Development,Reliability,and Validity of the Occupational Therapy Self-Efficacy of Clinical Competence (OT

Abstract

Importance: There is a lack of reliable and valid tools to measure self-efficacy of clinical competence in didactic occupational therapy education.

Objective: To determine the content validity, test–retest reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, and factor structure of the Occupational Therapy Self-Efficacy of Clinical Competence (OT–SECC) assessment.

Design: A cross-sectional psychometric study.

Setting: Two higher education institutions in the northeastern United States.

Participants: Ninety-two first- and second-year master’s-level occupational therapy students.

Outcomes and Measures: The 12-item OT–SECC was developed to measure self-efficacy of clinical competence on a 10-point sliding scale ranging from 0 (cannot do at all) to 10 (highly certain can do). The OT–SECC was psychometrically evaluated using classical test theory approaches.

Results: Overall, results support the reliability and validity of the OT–SECC. For instance, the assessment had good test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation [ICC(2,1) = 0.817, p < .001) and acceptable internal consistency across its two factors (αs = .838 and .923, respectively). The OT–SECC also demonstrated convergent validity across two administrations when compared with a similar assessment, the Physiotherapist Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (rs = .67 and .61, ps < .001, respectively).

Conclusions and Relevance: The OT–SECC is a psychometrically sound assessment that may be used by occupational therapy programs to examine students’ self-efficacy of clinical competence before attending fieldwork.

Plain-Language Summary: There is an increasing responsibility for occupational therapy graduate education programs to prepare students for clinical practice. Although experiential learning activities are commonly used to teach these clinical skills, there are few valid and reliable tools to measure their effectiveness. To address this, the researchers developed the Occupational Therapy Self-Efficacy of Clinical Competence (OT–SECC) assessment. Findings show that the OT–SECC exhibits acceptable content validity, test–retest reliability, convergent validity, internal consistency, and construct validity. The assessment can be used by faculty to select instructional methods, refine experiential learning activities, assist with individual student advisement, and evaluate program effectiveness.

The Occupational Therapy Self-Efficacy of Clinical Competence assessment can be used by faculty to select instructional methods, refine experiential learning activities, assist with individual student advisement, and evaluate program effectiveness.

The aim of occupational therapy education is to prepare students to be entry-level therapists, which includes the development of hands-on clinical skills through a combination of didactic and fieldwork (FW) education. Historically, Level 1 FW experiences have primarily been completed on-site at clinical facilities where students were introduced to clinical skills in situ. However, a confluence of factors has contributed to changes in how FW is delivered. Continued growth in the number of accredited occupational therapy programs has contributed to a national shortage of FW placements and fewer on-site Level 1 opportunities (DeIuliis et al., 2021; Evenson et al., 2015; Roberts & Simon, 2012). Additionally, changes in health care delivery, including increased documentation and productivity demands, have left FW educators with less time to supervise students (Bethea et al., 2014; Casares et al., 2003; DeIuliis et al., 2021; Lala, 2021). There is also increased emphasis on patient safety in health care, which limits what a FW student is allowed to do and results in an increased burden on the practitioner to document patient safety interventions (Bethea et al., 2014). These external influences have resulted in redefining Level 1 FW placements, often with the responsibility of clinical skill development placed within the educational institution. Additionally, in the current clinical climate, FW educators largely expect occupational therapy students to already possess and be ready to apply several professional and clinical skills at the onset of their Level 2 FW experience (Mason et al., 2020).

Level 1 FW may include supervision by a FW educator in a practice environment or a variety of nontraditional experiential learning activities and instructional methods, such as virtual environments, simulation, standardized patients, faculty practice, and faculty-led site visits (Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education [ACOTE^®], 2023). It is important to ensure that there are tools to measure the effectiveness of these experiential learning activities in preparing students for clinical practice. Traditional methods of student assessment, such as assignments, examinations, and clinical practicums are only weakly associated with students’ future clinical performance (Avi-Itzhak & Krauss, 2014). Moreover, studies indicate that faculty ratings often have poor interrater reliability and are susceptible to expectation bias, where a favorable impression of a student can result in inflated grades (Eisenburg, 1989; La Chimea et al., 2020; Norman et al., 2002). There is a shortage of reliable and valid measures that can identify which learning activities best prepare students for clinical practice. Thus, we developed the Occupational Therapy Self-Efficacy of Clinical Competence (OT–SECC).

