Developing and evaluating an instrument to assess perceptions of an entry-level physician associate doctoral degree.
Entry-level doctoral degree
Health professions education
Instrument
Measures
Perceptions
Physician assistants/associates
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Aug 2022
13 Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
01
02
2022
accepted:
18
07
2022
entrez:
12
8
2022
pubmed:
13
8
2022
medline:
17
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Most health professions in the United States have adopted clinical or practice doctorates, sparking an ongoing debate on whether physician assistants/associates (PAs) should transition from a master's to a doctorate as the terminal degree for the profession. Although more studies are anticipated, there is no validated instrument assessing perceptions of various stakeholders regarding an entry-level PA doctoral degree. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a novel self-report measure to assess perceptions of an entry-level PA doctoral degree. A multifaceted, mixed-methods approach was adopted. Based on a comprehensive literature review of the doctoral transition experiences in other health professions, an initial version of perceptions of an entry-level terminal PA doctoral degree scale (PEDDS) was generated. This scale was pilot tested with a group of PA faculty, students, and clinicians. Then, a cross-sectional survey consisting of 67 items was conducted with a national random sample of practicing PAs and PA students. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted to ensure the validity of PEDDS. A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to reduce the number of items and reveal the underlying structure of PEDDS. The PCA confirmed 10 factors of PEDDS consisting of 53 items as the best-fit factor structure with adequate internal consistency of subscales. Those factors include a) expected positive impact on the PA profession, b) expected impact on prerequisites, (c) expected impact on the student preparedness as PA faculty and educators, (d) expected impact on the student preparedness as clinicians, (e) expected impact on accreditation and certification, (f) expected impact on curriculum, (g) expected impact on PA educators, (h) expected positive impact on diversity, (i) expected negative impact on the PA profession, and (j) expected impact on the student competency. The present study highlights the need to develop valid and reliable measurements to assess perceptions regarding the transition to the entry-level doctorate across health professions. This study could be used to guide further discussion of the entry-level doctorates for PAs and other health professions by bridging the gap of existing literature related to valid, reliable, and standardized measures on this topic.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Most health professions in the United States have adopted clinical or practice doctorates, sparking an ongoing debate on whether physician assistants/associates (PAs) should transition from a master's to a doctorate as the terminal degree for the profession. Although more studies are anticipated, there is no validated instrument assessing perceptions of various stakeholders regarding an entry-level PA doctoral degree. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a novel self-report measure to assess perceptions of an entry-level PA doctoral degree.
METHODS
METHODS
A multifaceted, mixed-methods approach was adopted. Based on a comprehensive literature review of the doctoral transition experiences in other health professions, an initial version of perceptions of an entry-level terminal PA doctoral degree scale (PEDDS) was generated. This scale was pilot tested with a group of PA faculty, students, and clinicians. Then, a cross-sectional survey consisting of 67 items was conducted with a national random sample of practicing PAs and PA students. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted to ensure the validity of PEDDS. A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to reduce the number of items and reveal the underlying structure of PEDDS.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The PCA confirmed 10 factors of PEDDS consisting of 53 items as the best-fit factor structure with adequate internal consistency of subscales. Those factors include a) expected positive impact on the PA profession, b) expected impact on prerequisites, (c) expected impact on the student preparedness as PA faculty and educators, (d) expected impact on the student preparedness as clinicians, (e) expected impact on accreditation and certification, (f) expected impact on curriculum, (g) expected impact on PA educators, (h) expected positive impact on diversity, (i) expected negative impact on the PA profession, and (j) expected impact on the student competency.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The present study highlights the need to develop valid and reliable measurements to assess perceptions regarding the transition to the entry-level doctorate across health professions. This study could be used to guide further discussion of the entry-level doctorates for PAs and other health professions by bridging the gap of existing literature related to valid, reliable, and standardized measures on this topic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35962352
doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03668-1
pii: 10.1186/s12909-022-03668-1
pmc: PMC9375372
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
617Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Pharm Pract (Granada). 2019 Jul-Sep;17(3):1611
pubmed: 31592299
Psychol Methods. 2007 Mar;12(1):105-20
pubmed: 17402814
BMC Med Educ. 2021 May 14;21(1):274
pubmed: 33985497
JAAPA. 2018 Nov;31(11):46-51
pubmed: 30358680
J Allied Health. 2007 Summer;36(2):101-6
pubmed: 17633967
J Physician Assist Educ. 2022 Mar 1;33(1):34-40
pubmed: 35067593
Online J Issues Nurs. 2011 Jun 27;16(3):8
pubmed: 22324574
J Physician Assist Educ. 2022 Mar 1;33(1):24-33
pubmed: 35067590
J Physician Assist Educ. 2015 Mar;26(1):3-9
pubmed: 25715009
J Allied Health. 2011 Spring;40(1):25-33
pubmed: 21399849
J Physician Assist Educ. 2021 Dec 1;32(4):207-224
pubmed: 34817425
Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1987 Jun;21(6):537-41
pubmed: 3608802
J Physician Assist Educ. 2011;22(1):19-24
pubmed: 21639073
J Physician Assist Educ. 2017 Oct;28 Suppl 1:S33-S37
pubmed: 28961620
JAMA. 2011 Jun 22;305(24):2571-2
pubmed: 21693748