Physical therapist student and clinical instructor perceptions of the Clinical Performance Instrument 3.0 (CPI 3.0): an exploratory descriptive study
Main Article Content
Abstract
Purpose: The Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI) has been adopted by US academic physical therapist (PT) programs as a key measure of clinical education performance. In May 2023, the APTA released an updated version, the CPI 3.0, which included significant changes. The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of students (SPTs) and clinical instructors (CIs) who were the initial users of the CPI 3.0.
Methods: Retrospective study utilizing an investigator-created electronic survey meant to measure the constructs of technology, scoring, and stakeholder burden compared to the previous version. The survey was sent out to five cohorts of students and their CIs who used the CPI 3.0 for a full-time clinical experience during the inaugural release. IRB approval was obtained.
Results: Students (n = 63) and CIs (n = 47) reported that the CPI 3.0 platform was easy to access (95.2% SPT; 76.6% CI) and navigate (93.5% SPT; 72.3% CI). However, submission problems were experienced. More than 90% of students and CIs agreed that the CPI 3.0 was able to capture an accurate reflection of student performance. In addition, 91.1% of CIs reported that the tool would enable them to capture student performance difficulties that would put them at risk of not passing. Those that used the previous version of the CPI agreed that the CPI 3.0 was less time consuming (64.3% SPT; 76.3% CI) and burdensome (60.5% SPT; 68.4% CI).
Conclusion: Students and CIs perceived the CPI 3.0 favorably in terms of ability to capture performance, time to complete, and overall burden.
References
1. Standards and required elements for accreditation of physical therapist education programs. Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. Available from: https://www.capteonline.org/globalassets/capte-docs/capte-pt-standards-required-elements.pdf [cited 26 August 2024].
2. Aggregate program data: 2023 physical therapist education programs fact sheet. Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. Available from: capte-2023-pt-fact-sheet.pdf (capteonline.org) [cited 26 August 2024].
3. O’Connor A, McGarr O, Cantillon P, et al. Clinical performance assessment tools in physiotherapy practice education: a systematic review. Physiotherapy (2018) 104(1): 46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2017.01.005
4. Wilkinson T, Myers K, Bayliss J, et al. Facilitators and barriers to providing clinical education experiences through the lens of clinical stakeholders. J Phys Ther Educ (2023) 37(3): 193–201. doi: 10.1097/JTE.0000000000000280
5. Hrachovy J, Clopton N, Baggett K, et al. Use of the blue MACS: acceptance by clinical instructors and self-reports of adherence. Phys Ther (2000) 80(7): 652–61. doi: 10.1093/ptj/80.7.652
6. Stickley LA. A content validity of a clinical education performance tool: the physical therapist manual for the assessment of clinical skills. J Allied Health (2005) 34(1): 24–30.
7. Fitzgerald LM, Delitto A, Irrgang JJ. Validation of the clinical internship evaluation tool. Phys Ther (2007) 87(7): 844–60. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20060054
8. North S, Sharp A. Embracing change in the pursuit of excellence: transitioning to the Clinical Internship Evaluation Tool for student clinical performance assessment. J Phys Ther Educ (2020) 34(4): 313–20. doi: 10.1097/JTE.0000000000000154
9. Birkmeier M, Wheeler E, Garske HM, et al. Feasibility of use of the Clinical Internship Evaluation Tool in full-time clinical education experiences: a multi-institutional study. J Phys Ther Educ (2022) 36(3): 263–271. doi: 10.1097/JTE.0000000000000237
10. Adams CL, Glavin K, Hutchins K, et al. An evaluation of the internal reliability, construct validity, and predictive validity of the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT CPI). J Phys Ther Educ (2008) 22(2): 42–50. doi: 10.1097/00001416-200807000-00007
11. Proctor PL, Dal Bello-Haas VP, McQuarrie AM, et al. Scoring of the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT-CPI): analysis of 7 years of use. Physiother Can (2010) 62(2): 147–54. doi: 10.3138/physio.62.2.147
12. Straube D, Campbell SK. Rater discrimination using the visual analog scale of the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument. J Phys Ther Educ (2003) 17(1): 33–38. doi: 10.1097/00001416-200301000-00006
13. Roach KE, Frost JS, Francis NJ, et al. Validation of the Revised Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT CPI): Version 2006. Phys Ther (2012) 92(3): 416–28. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20110129
14. Haj T, Wolden M, Wolden B. Perspectives on the PT CPI from directors of clinical education and clinical instructors. Poster presented at: Educational Leadership Conference, APTA, Bellevue, WA, 18–20 October 2019.