We chose two initial constructs to guide the development of the OT–SECC: clinical competence (Miller, 1990) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Clinical competence is defined as a practitioner’s ability to meet the needs of clients by applying knowledge, technical skills, and interpersonal skills to make sound clinical judgments using critical thinking and metacognitive abilities (Immonen et al., 2019; Meehan, 2017; Meretoja et al., 2004). Miller’s (1990) framework for assessment of clinical competence is the theoretical foundation that supports the use of the construct of clinical competence in medical education. He proposed a hierarchical model in which each level of assessment becomes increasingly complex. At the top of the pyramid is the “does” or “action” phase. This phase reflects what occurs in daily practice (Miller, 1990). In this framework, the does–action phase represents what most occupational therapy educators hope for when they state that a student is clinically competent. However, this final phase is the most difficult to measure from an academic standpoint (Miller, 1990). It is a challenge for educators to assess the level of competence a student will truly demonstrate once they are practicing independently.

When reviewing the literature on constructs that measure clinical competence in the does–action phase, we found that self-efficacy was a good measure and predictor of future clinical performance (Mann et al., 2012; Watters et al., 2015). Therefore, we chose self-efficacy as the second construct of interest. Self-efficacy is not part of Miller’s (1990) framework; however, connections can be made between the does–action phase, which represents future clinical performance, and self-efficacy, which has evidence to support its use as a predictor of clinical performance.

Self-efficacy can be defined as one’s perception or belief that a specific goal can be accomplished. This belief influences the individual’s actions and behaviors and ultimately affects their ability to be successful in a specific task (Bandura, 1977). The literature supports that measuring students’ self-efficacy can predict their future success because positive self-efficacy is crucial for behavior modification and can affect goal setting, effort, motivation, persistence, and resilience (Bandura, 2006; Cervone, 2000; Zimmerman et al., 1992). Higher self-efficacy is linked with higher-level skill attainment; therefore, measuring self-efficacy for experiential learning is a good predictor for skills and knowledge (Bandura, 1986; Kneebone et al., 2007; Schunk, 1989). Self-efficacy was found to have the strongest correlation to academic success, as measured by grade-point average, in a meta-analysis of more than 240 psychological factors (Richardson et al., 2012).

There are several valid assessments of self-efficacy; however, many of these are general measurements of self-efficacy and are not skill specific (Axboe et al., 2016; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995; Sherer et al., 1982). Bandura (2006) warned against the use of general self-efficacy assessments, stating that they have less predictive value because the questions are not in tune with the demands of the intended skill area. Therefore, for this study, we chose self-efficacy of clinical competence as the specific type of self-efficacy that would be addressed.

Self-efficacy of clinical competence scales have been established for disciplines such as nursing, physical therapy, and medical education; however, the skill sets for these professions differ from those required for occupational therapy (Cheraghi et al., 2009; Kang et al., 2019; Leighton et al., 2015; Stickley et al., 2019; van Lankveld et al., 2017; Venskus & Craig, 2017; Williams et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2021). To our knowledge, there are no reliable and valid assessments that measure self-efficacy of clinical competence for occupational therapy students before entering FW.

Research supports that measuring self-efficacy of clinical competence is a viable method to evaluate the perceived effectiveness of experiential learning in health care fields (Fawa & Alsalamah, 2022; Li et al., 2019; Watters et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2021). However, most of the research on this topic has been done in the nursing field. Higher self-efficacy has also been found to be correlated with higher levels of future clinical competence in the nursing, physician assistant, and physical therapy disciplines (Lin, 2015; Opacic, 2003; Utsey, 2006). Overall, there is strong evidence to support that higher self-efficacy is a predictor for academic success, work performance, and clinical competence in related health care fields.

Within occupational therapy, there is research examining the self-efficacy of clinical competence after engagement in experiential learning activities (Baird et al., 2015, Bebeau, 2016: Espiritu et al., 2020). Existing evidence supports measuring the self-efficacy of clinical competence as a method to determine perceived effectiveness of experiential learning; however, existing studies have not used reliable and valid assessments. We developed the OT–SECC to fill this gap. The purposes of this study were (1) to develop an occupational therapy–specific assessment to measure self-efficacy in clinical competence and (2) to estimate the assessment’s reliability and validity. The following research question was used to guide this study: Does the OT–SECC demonstrate adequate reliability and validity for measuring self-efficacy in clinical competence?

Method

The development of the OT–SECC was conducted in two phases: (1) assessment development and (2) psychometric testing. Approval was obtained from the Clarkson University and Seton Hall University institutional review boards, and all participants completed an informed consent form.

Phase 1: Assessment Development

Development of the OT–SECC was a 24-mo process guided by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), an international standard that provides criteria for the evaluation of outcome measurements that has been used as an outline for the development of a sound assessment (Mokkink et al., 2010; Prinsen et al., 2018). The OT–SECC was developed in three steps.

