • Add student recognition of “red flags” during the presentations in both courses.


• Exercises will be included in physical assessment labs to better link to specific diagnoses; “reverse” thinking will also be used to have students formulate expected physical findings based on anatomical constraints and MOI. (A. Dondanville)

• Students will be asked to make evaluation notes of “red flags” during the SOAP discussions in 2018-2019. (A. Dondanville)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Aver

ag S

core

e

Differential Diagnosis Section Scores

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Target

43

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG3; SLO2; M7 Psychosocial Behavior Description Preceptor Evaluation Skill, Knowledge, Attitude K,S,A Objectives Measured 2.2 Assessment Result Rubric Score

Benchmark 80% of students will meet or exceed the level-appropriate target (Level B = 3.5, Level C =3.75, and Level D= 4.0) or higher on the preceptor evaluation subscale (2.2)

Sample Size and Source All students enrolled in a practicum course.

Results

Percent of students on target:

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Level B 67 50 72 89 Level C

84 100 97

Level D

88 87

0102030405060708090

100

Level B Level C Level D

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Psychosocial Subscale Targets

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Target

44

Updated: 6/18/2018

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Ruck, Logan 3.65 4.79 4.59 Thor, Courtney 4.17 4.78 4.35

Woodward, Katelyn 3.33 4.54 4.34

2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Atnip, Ashlyn 4.45 4.62

Craven, Abbey 4.41 4.63 Maxwell, Megan 3.83 4.39 Smith, Maggie 4.65 4.42 Turner, Andrew 4.13 4.43 Whitlock, Kristin 4.8 4.23

012345

Aver

age

Scor

e

Psychosocial Subscale ScoresFall 2015 Cohort

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Senior Target

0

1

2

3

4

5

Aver

age

Scor

e

Psychosocial Subscale ScoresSpring 2016 Cohort

2016-2017

2017-2018

2018-2019

Senior Target

45

Updated: 6/18/2018

2017-2018 2018-2019 2018-2019 Aylward, Erin 3.86

Balkcum, Erica 4.23 Johnson, Dakota 3.81 Lawson, LaKerra 4.07 Lippincott, Zach 3.67 Mikell, Logan 4.16 Murria, Brandon 3.77 Walker, Brittany 4.18

Narrative

This goal was met, as all Levels met their appropriate targets on the 2.2 Subscale of the Preceptor Evaluation. This represents a 17 point improvement for Level B students and no change for Levels C and D. It is not surprising that less experienced students (Level B) score lower on this subscale than more experienced students (Level C and Level D), likely relating to the different lengths of their respective clinical experiences (i.e. newer students have less developed awareness than those with more experience). The revised assessment targets in relation to Level seem appropriate, but preceptors must use different strategies to engage less motivated students.

Plan • Preceptors will also be given additional pedagogy strategies to help develop student confidence at the clinical site.

Timeline for Improvement • A minimum of twice each semester, preceptors will be given a brief handout or newsletter highlighting a pedagogical strategy or technique

to improve clinical learning and engage the student to build confidence. (E. McKinney) • Preceptor training in the fall will be focused on improving preceptor interactions to enhance engagement. (J. Fouts)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Aver

age

Scor

e

Psychosocial Subscale ScoresSpring 2017 Cohort

2017-2018

2018-2019

2018-2019

Senior Target

46

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG4; SLO3; M4 Administration and Emergency Care Competency

Description Floorplan/ EAP Project


Objectives Measured 1.1, 2.5, 3.3, 3.5



Sample Size and Source All AT students in ATRG2201 and ATRG 4402

Results

Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 ATRG2201 82 100 100 100 ATRG4402

100 100

All

100 100

0102030405060708090

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Floorplan Project Targets

ATRG2201

ATRG4402

Target

All

47

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative This goal was met, as 100% of students scored 4 or better on the assignment rubric (no change from last year). When looking at the individual content scores, the EAP and presentation areas were lower. The seniors also had lower overall scores than the sophomores, mostly attributed to effort (and lack thereof).

Plan • Continue the assignment as designed, but ensure that sophomore students receive 2 clinical placements in each term of that year (4 total) to widen their perspective.