15. Rubertone PP, Nixon-Cave K, Wellmon R. Influence of clinical instructor experience on assessing doctor of physical therapist student clinical performance: a mixed-methods study. J Phys Ther Educ (2022) 36(1): 25–33. doi: 10.1097/JTE.0000000000000208
16. Clinical education special interest group meeting minutes. Education leadership conference, Academy of Physical Therapy Education, 19 October 2019. Available from: https://www.aptaeducation.org/cesig-meeting-minutes [cited 26 August 2024].
17. Physical therapist clinical performance instrument. American Physical Therapy Association. Available from: http://www.apta.org/PTCPI/ [cited 18 July 2023].
18. Physical therapist clinical performance instrument 3.0. American Physical Therapy Association. Available from: http://www.apta.org/PTCPI/ [cited 18 July 2023].
19. Task Force for the Development of Student Clinical Performance Instruments. The development and testing of APTA Clinical Performance Instruments. American Physical Therapy Association. Phys Ther (2002) 82(4): 329–53.
20. Crawford BF, Sinclair AL. Sinclair Physical therapist and physical therapist assistant clinical performance instruments: validation study technical brief. Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association; 2023.
21. Sinclair AL. Research studies to support reliability and validity of the PT CPI and PTA CPI (2020 No. 072). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization; 2020.
22. Wetherbee E, Dupre AM, Feinn RS, et al. Relationship between narrative comments and ratings for entry-level performance on the Clinical Performance Instrument: a call to rethink the Clinical Performance Instrument. J Phys Ther Educ (2018) 32(4): 333–43. doi: 10.1097/JTE.0000000000000060
23. Harris JL, Rogers AP, Caramagno JP. Analysis of practice for the physical therapy profession: report memo 2021 (2021 No. 100). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization 2021.
24. Crawford BF, Borawski EA, Sinclair AL. Alignment of the physical therapist and physical therapist assistant clinical performance instrument content to current practice standards (2022 No. 052). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization; 2022.
25. Crawford BF, May M, Sinclair AL, et al. Revising the physical therapist and physical therapist assistant clinical performance instrument performance criteria and rating scales (2022 No. 104). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization; 2022.
26. Crawford BF, Sinclair AL. Intended uses of the physical therapist and physical therapist assistant clinical performance instruments (2022 No. 037). Human Resources Research Organization.
27. Crawford BF, Sinclair AL. Developing a preliminary passing standard and scoring model for the revised physical therapist and physical therapist assistant clinical performance instruments (2022 No. 116). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization; 2022.
28. Campbell DF, Alameri M, Macahilig-Rice F, et al. Validation of the revised American Physical Therapy Association physical therapist clinical performance instrument 3.0. Phys Ther (2025) 105(4). doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzaf015
29. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform (2009) 42(2): 377–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
30. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software partners. J Biomed Inform (2019) 95: 103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
31. Designing Surveys and Questionnaires. In: Portney LG. eds. Foundations of clinical research: applications to evidence-based practice, 4e. F. A. Davis Company; 2020. Available from: https://fadavispt-mhmedical-com.rdas-proxy.mercy.edu/content.aspx?bookid=2885§ionid=243181135 [cited 01 March 2025].
32. IBM Corp. Released 2020. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
33. Davies RS. Designing surveys for evaluations and research. Ed Tech Books. Available from: https://edtechbooks.org/designing_surveys?tab=front [cited 26 August 2024].
34. Tsuda HC, Low S, Vlad G. A description of comments written by clinical instructors on the Clinical Performance Instrument. J Phys Ther Educ (2007) 21(1): 56–62. doi: 10.1097/00001416-200701000-00008
35. Vendrely A, Carter R. The influence of training on the rating of physical therapist student performance in the clinical setting. J Allied Health (2004) 33(1): 62–69.
36. Davies R, Hanna E, Cott C. ‘They put you on your toes’: physical therapists’ perceived benefits from and barriers to supervising students in the clinical setting. Physiother Can (2011) 63(2): 224–33. doi: 10.3138/ptc.2010-07
37. Rabena-Amen AK, Raja B, Davenport TE. Obstacles to physical therapy clinical instruction: a qualitative study of clinical instructors. Internet J Allied Health Sci Pract (2024) 22(4): Article 11.