Step 1: Analysis of Available Measurements

After the identification of constructs, we conducted an extensive review to determine the availability of measures of self-efficacy of clinical competence in occupational therapy. ProQuest, CINAHL, ERIC, and PubMed were searched using the terms occupational therapy, simulation, experiential learning, self-efficacy, and clinical competence. We found that existing assessments were specific to either the medical or the nursing professions and, in large, discipline-specific measures lacked reliability and validity.

Step 2: Question and Rating Scale Development

Questions were developed using the Fieldwork Performance Evaluation (FWPE; American Occupational Therapy Association [AOTA], 2020b) as a guiding document. Three authors (Karen D. Hoover, Alicia M. MacGregor, and Lisa J. Sheikovitz) conducted a line-by-line analysis of the skills assessed in each domain of the FWPE, excluding skills that were only measurable during clinical affiliations. These domains are listed in Table 1 and apply to both the occupational therapy and the occupational therapy assistant FWPEs (AOTA, 2020a, 2020b). We then analyzed the remaining items and developed a list of specific occupational therapy skills that could be addressed in an academic setting.

Table 1.

Comparison of FWPE Domain Areas and OT–SECC Items

FWPE Domain Area	OT–SECC Items
Fundamentals of practice	1. I can maintain safety during client interactions.
Basic tenets	2. I can communicate the role of occupational therapy to clients/families.
Screening and evaluation	3. I can perform an occupational profile with a client. 4. I can perform an evaluation to assess client factors.
Intervention	5. I can establish an appropriate client-centered intervention plan. 6. I can provide occupation-based interventions with clients. 7. I can modify interventions in response to client performance.
Management of occupational therapy services	8. I can collaborate with health service professionals as applicable to benefit the client.
Communication and professional behaviors	9. I can accurately record observations and findings following client interactions. 10. I can communicate effectively with others (clients, caregivers, team members). 11. I can use therapeutic use of self to meet the needs of clients. 12. I can act with respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion during professional encounters.

Note. FWPE = Fieldwork Performance Evaluation; OT–SECC = Occupational Therapy Self-Efficacy of Clinical Competence.

Next, using a line-by-line analysis, we examined the items in nine comparable assessments of self-efficacy (see Table 2). Each scale was analyzed to determine its alignment with the FWPE domains and ability to assess skills measurable in academic settings. Only one scale, the Perceptions of Fieldwork Preparedness Study (Espiritu et al., 2020), addressed all FWPE domains, but the skills assessed were not measurable in an academic setting. The remaining scales did not include one or more of the domains.

Table 2.

Alignment Between Assessments of Self-Efficacy and FWPE Domains

Scale	FWPE Domains
Scale	1	2	3	4	5	6
General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995)				X
Health Professionals Communication Skills Scale (Axboe et al., 2016)						X
New General Self Efficacy Scale (Chen et al., 2001)			X	X
Perceptions of Fieldwork Preparedness Survey (Espiritu et al., 2020)	X	X	X	X	X	X
Physiotherapist Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (van Lankveld et al., 2017)			X	X		X
Self-Efficacy of Student Physical Therapist Outcomes Survey (Stickley et al., 2019)				X
Self-Efficacy Scale for Clinical Reasoning (Venskus & Craig, 2017)			X	X		X
Simulation Effectiveness Tool – Modified (Leighton et al., 2015)	X		X	X		X
Student Confidence Scale (Derdall et al., 2002)		X		X		X

Note. The FWPE domains are as follows: 1 = fundamentals of practice; 2 = basic tenets; 3 = screening and evaluation; 4 = intervention; 5 = management of occupational therapy services; 6 = communication and professional behaviors. FWPE = Fieldwork Performance Evaluation.

The outcome of both analyses was an 11-item assessment encompassing all FWPE domains and reflecting the identified competency skills (see Table 1). For each item, we chose to use a 10-point sliding scale ranging from with 0 (cannot do at all), with a midpoint at 5 (moderately can do), to 10 (highly certain can do), which conforms to Bandura’s (2006) recommendation to measure self-efficacy on a multiple-level scale.

Step 3: Determine Content Validity

Content validity was assessed by a panel of six experts that included occupational therapy practitioners and scholars with research agendas focusing on experiential learning from across the United States. The panel was provided with the purpose of the assessment, definitions of the pertinent constructs, and instructions for completing the review. The survey included four nominal questions and one open-ended question to be completed for each OT–SECC test item, for a total of 55 questions (44 nominal questions and 11 open-ended questions).