Timeline for Improvement • Students will continue doing two 8-week clinical rotations each term in 2018-2019. (J.Fouts)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Aver

age

Scor

e

Floor Plan Project Section Scores

Fall 2014

Fall 2015

Fall 2016

Fall 2017

Target

48

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG4; SLO3; M5 Emergency Care Competency

Description FA and CPR Exams

Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S,K

Objectives Measured 3.5, 3.6

Assessment Result Overall Score

Benchmark 100% of students will score 80% or higher

Sample Size and Source All students in ATRG2201, ATRG3301, and ATRG4401

Results

Fall 2014

Fall 2015

Fall 2016

Fall 2017

ATRG-2201 100 100 100 100 ATRG-3301

100 100 100

ATRG-4401

100 100

0102030405060708090

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

CPRO/BLS Exam Targets

ATRG-2201

ATRG-3301

ATRG-4401

Target

49

Updated: 6/18/2018

Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 Average 89 90 94 95

Level B 89 90 94 94 Level C 90 96 94 Level D 94 99

Narrative This goal was met, as 100% of students earned an 80% or higher on the exam (average of 95%). The scores are virtually unchanged, with Level D students seeing the greatest improvement (5 points). Overall, the plan to add a few days of concentrated review every fall term appears to be working, as scores are trending upwards.

Plan • Continue with same plan (review at the very beginning of the fall semester).

Timeline for Improvement • CPRO and FA review sessions with labs will be held in the three fall practicum classes. (J.Fouts)

0102030405060708090

100

Scor

e Fr

eque

ncy

CPRO/BLS Exam Scores

Level B

Level C

Level D

Target

Average

50

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG1; M1 PG1; M2 PG1; M3

Overall

Description Retention/Graduation Rates Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S,K,A Objectives Measured All Assessment Result Number of persisting in the program and graduating each year. Benchmark 80% of students will persist each academic year and graduate 3 years after admission Sample Size and Source All students matriculating yearly

Results

ATHL Semester in the Program

Cohort Entrance Semester Interview Accept A B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 Retent. %

Avg. Enroll.

Target Enroll.

Spring 2014 13 13 11 11 6 6 6 6 6 0.54 6.00 10.00 Fall 2015 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 0.6 3.00 8.00 Spring 2016 16 14 13 8 6 6 6 0.46 6.00 8.00 Spring 2017 13 9 9 8 8 0.89 8.00 8.00

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Spring 2014 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Spring 2017

Enro

llmen

t

Cohort

Overall Retention By Cohort

A

B1

B2

C1

C2

D1

D2

Interview

Accept

51

Updated: 6/18/2018

Program Fall 2016 S to F Spring 2017 F to S Fall 2017 S to F Spring 2018 F to S

Applied Health Science 9 1.1 6 0.67 3 0.5 3 1 Athletic Training (all) 33 1.6 29 0.88 29 1 30 1.03 Cardiovascular Tech (Clinical) 5 5 5 1 10 2 9 0.9 Exercise & Sport Science 42 1.6 37 0.88 34 0.92 34 1 Health Care Admin 26 1.5 20 0.77 13 0.65 13 1 Pre-Cardiovascular Tech 11 1.1 13 1.18 14 1.08 14 1 Sport &Fitness Admin 1 4 4 6 1.5 6 1

*this charts includes all students in a declared major (including those not yet accepted into the program

Narrative Program retention met the target this academic year, as 100% of students retained in all three levels. With the impending transition to the MSAT, we did not admit any students this year. Those enrollment targets may need to be revised in the future. All three graduating seniors did so in four years.

Plan

• Begin the transition to the 3+2 masters program in the fall 2017. No new students will be admitted into the ATRG program until summer 2019.

• We will continue to participate in HOSA Healthcare Occupation Day and speak at local high schools as recruiting efforts to attract students interested in the profession.

• Host a high school athletic training symposium on campus. • Utilize the new office of marketing and the ATCAS system to improve brand awareness.

Timeline for Improvement • HOSA Healthcare Occupations Day will be April 2019. (J. Fouts, E. McKinney, and A. Dondanville) • The goal is to speak to at least two admissions events in 2018-2019. (J. Fouts and A. Dondanville) • Meet with marketing and ATCAS in June 2018 (A. Dondanville)

52

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG3; SLO2; M4 Overall Description Senior Exit Survey/Placement Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S,K,A Objectives Measured All Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark students will score 80% of program attributes at 5.25 and will have post-graduation placements secured within 6mo of graduating Sample Size and Source Graduating Seniors

Results

2015 2016 2017 2018 Average 5.05 5.03 5.66 5.7 Preparation for field 4.90 4.81 5.66 5.83 Diverse Coursework 5.54 4.90 5.63 5.66 Professional Exploration 4.63 4.72 5.40 5.72

Faculty Current 5 5.27 5.9 5.38 Employment Prospects 5.18 5.45 5.66 5.88

% on target 2017 2018 ATRG 83 100 CVTE-BS 67 86 CVTE-ND 50 EXSS 67 100 HCAD-Ath 50 33 HCAD-Dem 0

APHS 67 SFAD 100

53

Updated: 6/18/2018

Did you complete an internship or work in your anticipated field while in school?

