Johnson, Chalik, Wallerstein

1. Comparing Outcomes of Professional Behavior in Traditional and
Collaborative Fieldwork Models
Caryn Johnson, MS, OTR/L, FAOTA; Sandee Chalik, MS, OTR/L; Genna Wallerstein, MS OTR/L
PURPOSE
This study is part of ongoing research to support the
collaborative model of fieldwork education(CMFE) as an
effective pedagogy for level II fieldwork. It supports the
Centennial Vision by promoting expanded training of OT
students to satisfy the need for occupational therapists in
today’s society.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE
• Strong professional behavior skills are critical to
successful completion of fieldwork (FW) and are integral
to the CMFE 1,2
• Evidence supports the use of the CMFE as a highly
successful model of FW education 3, 4, 5
• The CMFE maximizes the capacity for fieldwork education
by increasing numbers of students trained 5, 6
• FW educators have been reluctant to embrace this model
due to a lack of understanding and training 7, 8
REASEARCH
QUESTION
Is there a difference in professional behavior scores on level II fieldwork between
students who exclusively experienced the traditional 1:1 model and those who
experienced the collaborative model?
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
• Results show students perform equally on professional
behavior/communication, and overall performance
regardless of supervision model
• Support is given to the value of collaborative model;
FW educators may embrace CMFE without sacrificing
the value of FWII learning experience
• Limitations
• Groups were not randomized & were different in
size
• Groups included students from only TJU & took
place over 3 years.
• FWPE was designed as a pass/fail tool, and not
designed to measure beyond entry-level clinical
competency.
REFERENCES
Key points: The CMFE
• Train more than one student at a time
• Effective method for responding to shortage of
FW placements
• Students experience greater emphasis on
communication, team work, accountability, and
initiation, building their capacity for
professionalism, leadership and clinical
competency
• Growing body of evidence suggests CMFE is
highly effective and yields advantages over
traditional 1:1 model of supervision
Contact Information: caryn.johnson@jefferson.edu ; schalik@thenewgrange.org;
gwallerstein@thenewgrange.org
DESIGN AND
METHODS
• Retrospective, quasi-experimental design comparing two groups
• Convenience sampling of level II FW students from TJU
• CG= 139; experienced only the traditional model of supervision
• IG= 65; experienced at least one fieldwork with the CMFE.
• Fieldwork Performance Evaluation (FWPE) final and subcategory (professional
behavior and communication) scores from both level II placements were compared
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
RESULTS
Means of FWPE Professional Behaviors/Communication
Scores for Both Groups
Traditional 1:1
Model
Collaborative Model
Mean
75.63
75.69
Standard
Deviation
5.92
5.36
n
139
65
Means of FWPE Totals for Both Groups
Traditional 1:1
Model
Collaborative Model
Mean*
275.32
279.48
Standard
Deviation
16.54
16.25
n
139
65
*no difference in means between groups *Mean trend showing Collaborative Model FWPE scores slightly
higher than Traditional 1:1 Model scores.
t-Test Results
t
0.08
p
0.47*
t-Test Results
t
1.68
p
0.469*
*no significant difference between traditional 1:1
model and CMFE professional behaviors/
communication scores; t(202)= 0.08, p=0.47.
*no significant difference between
traditional 1:1 model and CMFE final
FWPE scores; t(202) = 1.68, p=0.05.
Impact on Fieldwork Education:
• This study supports the effectiveness of
the collaborative model
• The collaborative model can help to
address the shortage of fieldwork sites
without sacrificing quality
• Increased use of the collaborative
model will build capacity for training
level II fieldwork students, thus
supporting the Centennial Vision.
• Does CMFE enhance productivity?
• Which practice environments are more receptive to implementing the CMFE?
• Does CMFE produce a workforce better suited to the changing healthcare
environment?
1. (Koenig et al, 2003;
2. Hayes et all, 2014)
3. Hubbard et al, 2007). CJ
4. Ladyshewsky, R.K. (2010)
5. Secomb, J. (2008)
6. Rindflesch, A., et al (2009)
7. Dawes, J., Lambert, P. (2010)
8. O’Connor, A., et al, (2012)
Do Not Copy Without Permission