The expert panel had 100% agreement on 40 of 44 nominal questions on the survey. The four responses that did not have 100% agreement still met the 80% agreement threshold. Overall, the results of the content validation survey indicated that experts found the survey to be clear and worded without bias, that it measured self-efficacy of the specific skills, and that the questions contributed to the overall measurement of self-efficacy of clinical competence. Expert feedback resulted in the addition of an item, “I can accurately record observations and findings following client interactions,” increasing the number of OT–SECC items to 12.

Phase 2: Psychometric Evaluation

Participants

The psychometric properties of the OT–SECC were measured with a sample recruited from both first- and second-year students enrolled in Master of Occupational Therapy programs from two private universities in the northeastern United States (Clarkson University and Seton Hall University). All students were in the didactic phase of their education, and none had completed Level 2 FW at the time of the study. The whole population of occupational therapy students from both universities was invited to be part of the sample; however, participants were able to self-select to participate in the study. To mitigate the risks associated with faculty–student relationships, such as undue influence, coercion, or reprisal for not volunteering to participate, all recruitment was conducted by a non–occupational therapy faculty member who was not involved with the study. Recruitment was conducted via information sessions and use of a script at the beginning or the end of an occupational therapy class. Students were provided with a paper copy of the consent form, and the form was read aloud by the recruiting faculty member. Students were informed that their participation was voluntary and not linked to a grade, that data would be deidentified before analysis, and that they could opt out of the study at any time without penalty.

Procedure

The OT–SECC was administered via Qualtrics a total of three times (14 days before, 1 day before, and 1 day after a simulation experience). The first two administrations were used to estimate the OT–SECC’s test–retest reliability, which involved administering the same assessment to the same group of participants at different times (DeVon et al., 2007). Participant-chosen identifiers were used to match data between administrations. The correlation between the participants’ two scores indicates the stability of the OT–SECC. The time interval between administrations was 2 wk, which was deemed long enough that participants would not remember their original responses (DeVon et al., 2007) but not so long that their self-efficacy of clinical competence would be altered during that time.

To estimate convergent validity, or the correlation between the OT–SECC and an existing validated tool designed to measure the same theoretical constructs (DeVon et al., 2007), participants completed the Physiotherapist Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (van Lankveld et al., 2017) concurrently with the second and third administrations of the OT–SECC. Between the second and third administrations of both assessments, participants received one of three planned simulation experiences. The simulation experiences were all formative and incorporated standardized patients. Depending on semester, simulation activities included conducting an occupational profile, assessing and intervening with an adult client, and intervening with a pediatric patient. The objectives and design of each simulation event were consistent across both universities.

Data Analysis

Because of the voluntary nature of participation in this study, some students chose not to complete the assessments at all three intervals. Therefore, the total number of participants varied by administration. Additionally, some participants completed more than one simulation experience during the study period. These repeated measures resulted in a larger sample for the convergent validity analyses. Incomplete OT–SECC and Physiotherapist Self-Efficacy Questionnaire forms were excluded from data analysis.

Test–retest reliability was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). ICC values from 0 to 0.49 were considered weak; 0.50 to 0.74, moderate; 0.75 to 0.89, good; and 0.90 to 1.0, excellent (Koo & Li, 2016). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s α; values <.70 were considered not acceptable and values ≥.70 were considered satisfactory (Bland & Altman, 1997). Convergent validity was assessed by comparing participants’ total scores on the OT–SECC with their total scores on the Physiotherapist Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (van Lankveld et al., 2017). Correlation coefficients were interpreted as follows: <.30, little if any; .31 to .49, low; .50 to .69, moderate; .70 to .89, high; and >.90, excellent (Asuero et al., 2006). Exploratory factor analysis was conducted using principal-components analysis. To aid in the factor retention decision, a parallel analysis was conducted. Parallel analysis, which is less prone to overextraction of factors than traditional rules of thumb (Hayton et al., 2004), involves comparing eigenvalues from actual data with eigenvalues obtained from randomly generated data with the same sample size. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29).

Results

A total of 92 participants, or 74% of the total population from four cohorts of students, consented to participate in the study. Student demographic data were not collected because of the homogeneity of the sample, which could lead to participants being identified. Table 3 provides demographic data for the recruited study population and comparison data from the AOTA Academic Programs Annual Data Report, which provides demographic data for the national population of occupational therapy master’s students (Harvison, 2024). The demographic data between the populations are comparable.

Table 3.

Demographic Data From National Occupational Therapy Programs and the Sampling Frame

Student Demographic Categories From the AOTA Annual Report	%
Student Demographic Categories From the AOTA Annual Report	National Sample	Sampling Frame
Gender
Female	89	91
Male	10	9
Other	1	0
Ethnicity
Hispanic	11	16
Non-Hispanic	82	84
Race
American Indian or Alaskan Native	<1	0
Asian	8	8
Black	8	5
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander	<1	0
White	76	83
Missing or other	6	4

Note. AOTA = American Occupational Therapy Association.