2015 2016 2017 2018

None 8 8 8 4 Internship 1 1 7 4 Compass Points 0 7 7 Worked 2 2 5 6 Clinical Education 6 7

In the first 6 months following graduation, what will you do?

2015 2016 2017 2018

Attend UG college

2 2 1 Attend grad school 2 2 6 7 Work as GA in field

1 2 2

Work as GA out of field Work in field 9 7 17 7 Other work 7 4 Undecided/Not employed

2

54

Updated: 6/18/2018

Do you plan to complete additional degrees?

2015 2016 2017 2018

None 3 3 11 7 BA/BS 1 3 NURS 1 2 1 1 MS/MA/MAT 1 3 9 4 MBA 6 2 2 2 PhD/EdD/Other Professional 1 8 5

Have you completed (or plan to complete) additional professional certifications before or after graduating from Piedmont College?

2015 2016 2017 2018 None 9 6 15 10 Other 1 2 CSCS/PES 3 4 1 Personal Trainer or Group Exer. Leader 4 5 1 OrthoTech

1 1

CVTE 2 3 3 BOC ATC

8 4

Narrative

This goal was met, as 100% of ATHL students’ responses met the target. The average number of students scoring the program on target increased by 22 percentage points from last year. All but four students also completed some form of experiential learning activity, and all but two report having employment or graduate school placement secured. However, not all graduating seniors completed the survey, and as it is anonymous, we are unsure if those who did not complete it have employment or not.

Plan • Repeat the survey next year as distributed this year. Timeline for Improvement • This survey will be given in Spring 2019. (J. Koshuta and A.Dondanville)

55

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG3; SLO2; M5 Overall Description Alumni Survey Skill, Knowledge, Attitude S,K,A Objectives Measured All Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark respondents will score 80% of program attributes at 4.0 and 75% will have taken and passed the BOC. Sample Size and Source All Alumni Results This survey was not administered in 2016-2017; it will be given for the first time in 2019-2020. Narrative n/a Plan n/a Timeline for Improvement n/a

56

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG3; SLO2; M6 Overall Description Faculty Evaluations Skill, Knowledge, Attitude n/a Objectives Measured n/a Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark 100% of faculty will score 75% or higher across all evaluations (not average) Sample Size and Source All Faculty currently assigned students in courses containing ATRG competencies.

Results

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

All 85 81 97 90 Full-Time 81 79 97 89 Part-Time 100 100 100 100

0102030405060708090

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Faculty Evaluation Targets

Full-Time

Part-Time

Target

All

57

Updated: 6/18/2018

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Dondanville, Abbey 89.5 97 96 94 Fouts, Jeremy 85.1 88 91 87 McKinney, Erika 91.3 99 97 99 McKinney, Matt

91 99

Narrative When using all scores across all classes taught, this goal was not met, as only 94% of evaluations met the target. This is a 2 point reduction from last year. Interestingly, of the 77 evaluations completed, only 5 fell below 75%, and all Part-time instructors outscored Full-time faculty.

Plan • The students are having difficulty relating class activities to the BOC examination and have requested additional formal test practice. • Students want additional hands-on practice for skills beyond the in-class labs; therefore, we will add “open lab” time during the week

again for students to come in and practice/ask questions.


• The faculty will schedule “open lab” time during the week and on Sundays as interest dictates to allow students additional guided hands-on practice. (A. Dondanville, J. Fouts, E. McKinney)

• The practicum classes will be reevaluated/redesigned to include additional “test-like” situations for both scenario/simulation assessment and dedicated skill practice. (J. Fouts)

0102030405060708090

100

Aver

age

Scor

e

Faculty Evaluation Targets

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Target

58

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG4; SLO3; M7 Reflection Rubric

Description Piedmont 1101 Community Service Reflection Paper

Objectives Measured PG4, SLO3, QEP4, QEP6


Benchmark (Criteria for Success) 80% of students will score ≥2.0 on the rubric

Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in PDMT1101

Results

Narrative This assessment measure will be implemented in 2018-2019.

