Search

In universities around the world, physical therapist experts with a scientific background are appointed as professors of physical therapy. In the Italian academia, however, only 2 physical therapists have been appointed as professors in the academic sector known as “Sciences of nursing, rehabilitation and neuropsychiatric techniques” (MED/48).1 A total of 85 university programs of physical therapy are being taught in Italy, and thousands of credits are entrusted to physical therapists—yet most of these therapists are not officially part of the Italian academic world. In 2010, there was an expectation that this situation would change when the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR) introduced a new process for the appointment of Italian university professors.2 The first step of this new process (started in 2012) is national qualification for each scientific sector, with qualification awarded by specific commissions on the basis of the applicant's educational and research productivity. Only researchers who are qualified by one of these commissions are subsequently permitted to participate in the second step for becoming an Italian university professor: a competitive examination issued locally by each university. Italian physical therapists had great hope for this new process, because a growing number of physical therapists in Italy are involved in scientific activities and publish in indexed journals.3 In 2010, …

Background and Purpose Considerable disagreement exists among researchers with regard to the prevalence, pathophysiology, and treatment of “pusher behavior” (PB), partly because of different testing procedures. This study was primarily aimed at establishing cutoff scores for and the construct validity of the Scale for Contraversive Pushing (SCP). The prevalence of PB in people with right- and left-brain lesions also was investigated. Subjects and Methods The study subjects were 105 consecutive patients with recent stroke. Two methods were used to diagnose PB: clinical examination and SCP score with 3 different cutoff points—an SCP total score of greater than 0 (Crit_1), subscores in each section of the scale of greater than 0 (Crit_2), and subscores in each section of the scale of ≥1 (Crit_3). Clinical and SCP diagnoses were independently made by different examiners. The Cohen κ coefficient was used to determine the agreement between clinical and SCP diagnoses. The construct validity of the SCP was estimated by calculation of Spearman rank correlation coefficients for SCP and balance, mobility, and functional scores. Results The agreement between clinical and SCP diagnoses was low (κ=.212) when Crit_1 was used. Crit_2 led to the highest agreement with the clinical diagnosis (κ=.933). However, only Crit_3, although globally less accurate (κ=.754), ensured no false-positive results. The construct validity of the SCP was demonstrated by significant (P Discussion and Conclusion The results support the validity of the SCP and suggest the need to choose different SCP cutoff criteria (Crit_2 or Crit_3) according to the aim of the evaluation.