Test–Retest Reliability

Test–retest reliability was assessed by comparing the results from the first two administrations of the OT–SECC approximately 2 wk apart. A total of 57 participants completed the entire OT–SECC during the first (M = 88.07, SD = 16.375) and second (M = 90.91, SD = 17.047) administrations, yielding good test–retest reliability, ICC(2,1) = 0.817, p < .001.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was assessed by comparing the relationship between the participants’ total scores on the OT–SECC and their total scores on the Physiotherapist Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (van Lankveld et al., 2017). During the first concurrent administration of the OT–SECC and Physiotherapist Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (van Lankveld et al., 2017), the assessments were moderately positively correlated (n = 101; r = .67, p < .001). During the second administration, which took place after a simulation event, the assessments were also moderately positively correlated (n = 103; r = .61, p < .001).

Construct Validity

To examine the underlying structure of the data, an exploratory factor analysis was performed using principal-components analysis as the extraction method. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test of all 12 items was .908, indicating that the sample was adequate for factor analysis. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < .001), indicating that the data had patterned relationships. The exploratory factor analysis resulted in two factors with eigenvalues >1.00 (6.515 and 1.387, respectively), which accounted for 65.85% of the total variance.

Given the relatively arbitrary nature of determining cutoffs related to variance explained and eigenvalues (Velicer et al., 2000), a parallel analysis was conducted and confirmed two factors. Varimax rotation was performed to aid in the interpretation of the factors. The loadings on each component after rotation showed a clear correspondence between items and factors, with each factor related to several items (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Results of the Factor Analysis of the OT–SECC

Factor and Items	Factor Loading
	1	2
	Factor 1: Knowledge/Technical Skill
3. I can perform an occupational profile with a client.	.61	.50
4. I can perform an evaluation to assess client factors.	.81	.27
5. I can establish an appropriate client-centered intervention plan.	.90	.21
6. I can provide occupation-based interventions with clients.	.92	.18
7. I can modify interventions in response to client performance.	.84	.27
8. I can collaborate with health service professionals as applicable to benefit the client.	.54	.52
9. I can accurately record observations and findings following client interactions.	.56	.53
Factor 2: Interpersonal Skills
1. I can maintain safety during client interactions.	.41	.57
2. I can communicate the role of occupational therapy to clients/families.	.34	.64
10. I can communicate effectively with others (clients, caregivers, team members).	.31	.73
11. I can use therapeutic use of self to meet the needs of clients.	.27	.72

Note. N = 283. Factor 1 accounted for 54.29% of the total variance with a Cronbach’s α of .92. Factor 2 accounted for 11.56% of the total variance with a Cronbach’s α of .84.

Discussion

The focus of this research was the development and psychometric testing of the OT–SECC, a discipline-specific assessment to measure student self-efficacy of clinical competence. Overall, the results support the reliability and validity of the OT–SECC. Before psychometric testing, content validity was established to determine that the assessment questions were clear and relevant and covered all areas of self-efficacy of clinical competence that are applicable to students in the didactic portion of their academic program.

Results of statistical analyses were overall confirmatory, indicating that the OT–SECC demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties for use in occupational therapy programs. Specifically, the OT–SECC demonstrated good test–retest reliability, with participants responding consistently between two administrations. Convergent validity between the OT–SECC and Physiotherapist Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (van Lankveld et al., 2017) was also acceptable, indicating that the OT–SECC is comparable to an existing valid and reliable measure of self-efficacy. Internal consistency was acceptable, demonstrating that items on the OT–SECC consistently measure the same construct. Finally, the exploratory factor analysis resulted in two factors, Knowledge/Technical Skill and Interpersonal Skill, which represents the dual nature of clinical competence and is consistent with the current conceptualization of the construct (Immonen et al., 2019; Meehan, 2017; Meretoja et al., 2004).

