Recommendations From the Common Terminology Panel of the American Council of Academic Physical Therapy.

Background: In 2015, the American Council for Academic Physical Therapy (ACAPT) developed 3 strategic initiative panels to address integrated clinical education, student readiness, and common terminology for physical therapist clinical education. Objective: The purpose of this paper is to describe the results of the work from the Common Terminology Panel. Design: This was a descriptive, consensus-based study. Methods: Using a consensus process and data that were collected from a review of literature, a document analysis of core and historical professional documents, focus group discussions, and an online open comment period, panel members developed a glossary for physical therapist clinical education. Results: The final glossary included 34 terms in 4 categories. The categories included clinical education infrastructure, sites, stakeholders, and assessment. The ACAPT Board of Directors approved the glossary in June 2017, and the ACAPT membership approved the glossary in October 2017. Limitations: The focus of the glossary was on physical therapist clinical education. A future, similar project should be undertaken for physical therapist assistant clinical education. Conclusion: This process resulted in a comprehensive glossary for physical therapist clinical education; changes to several current terms, including "internship" and "full-time clinical education experience"; and the addition of new terms, including "preceptor" and "site coordinator for clinical education." New terminology will provide standard language for consistent communication and a common framework for all stakeholders.

Locomotor requirements for bipedal locomotion: a Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Bipedal locomotor control requirements may be useful as classifications for walking dysfunction because they go beyond gait analysis to address all issues contributing to walking dysfunction. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether locomotor experts could achieve consensus about the requirements for bipedal locomotion. DESIGN AND METHODS: Locomotor experts from physical therapy and other related professions participated in an electronic mail Delphi survey. Experts recommended additions, deletions, rewording, and merges for 15 proposed locomotor requirements in round 1. In rounds 2 and 3, panelists commented on and rated the validity, mutual exclusiveness, and understandability of each requirement. Consensus was defined a priori as: (1) 75% or more panelists agree or strongly agree that a requirement is valid, mutually exclusive, and understandable in round 3; (2) no difference between round 2 and 3 ratings with kappa coefficients ≥.60; and (3) a reduction in panelists who commented and convergence of comments between rounds 1 and 3. Content analysis and nonparametric statistics were used. RESULTS: Fifty-eight panelists reached full consensus on 5 locomotor requirements (Initiation, Termination, Anticipatory Dynamic Balance, Multi-Task Capacity, and Walking Confidence) and partial consensus for 7 other requirements. There were no significant differences in ratings between rounds 2 and 3, and there was a decrease in the percentage of panelists who commented between rounds 1 and 3. LIMITATIONS: The study's 6-month time frame may have contributed to panelist attrition. CONCLUSIONS: Locomotor experts achieved consensus on several bipedal locomotor requirements. With validation, these requirements can provide the framework for a clinically feasible and systematic diagnostic tool for physical therapists to categorize locomotor problems and standardize intervention for walking dysfunction.