Assessment of Musculoskeletal Physical Examination Skills and Attitudes of Orthopaedic Residents

Beran, Matthew C.; Awan, Hisham M.; Rowley, David M.; Samora, Julie Balch; Griesser, Michael J.; Bishop, Julie Y.

doi:10.2106/jbjs.k.00518

Cited by 39 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A detailed critical overview is presented in Table 3. The Assessment of Musculoskeletal Physical Examination Skills Checklist (AMPE) was published by Beran et al (2012). The AMPE is a 12-15 item checklist and evaluates the ability of health professionals to perform a physical examination of four different clinical scenarios.…”

Section: Procedures Specific Measurement Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six studies were included that reported the inter-rater reliability of six assessments. Beran et al (2012) evaluated four different procedures using the AMPE. Inter-rater reliability ranged between 0.27 (95%CI: 0 to 0.56) for the physical examination of trauma patients to 0.77 (95% CI: 0.46 to 0.9) for a physical examination of the knee.…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidence for content validity was found for four assessments AMPE, PhyES, GPSE and mO-S3 (Beran et al, 2012;Ladyshewsky et al, 2000;Nothnagle et al, 2010;Swift et al, 2013). For each assessment, the authors provided information about how their assessments were designed.…”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All four studies used expert panels to judge the comprehensiveness and relevance of the assessment items. The size of the expert panels ranged between an unspecified number of panel members for the AMPE and mO-S3 (Beran et al, 2012;Swift et al, 2013) to 17 participants for the GPSE (Nothnagle et al, 2010). Additionally, two studies involved learners in the process of designing the assessment PhyES and GPSE (Ladyshewsky et al, 2000;Nothnagle et al, 2010) with Nothnagle et al (2010) generating content for the GPSE through three focus groups.…”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the utility of using the assessments to predict future performance or as compared to another measure is not known. Data regarding the construct validity was available for five assessments AMPE, OMT, PES-C, PES-R, PhyES (Beran et al, 2012;Boulet et al, 2004;Herbers et al, 2003;Ladyshewsky et al, 2000). Three studies tested the hypotheses whether their assessments could discriminate performance between individuals with more experience or less experience.…”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of assessments for procedural skills in physiotherapy education / Assessment von prozeduralen Fähigkeiten in der physiotherapeutischen Ausbildung: Ein systematischer Review

Sattelmayer

Hilfiker

Baer

2017

International Journal of Health Professions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Learning of procedural skills is important in the education of physiotherapists. It is the aim of physiotherapy degree programmes that graduates are able to practice selected procedures safely and efficiently. Procedural competency is threatened by an increasing and diverse amount of procedures that are incorporated in university curricula. As a consequence, less time is available for the learning of each specific procedure. Incorrectly performed procedures in physiotherapy might be ineffective and may result in injuries to patients and physiotherapists. The aim of this review was to synthesise relevant literature systematically to appraise current knowledge relating to assessments for procedural skills in physiotherapy education. Method: A systematic search strategy was developed to screen five relevant databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Central, SportDISCUS, ERIC and MEDLINE) for eligible studies. The included assessments were evaluated for evidence of their reliability and validity. Results: The search of electronic databases identified 560 potential records. Seven studies were included into this systematic review. The studies reported eight assessments of procedural skills. Six of the assessments were designed for a specific procedure and two assessments were considered for the evaluation of more than one procedure. Evidence to support the measurement properties of the assessment was not available for all categories. Discussion: It was not possible to recommend a single assessment of procedural skills in physiotherapy education following this systematic review. There is a need for further development of new assessments to allow valid and reliable assessments of the broad spectrum of physiotherapeutic practice

show abstract

Section: Procedures Specific Measurement Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of assessments for procedural skills in physiotherapy education / Assessment von prozeduralen Fähigkeiten in der physiotherapeutischen Ausbildung: Ein systematischer Review

Sattelmayer

Hilfiker

Baer

2017

International Journal of Health Professions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Anatomy integration blueprint: A fourth‐year musculoskeletal anatomy elective model

Lazarus

Kauffman

Kothari

et al. 2014

Anatomical Sciences Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current undergraduate medical school curricular trends focus on both vertical integration of clinical knowledge into the traditionally basic science-dedicated curricula and increasing basic science education in the clinical years. This latter type of integration is more difficult and less reported on than the former. Here, we present an outline of a course wherein the primary learning and teaching objective is to integrate basic science anatomy knowledge with clinical education. The course was developed through collaboration by a multi-specialist course development team (composed of both basic scientists and physicians) and was founded in current adult learning theories. The course was designed to be widely applicable to multiple future specialties, using current published reports regarding the topics and clinical care areas relying heavily on anatomical knowledge regardless of specialist focus. To this end, the course focuses on the role of anatomy in the diagnosis and treatment of frequently encountered musculoskeletal conditions. Our iterative implementation and action research approach to this course development has yielded a curricular template for anatomy integration into clinical years. Key components for successful implementation of these types of courses, including content topic sequence, the faculty development team, learning approaches, and hidden curricula, were developed. We also report preliminary feedback from course stakeholders and lessons learned through the process. The purpose of this report is to enhance the current literature regarding basic science integration in the clinical years of medical school.

show abstract

Does Ultrasound‐Enhanced Instruction of Musculoskeletal Anatomy Improve Physical Examination Skills of First‐Year Medical Students?

Walrod

Schroeder

Conroy

et al. 2017

J of Ultrasound Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives-Ultrasound imaging is commonly used to teach basic anatomy to medical students. The purpose of this study was to determine whether learning musculoskeletal anatomy with ultrasound improved performance on medical students' musculoskeletal physical examination skills.Methods-Twenty-seven first-year medical students were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 instructional groups: either shoulder or knee. Both groups received a lecture followed by hands-on ultrasound scanning on live human models of the assigned joint. After instruction, students were assessed on their ability to accurately palpate 4 anatomic landmarks: the acromioclavicular joint, the proximal long-head biceps tendon, and the medial and lateral joint lines of the knee. Performance scores were based on both accuracy and time. A total physical examination performance score was derived for each joint. Scores for instructional groups were compared by a 2-way analysis of variance with 1 repeated measure. Significant findings were further analyzed with post hoc tests.Results-All students performed significantly better on the knee examination, irrespective of instructional group (F 5 14.9; df 5 1.25; P 5 .001). Moreover, the shoulder instruction group performed significantly better than the knee group on the overall assessment (t 5 -3.0; df 5 25; P < .01). Post hoc analyses revealed that differences in group performance were due to the shoulder group's higher scores on palpation of the biceps tendon (t 5 -2.8; df 5 25; P 5 .01), a soft tissue landmark. Both groups performed similarly on palpation of all other anatomic structures.Conclusions-The use of ultrasound appears to provide an educational advantage when learning musculoskeletal physical examination of soft tissue landmarks.

show abstract

Assessment of Musculoskeletal Physical Examination Skills and Attitudes of Orthopaedic Residents

Cited by 39 publications

References 34 publications

A systematic review of assessments for procedural skills in physiotherapy education / Assessment von prozeduralen Fähigkeiten in der physiotherapeutischen Ausbildung: Ein systematischer Review

A systematic review of assessments for procedural skills in physiotherapy education / Assessment von prozeduralen Fähigkeiten in der physiotherapeutischen Ausbildung: Ein systematischer Review

Anatomy integration blueprint: A fourth‐year musculoskeletal anatomy elective model

Does Ultrasound‐Enhanced Instruction of Musculoskeletal Anatomy Improve Physical Examination Skills of First‐Year Medical Students?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About