Implications for Occupational Therapy Education

The OT–SECC has multiple implications for use in occupational therapy academic programs. First, faculty can use this assessment to measure the relationship between instructional methods and changes in student self-efficacy, which can in turn inform faculty teaching practices. Second, the OT–SECC can assist faculty in refining experiential learning opportunities to maximize students’ growth in self-efficacy of clinical competence as they prepare students for clinical practice. A third application of this assessment could be for use in student advisement. OT–SECC scores can be used to facilitate discussions with students to develop a deeper understanding of their self-efficacy of clinical competence. Finally, occupational therapy programs can use the OT–SECC as an outcome measure for program evaluation. Current ACOTE (2023) standards require programs to collect quantitative and qualitative data to inform curricular decisions and ensure the overall health of programs. By measuring student changes in self-efficacy over time, the OT–SECC can inform curricular changes and enhance student support before the start of Level 2 FW. Self-efficacy has been used to drive curricular change and measure the impact of education interventions in pharmacy, nursing, and occupational therapy disciplines (Jensen, 2023; Plaza et al., 2002; Singh et al., 2023).

Limitations and Future Research

This study was constrained by the sole inclusion of Master of Occupational Therapy students from two private universities in the northeastern United States. The population included occupational therapy students from both universities; however, participants were able to self-select to participate in the study, introducing the possibility of self-selection bias. To further improve the reliability and validity of the OT–SECC, future research should include a more diverse sample of students from different education levels (i.e., occupational therapy doctorate and occupational therapy assistant), both public and private universities, and institutions in varied geographic regions. Homogeneity of the sample size also limited collection of demographic data, which ran the risk of becoming identifiable when examining demographic features. Future studies should collect demographic data across a larger population to establish cross-cultural validity among students of different ages, sexes, and ethnicities.

Future research should also seek to estimate the predictive validity of the OT–SECC. This line of inquiry would enable examination of whether faculty ratings of student performance and students’ performance on Level 2 FW are related to students’ OT–SECC scores during the didactic portion of their program.

Conclusion

The OT–SECC demonstrates solid psychometric properties and is a viable assessment for measuring occupational therapy students’ self-efficacy of clinical competence. The OT–SECC has the potential to be widely used by occupational therapy programs in evaluation of instructional methods, individual student remediation, and evaluation of program effectiveness related to the development of student self-efficacy of clinical competence.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Seton Hall University Simulation Department and the Occupational Therapy Department faculty of Clarkson University and Seton Hall University for their support of this project.

References

Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education. (2023). 2023 Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education (ACOTE®) standards and interpretive guide . https://acoteonline.org/accreditation-explained/standards/

American Occupational Therapy Association. (2020a). Fieldwork Performance Evaluation for the Occupational Therapy Assistant Student . https://www.aota.org/education/fieldwork/fieldwork-performance-evaluation

American Occupational Therapy Association. (2020b). Fieldwork Performance Evaluation for the Occupational Therapy Student . https://www.aota.org/education/fieldwork/fieldwork-performance-evaluation

Asuero

A. G.

Sayago

, & González

A. G.

(2006). The correlation coefficient: An overview. Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry, 36, 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408340500526766

Avi-Itzhak

, & Krauss

(2014). Assessing occupational therapy students’ clinical competence for entry-level work-related practice. Work, 47, 235–242. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-121571

Axboe

M. K.

Christensen

K. S.

Kofoed

P. E.

, & Ammentorp

(2016). Development and validation of a self-efficacy questionnaire (SE-12) measuring the clinical communication skills of health care professionals. BMC Medical Education, 16, 272. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0798-7

Baird

J. M.

Raina

K. D.

Rogers

J. C.

O’Donnell

Terhorst

, & Holm

M. B.

(2015). Simulation strategies to teach patient transfers: Self-efficacy by strategy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(Suppl. 2), 6912185030. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.018705

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.

10.

Bandura

(2006). Guidelines for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Pajares

& Urdan

(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age Publishing.

11.

Bebeau

(2016). Exploring the effectiveness of a virtual learning methodology in occupational therapy education (Publication No. 10029815) [Doctoral dissertation, Edgewood College. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global . https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/exploring-effectiveness-virtual-learning/docview/1773285465/se-2

12.

Bethea

D. P.

Castillo

D. C.

, & Harvison

(2014). Use of simulation in occupational therapy education: Way of the future? American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(Suppl. 2), S32–S39. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.012716

13.

Bland

J. M.

, & Altman

D. G.

(1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ, 314, 572. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572

14.

Casares

G. S.

Bradley

K. P.

Jaffe

L. E.

, & Lee

G. P.

(2003). Impact of the changing health care environment on fieldwork education: Perceptions of occupational therapy educators. Journal of Allied Health, 32, 246–251.

15.

Cervone

(2000). Thinking about self-efficacy. Behavior Modification, 24, 30–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445500241002

16.

Chen

Gully

S. M.

, & Eden

(2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004

17.

Cheraghi

Hassani

Yaghmaei

, & Alavi-Majed

(2009). Developing a valid and reliable self-efficacy in clinical performance scale. International Nursing Review, 56, 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-7657.2008.00685.x

18.

