Search

Objective: To explore and address some of the challenges for assessing, interpreting, and grading athletic training students' clinical performance and to suggest athletic training educators consider using a more universal assessment method for professional consistency. Background: In years past students learned from teachers or mentors on an individualized basis without receiving a grade for their performance. Grading began primarily from a need to teach and evaluate more students at one time. Over the past two centuries, grading has become a complex process that serves multiple roles including evaluation of learning, skill development, motivation, communication abilities, organizational skills and behaviors. Description: Currently there are many ways to evaluate and grade students in clinical education courses. When evaluators use inconsistent assessment techniques and a grade is not measuring the same criteria, the validity of a grade becomes questionable. Consequently, feedback from a universal assessment instrument may be more meaningful. Clinical Advantages: Clinical instructors in athletic training education programs who assess and grade student clinical performance should measure similar criteria. Currently most educators express measurement of these criteria with a single letter grade. Consideration for a more reliable and valid instrument that includes more information should be given. Conclusion: A universal system of assessing clinical performance would present more accurate and consistent information than a single grade indicates. Athletic training educators are encouraged to consider re-evaluating how they assess clinical performance of students and what a single grade actually communicates to the student and others. (Contains 1 figure.)