Matching Student Abilities to Level II Fieldwork Sites

PURPOSE: The role of academic fieldwork coordinator (AFWC) is complex and includes individually matching students to Level II fieldwork sites (Stutz-Tannenbaum, Hanson, Koski, & Greene, 2015). The literature suggests that a good match between student and site is correlated with higher student satisfaction and higher technical skills (Giberson, Black, & Pinkerton, 2008). The literature also identifies what both AFWCs and students consider important during site selection (Gangaway & Stancanelli, 2007). However, there is no information about what fieldwork educators (FWE) believe are student characteristics or abilities that enable success at the FWE’s individual work site, and there are no guidelines for the AFWC about how to make a successful match.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not there are differences between settings in regard to what characteristics and abilities may facilitate a student’s success at a specific site in order to better inform the match process. The research question is, What student characteristics and abilities do fieldwork educators feel are most important for a match to specific fieldwork settings?

METHOD: This is a descriptive study that used a convenience snowball sample and a survey distributed using Survey Monkey (San Mateo, CA). Respondents were fieldwork educators from The Ohio State University’s database as well as recruited through word of mouth from other schools, fieldwork sites, and social media. A five-point Likert scale was used to ask FWEs how important it is for a student to possess each of 25 characteristics or abilities to enable success at the FWE individual work site. Respondents also provided years of clinical experience, number of past students supervised, and setting characteristics and demands.

RESULTS: Descriptive and correlational statistics were used to analyze results. Responses totaled 343 and were received from 30 states. The top five ranked characteristics and abilities overall were time management (4.57), ability to communicate with supervisor when help is needed (4.52), overall professional behavior (4.51), ability to make change based on supervisor feedback (4.46), and flexibility (4.46). Using Mann–Whitney U tests for nonparametric data, statistically significant differences were found in answers between several settings in the study. Acute care, compared to a school setting, placed higher value on a student’s ability to multitask; demonstrate initiative; communicate with other allied health providers, physicians, and supervisors; handle medically complex patients and equipment; respond to changes in a patient during the same treatment session; transfer low-level patients; and work with culturally diverse and non-English-speaking patients (p < .05). Pediatric hospital settings were most similar to adult acute settings over any other pediatric setting. Inpatient psychiatry and community mental health showed similar answers. Outpatient orthopedic and outpatient neurological settings differed in the skill of transferring low-level patients (p < .05). Skilled nursing differed from rehab in six characteristics and had less importance placed on all six (p < .05).

CONCLUSION: The statistical differences in importance of desired student characteristics and abilities between fieldwork settings lends weight to the assertion that AFWC should consider matching students’ abilities to the demands of settings when placing students at Level II fieldwork sites. Top-ranking student characteristics may also guide schools in establishing admissions criteria and skill development throughout the curriculum.

References

Gangaway, J. M. K., & Stancanelli, J. M. (2007). Factors influencing student decision-making for clinical site selection. Journal of Allied Health, 36, 124–141.

Giberson, T. R., Black, B., & Pinkerton, E. (2008). The impact of student–clinical instructor fit and student–organization fit on physical therapist clinical education experience outcomes. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 22, 59–66.

Stutz-Tanenbaum, P., Hanson, D. J., Koski, J., & Greene, D. (2015). Exploring the complexity of the academic fieldwork coordinator role. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 29, 139–152. https://doi.org/10.3109/07380577.2015.1017897