DeIuliis

E. D.

Persons

Laverdure

, & LeQuieu

E. D.

(2021). A nationwide descriptive study: Understanding roles, expectations, and supports of academic fieldwork coordinators in occupational therapy programs. Journal of Occupational Therapy Education, 5, 15. https://doi.org/10.26681/jote.2021.050415

19.

Derdall

Olson

Janzen

, & Warren

(2002). Development of a questionnaire to examine confidence of occupational therapy students during fieldwork experiences. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/000841740206900105

20.

DeVon

H. A.

Block

M. E.

Moyle-Wright

Ernst

D. M.

Hayden

S. J.

Lazzara

D. J.

, … Kostas-Polston

(2007). A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00161.x

21.

Eisenburg

J. M.

(1989). Evaluating internists’ clinical competence. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 4, 139–143.

22.

Espiritu

E. W.

Can

T. M.

Michaels

N. N.

Koch

, & Hallmark

B. F.

(2020). Effectiveness of instructor led discussion versus simulation to prepare students for fieldwork. Journal of Occupational Therapy Education, 4, 7. https://doi.org/10.26681/jote.2020.040407

23.

Evenson

M. E.

Roberts

Kaldenberg

Barnes

, & Ozelie

(2015). National survey of fieldwork educators: Implications for occupational therapy education. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69, 6912350020. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.019265

24.

Fawa

, & Alsalamah

(2022). Clinical competence and self-efficacy of Lebanese and Saudi nursing students participating in simulation-based learning in nursing. Nursing Forum, 57, 260–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12673

25.

Harvison

(2024). Academic programs annual data report academic year 2022–2023 . American Occupational Therapy Association. https://www.aota.org/-/media/corporate/files/educationcareers/educators/2022-2023-annual-data-report.pdf

26.

Hayton

J. C.

Allen

D. G.

, & Scarpello

(2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675

27.

Immonen

Oikarainen

Tomietto

Immonen

Oikarainen

Kääriäinen

, … Mikkonen

(2019). Assessment of nursing students’ competence in clinical practice: A systematic review of reviews. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 100, 103414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103414

28.

Jensen

M. J.

(2023). Increasing self-efficacy and engagement in occupational therapy education through the use of an unfolding case study curricular design. Journal of Occupational Therapy Education, 7, 9. https://doi.org/10.26681/jote.2023.070109

29.

Kang

Chang

C. H.

Kao

C. C.

Chen

C. Y.

, & Wu

C. C.

(2019). Development of a short and universal learning self-efficacy scale for clinical skills. PLoS ONE, 14, e0209155. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209155

30.

Kneebone

R. L.

Nestel

Vincent

, & Darzi

(2007). Complexity, risk and simulation in learning procedural skills. Medical Education, 41, 808–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02799.x

31.

Koo

T. K.

, & Li

M. Y.

(2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15, 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

32.

La Chimea

Kanji

, & Schmitz

(2020). Assessment of clinical competence in competency-based education. Canadian Journal of Dental Hygiene, 54, 83–91.

33.

Lala

S. J.

(2021). Occupational therapy stakeholders’ perspectives of level I fieldwork opportunities: A mixed methods comparison ( Publication No. 0000-0002-2749-708) Doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins Sheridan Libraries.

34.

Leighton

Ravert

Mudra

, & Macintosh

(2015). Updating the simulation effectiveness tool: Item modifications and reevaluation of psychometric properties. Nursing Education Perspectives, 36, 317–323. https://doi.org/10.5480/15-1671

35.

Zhang

Zhao

Cai

, … Wei

(2019). Effects of simulation-based deliberate practice on nursing students’ communication, empathy, and self-efficacy. Journal of Nursing Education, 58, 681–689. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20191120-02

36.

Lin

H. H.

(2015). Effectiveness of simulation-based learning on student nurses’ self-efficacy and performance while learning fundamental nursing skills. Technology and Health Care, 24(Suppl. 1), S369–S375. https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-151094

37.

Mann

McFetridge-Durdle

Breau

Clovis

Martin-Misener

Matheson

, … Sarria

(2012). Development of a scale to measure health professions students’ self-efficacy beliefs in interprofessional learning. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 26, 92–99. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2011.640759

38.

Mason

Hayden

C. L.

, & Causey-Upton

(2020). Fieldwork educators’ expectations of Level II occupational therapy students’ professional and technical skills. Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 8, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1649

39.

