J Educ Eval Health Prof.  2016;13:17. 10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.17.

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

• Riley SP
• Covington
• Landry MD
• McCallum C
• Engelhard
• Cook CE

• KMID: 2413766
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.17

Abstract

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.

Keyword

Accreditation; Licensure; Physical therapy modalities; Students; United States

MeSH Terms

Accreditation
Classification
Education
Financial Management*
Humans
Licensure
Physical Therapists*
Physical Therapy Modalities
United States*

Reference

References

1. CollegeData. Understanding college selectivity [Internet]. North Sioux City (SD): CollegeData;2016. [cited 2016 Feb 29]. Available from: http://www.com/cs/content/content_choosearticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10004.

2. Pascarella ET, Cruce T, Umbach PD, Wolniak GC, Kuh GD, Carini RM, Hayek JC, Gonyea RM, Zhao CM. Institutional selectivity and good practices in undergraduate education: how strong is the link? J Higher Educ. 2006; 77:251–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0016.

3. Wheeler E, Arena R. The impact of feeder school selectivity on predicting academic success in an allied health professional program. J Allied Health. 2009; 38:e79–e83.

4. Commission on Accreditation of Physical Therapy Education. 2014-15 Fact sheet: physical therapist education programs [Internet]. Alexandria (VA): Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education;2015. [cited 2016 Feb 4]. Available from: http://www.org/uploadedfiles/capteorg/about_capte/resources/aggregate_program_data/aggregateprogramdata_ptprograms.pdf.

5. Gordon J. 45th Mary McMillan lecture: if greatness is a goal…. Phys Ther. 2014; 94:1518–1230. http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.2014.mcmillan.lecture.

6. Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. Position papers: accreditation handbook [Internet]. Alexandria (VA): Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education;2015. [cited 2016 Feb 27]. Available from: http://www.org/uploadedFiles/CAPTEorg/About_CAPTE/Resources/Accreditation_Handbook/PositionPapers.pdf.

7. Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy. 2012 NPTE candidate handbook: an essential source of information [Internet]. Alexandria (VA): Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy;2015. [cited 2016 Mar 3]. Available from: http://www.org/FreeResources/NPTECandidateHandbook.aspx.

8. Hoxby CM. The changing selectivity of American colleges. J Econ Perspect. 2009; 23:95–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.23.4.95.

9. StartClass. Compare physical therapy schools [Internet]. [place unknown]: StartClass;2016. [cited 2016 Mar 3]. Available from: http://physical-therapy-schools.com/.

10. Edmonds D. College admissions: the myth of higher selectivity. Time [Internet]. 2013. Mar. 20. [cited 2016 Mar 3]; Education. Available from: http://ideas.com/2013/03/20/college-admissions-the-myth-of-higher-selectivity/.

11. Department of the Treasury, Department of Education. The economics if higher education: a report prepared by the Department of the Treasury with the Department of Education [Internet]. Washington (DC): Department of the Treasury;2011. [cited 2016 Feb 28]. Available from: https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of%20Higher%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf.

12. Kot FC, Hendel DD. Emergence and growth of professional doctorates in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia: a comparative analysis. Stud Higher Educ. 2012; 37:345–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.516356.

13. Merritt DJ. What happened to the class of 2010?: empirical evidence of structural change in the legal profession. Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series No. 290. Columbus (OH): Ohio State University Press;2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2577272.