Plan •

Timeline for Improvement •

59

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG2; SLO1; M8 Reflection Rubric

Description Capstone Reflection Paper



Benchmark (Criteria for Success) 80% of students will score ≥3.0 on the rubric

Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in HSCS4450 and ATRG4420

Results

2018 All 87 APHS 100 ATRG 67 CVTE 88 EXSS HCAD-Ath HCAD-Dem 100 SFAD

0102030405060708090

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Capstone Reflection Targets

2018

2019

2020

2021

Target

60

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative This assessment measure was implemented for the first time in 2017-2018. It is important to note that this measure is on a 4-point scale, while all others are on a 5-point scale. This target was not met, as only 67% (2 of 3) students met the goal score on the rubric. Since it is the first year of data collection and the sample is small, the same assessment will be implemented in 2018-2019.

Plan • Continue data collection in Spring 2019 (A. Dondanville, J. Koshuta)

Timeline for Improvement • Continue data collection in Spring 2019 (A. Dondanville, J. Koshuta)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Capstone Reflection Section Scores

2018

2019

2020

2021

Target

61

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG4;SLO3;M3 Through civic engagement, personal growth, and ethical reasoning, students will demonstrate responsible, global citizenship by upholding high professional standards.

Description Capstone Paper






Results

2015 2016 2017 2018 All 62 80 96 88 APHS 100 100 100 ATRG 100 100 CVTE 100 63 EXSS 100 100 100 HCAD-Ath 83 80 75 100 HCAD-Dem 43 50 100 100 SFAD 100

0102030405060708090

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Capstone Paper Targets

2015

2016

2017

2018

Target

62

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative

This goal was met, as 88% of all students and 100% of ATHL students met the target on the rubric. This does represent a small decline for the group from last year due to a few low-performing students in a different program (but ATHL remain unchanged). However, individual section scores showed weaknesses in “evidence”, “discussion”, and the statistical analysis, with many students failing to connect their findings to previous research. The general grammar and paper mechanics were slightly improved from last year.

Plan • Reiterate the paper outline in both this course and HSCS4410 so students are more clear for “what goes where” • Use the OWL at Purdue as a resource.

Timeline for Improvement • The general paper outline will be given more weight and peer-review time in HSCS4410 in the Fall 2018. (A. Dondanville)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Capstone Paper Section Scores

2015

2016

2017

2018

Target

63

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG4;SLO3;M8 Through civic engagement, personal growth, and ethical reasoning, students will demonstrate responsible, global citizenship by upholding high professional standards.

Description Capstone Presentation






Results

2015 2016 2017 2018 All 100 95 89 88 APHS 100 100 100 ATRG 100 100 CVTE 67 75 EXSS 100 90 100 HCAD-A 100 80 75 100 HCAD-D 100 100 100 100 SFAD 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Capstone Presentation Targets

2015

2016

2017

2018

Target

64

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative This goal was met, as 88% of all students and 100% of ATHL students met the target on the rubric. This represents no change for the group as a whole or for ATHL majors. With the exception of ‘organization and visual aids’ which improved significantly (4.4 to 5.0) from last year, all other measures were virtually unchanged.

Plan • Reiterate the paper outline in both this course and HSCS4410 so students are more clear for “what goes where” • Use the OWL at Purdue as a resource.

Timeline for Improvement • The general paper outline will be given more weight and peer-review time in HSCS4410 in the Fall 2018. (A. Dondanville)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Capstone Presentation Section Scores

2015

2016

2017

2018

Target

65

Updated: 6/18/2018

PG2;SLO1;M9 Students will integrate knowledge, skills, and values from the arts and sciences to engage in critical and creative dialogue through discovery, analysis, and communication.

Description Fitness Assessment Project

Objectives Measured PG3, SLO1





Results

2016 2017 2018 All 97 100 96

EXSS 100 100 92 ATRG 100 100 100 SFAD 100 APHS 86 100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

All EXSS ATRG SFAD APHS%

Mee

ting

Targ

et

Fitness Assessment Project Targets

2016

2017

2018

Target

66

Updated: 6/18/2018

Narrative This goal was met, as 96% of all students overall and 100% of ATHL students met the target on the rubric. While this is a slight decrease from last year for the group (representing one student falling below the mark), it is the 3rd year of 100% performance for ATHL majors. The weakest portion of the project was the correct use of citations.

Plan • Based on student feedback, the project will be slightly modified next year to include a more developed programming component. A ‘refresher’ on how to cite using both AMA and APA styles will also be included early in the course.

Timeline for Improvement • This assignment will be given in Fall 2018. (A. Dondanville)

012345

Aver

age

Scor

e

Fitness Assessment Project Section Scores

2016

2017

2018

Target

Documents

1 Outcome Assessment Plan: Athletic Training Education€¦ · 18/06/2018 · 3.2 Adapt evidence-based practice concepts when making clinical decisions and critically examining athletic