Meehan

C. D.

(2017 , July 17). The description and meaning of clinical competency: Perceptions of acute care nurse managers and pre-licensure baccalaureate faculty [Paper presentation]. 28th International Nursing Research Congress, Dublin, Ireland. https://sigma.nursingrepository.org/bitstream/handle/10755/621858/Meehan_82237_presentation.pdf;jsessionid=8C9084FAC36854EE14AD14C166B5222F?sequence=1

40.

Meretoja

Isoaho

, & Leino-Kilpi

(2004). Nurse Competence Scale: Development and psychometric testing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47, 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03071.x

41.

Miller

G. E.

(1990). The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Academic Medicine, 65, S63–S67. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045

42.

Mokkink

L. B.

Terwee

C. B.

Knol

D. L.

Stratford

P. W.

Alonso

Patrick

D. L.

, … de Vet

H. C.

(2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-22

43.

Norman

I. J.

Watson

Murrells

Calman

, & Redfern

(2002). The validity and reliability of methods to assess the competence to practise of pre-registration nursing and midwifery students. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 39, 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7489(01)00028-1

44.

Opacic

D. A.

(2003). The relationship between self-efficacy and student physician assistant clinical performance. Journal of Allied Health, 32, 158–166.

45.

Plaza

C. M.

Draugalis

J. R.

, & Retterer

(2002). Curricular evaluation using self-efficacy measurements. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 66, 51–54.

46.

Prinsen

C. A. C.

Mokkink

L. B.

Bouter

L. M.

Alonso

Patrick

D. L.

de Vet

H. C. W.

, & Terwee

C. B.

(2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27, 1147–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3

47.

Richardson

Abraham

, & Bond

(2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838

48.

Roberts

M. E.

, & Simon

R. L.

(2012). Fieldwork challenge 2012. OT Practice, 17(6), 20.

49.

Schunk

D. H.

(1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive achievement: Implications for students with learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948902200103

50.

Schwarzer

, & Jerusalem

(1995). General Self-Efficacy Scale. In Weinman

Wright

, & Johnston

(Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-NELSON.

51.

Sherer

Maddux

J. E.

Mercandante

Prentice-Dunn

Jacobs

, & Rogers

R. W.

(1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663

52.

Singh

H. K.

Lyons

K. M.

Brock

T. P.

, & Malone

D. T.

(2023). Effect of a curriculum transformation on pharmacy student self-efficacy, self-reported activities, and satisfaction in degree and career choice. BMC Medical Education, 23, 304. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04280-7

53.

Stickley

L. A.

Bezner

J. R.

, & Spivey

(2019). Development and validation of the Self-Efficacy of Student Physical Therapist Outcomes survey. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 33, 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000111

54.

Utsey

C. J.

(2006). Differences in motivational beliefs and learning strategies of physical therapist students in classroom and clinical settings (Publication No. 3222137) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/differences-motivational-beliefs-learning/docview/305325750/se-2

55.

van Lankveld

Jones

Brunnekreef

J. J.

Seeger

J. P. H.

, & Bart Staal

(2017). Assessing physical therapist students’ self-efficacy: Measurement properties of the Physiotherapist Self-Efficacy (PSE) questionnaire. BMC Medical Education, 17, 250. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1094-x

56.

Venskus

D. G.

, & Craig

J. A.

(2017). Development and validation of a self-efficacy scale for clinical reasoning in physical therapists. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 31, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001416-201731010-00005

57.

Velicer

W. F.

Eaton

C. A.

, & Fava

J. L.

(2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In Goffin

R. D.

& Helmes

(Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment (pp. 41–71). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4397-8_3

58.

Watters

Reedy

Ross

Morgan

N. J.

Handslip

, & Jaye

(2015). Does interprofessional simulation increase self-efficacy: A comparative study. BMJ Open, 5, e005472. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005472

59.

Williams

Beovich

Ross

Wright

, & Ilic

(2017). Self-efficacy perceptions of interprofessional education and practice in undergraduate healthcare students. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 31, 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2017.1286637

60.

Tong

X. V.

Hong

, & Wang

(2021). Clinical competence and its association with self-efficacy and clinical learning environments among Chinese undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Education in Practice, 53, 103055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103055

61.

Zimmerman

B. J.

Bandura

, & Martinez-Pons

(1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663–676. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312029003663

Development,Reliability,and Validity of the Occupational Therapy Self-Efficacy of Clinical Competence (OT–SECC) Assessment

Abstract

Method

Phase 1: Assessment Development

Step 1: Analysis of Available Measurements

Step 2: Question and Rating Scale Development

Step 3: Determine Content Validity

Phase 2: Psychometric Evaluation

Participants

Procedure

Data Analysis

Results

Test–Retest Reliability

Convergent Validity

Construct Validity

Discussion

Implications for Occupational Therapy Education

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

References