Clinical education from a specialized accreditation viewpoint: a report of the ASAHP clinical education task force.

UNLABELLED: Access to clinical education poses national challenges to allied health training programs. Clinical education is paramount to providing future health professionals with experiences that support competencies for success in their individual fields. METHOD: The ASAHP Clinical Education Task Force interviewed 14 executive directors of various specialized accreditation agencies on clinical education issues and opportunities. RESULTS: Interview questions were compiled and analyzed by members of the task force. Similarities across disciplines were found on the high value of clinical education, key reasons for clinical education, and the expansion of interprofessional education. Major differences included the use of simulation and its replacement for clinical hours, measurement of quality of education and student feedback, and the use of portfolio assessment. DISCUSSION: Of 14 professions surveyed, all respondents regarded clinical education as "very important" to student competency and certification. A common theme was that decisions regarding clinical education were under the auspices of the training programs as long as students were able to demonstrate specified competencies as per the standards in each field. Most directors acknowledged the need to accommodate changes in clinical education methodology and some discussed related changes in accreditation requirements. CONCLUSION: The 100% participation by executive directors spoke to the willingness of the accreditation agencies to share information on education of the future healthcare workforce. The clinical education environment is poised for innovation in methods to teach skill development and build competencies. ASAHP partnership and teamwork with specialized accreditation agencies is a fruitful avenue for creating and maintaining excellence in clinical education.

Classroom performance and language development of CI students placed in mainstream elementary school.

OBJECTIVE: Investigation of the relation between classroom performance and language development of cochlear implant (CI) students in mainstream education. Structural analyses of assessment of mainstream performance (AMP) and Screening Instrument For Targeting Educational Risk (SIFTER) instruments. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional instrument and language development analyses. SETTING: Tertiary university medical center. PATIENTS: Twenty-six CI children in elementary school with congenital or prelingual deafness were included. At the time of this study, mean period of multichannel CI use was 5.3 years, and children's ages ranged from 6.5 to 12.8 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Assessment of mainstream performance and SIFTER instruments measured classroom performance and language development were measured by means of Reynell and Schlichting tests. RESULTS: Assessment of mainstream performance and SIFTER domains showed good reliability (Cronbach alpha >0.6), but factor analyses only showed the expected instrument structure in the AMP. In both questionnaires and within all domains, individual variability is detected. Spearman's correlation analyses showed the probable explanation of individual questionnaire variability by language test results (p value mostly <0.01). The AMP and SIFTER instruments showed a predictive capacity for language development, based upon general linear model univariate and linear regression analyses. CONCLUSION: Individual classroom performance, measured by AMP and SIFTER questionnaires, of CI children in mainstream education varies. Correlation analyses showed strong significant relation between questionnaire results (classroom performance) and both expressive and receptive language test results (Schlichting and Reynell tests). Structural questionnaire analyses of the AMP and SIFTER demonstrated good reliability. The predictive value of the AMP can monitor the actual linguistic functioning of the child.

Classroom performance of children with cochlear implants in mainstream education.

OBJECTIVES: We compared classroom performance of children with a cochlear implant (CI) with that of their normal-hearing peers in mainstream education. METHODS: Thirty-two CI children in mainstream education, congenitally or prelingually deaf, participated in this study, as did 37 hearing classmates. Their teachers filled out 2 questionnaires: the Assessment of Mainstream Performance (AMP) and the Screening Instrument for Targeting Educational Risk (SIFTER). A high Fletcher index and open-set speech perception scores were obtained. RESULTS: The children with CIs scored above average on the AMP and sufficiently well in all but one area (communication) of the SIFTER questionnaire. Class rankings did not differ significantly between the CI students and their normal-hearing peers. Overall, the normal-hearing group outperformed the CI group. The classroom performance of CI children correlated negatively with duration of deafness and age at implantation. All longitudinal audiological data of the CI children showed improvement in open-set speech recognition. CONCLUSIONS: Although the results are encouraging, the CI group scored significantly less well than their normal-hearing peers on most questionnaire domains of both the AMP and the SIFTER. The most important variables for the outcome in this study were age at implantation and duration of deafness.