38. Anderson C, Cosgrove M, Lees D, et al. What clinical instructors want: perspectives on a new assessment tool for students in the clinical environment. Physiother Can (2014) 66(3): 322–28. doi: 10.3138/ptc.2013-27
39. Apke TL, Whalen M, Buford J. Effects of student physical therapists on clinical instructor productivity across settings in an academic medical center. Phys Ther (2020) 100(2): 209–16. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzz148
40. Jensen G, Mostrom E. Handbook of teaching and learning for physical therapists. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.
41. Recker-Hughes C, Padial C, Becker E, et al. Clinical site directors’ perspectives on clinical education. J Phys Ther Educ (2016) 30: 21–7. doi: 10.1097/00001416-201630030-00005
2. Aggregate program data: 2023 physical therapist education programs fact sheet. Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. Available from: capte-2023-pt-fact-sheet.pdf (capteonline.org) [cited 26 August 2024].
3. O’Connor A, McGarr O, Cantillon P, et al. Clinical performance assessment tools in physiotherapy practice education: a systematic review. Physiotherapy (2018) 104(1): 46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2017.01.005
4. Wilkinson T, Myers K, Bayliss J, et al. Facilitators and barriers to providing clinical education experiences through the lens of clinical stakeholders. J Phys Ther Educ (2023) 37(3): 193–201. doi: 10.1097/JTE.0000000000000280
5. Hrachovy J, Clopton N, Baggett K, et al. Use of the blue MACS: acceptance by clinical instructors and self-reports of adherence. Phys Ther (2000) 80(7): 652–61. doi: 10.1093/ptj/80.7.652
6. Stickley LA. A content validity of a clinical education performance tool: the physical therapist manual for the assessment of clinical skills. J Allied Health (2005) 34(1): 24–30.
7. Fitzgerald LM, Delitto A, Irrgang JJ. Validation of the clinical internship evaluation tool. Phys Ther (2007) 87(7): 844–60. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20060054
8. North S, Sharp A. Embracing change in the pursuit of excellence: transitioning to the Clinical Internship Evaluation Tool for student clinical performance assessment. J Phys Ther Educ (2020) 34(4): 313–20. doi: 10.1097/JTE.0000000000000154
9. Birkmeier M, Wheeler E, Garske HM, et al. Feasibility of use of the Clinical Internship Evaluation Tool in full-time clinical education experiences: a multi-institutional study. J Phys Ther Educ (2022) 36(3): 263–271. doi: 10.1097/JTE.0000000000000237
10. Adams CL, Glavin K, Hutchins K, et al. An evaluation of the internal reliability, construct validity, and predictive validity of the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT CPI). J Phys Ther Educ (2008) 22(2): 42–50. doi: 10.1097/00001416-200807000-00007
11. Proctor PL, Dal Bello-Haas VP, McQuarrie AM, et al. Scoring of the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT-CPI): analysis of 7 years of use. Physiother Can (2010) 62(2): 147–54. doi: 10.3138/physio.62.2.147
12. Straube D, Campbell SK. Rater discrimination using the visual analog scale of the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument. J Phys Ther Educ (2003) 17(1): 33–38. doi: 10.1097/00001416-200301000-00006
13. Roach KE, Frost JS, Francis NJ, et al. Validation of the Revised Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT CPI): Version 2006. Phys Ther (2012) 92(3): 416–28. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20110129
14. Haj T, Wolden M, Wolden B. Perspectives on the PT CPI from directors of clinical education and clinical instructors. Poster presented at: Educational Leadership Conference, APTA, Bellevue, WA, 18–20 October 2019.
15. Rubertone PP, Nixon-Cave K, Wellmon R. Influence of clinical instructor experience on assessing doctor of physical therapist student clinical performance: a mixed-methods study. J Phys Ther Educ (2022) 36(1): 25–33. doi: 10.1097/JTE.0000000000000208
16. Clinical education special interest group meeting minutes. Education leadership conference, Academy of Physical Therapy Education, 19 October 2019. Available from: https://www.aptaeducation.org/cesig-meeting-minutes [cited 26 August 2024].
17. Physical therapist clinical performance instrument. American Physical Therapy Association. Available from: http://www.apta.org/PTCPI/ [cited 18 July 2023].
18. Physical therapist clinical performance instrument 3.0. American Physical Therapy Association. Available from: http://www.apta.org/PTCPI/ [cited 18 July 2023].
19. Task Force for the Development of Student Clinical Performance Instruments. The development and testing of APTA Clinical Performance Instruments. American Physical Therapy Association. Phys Ther (2002) 82(4): 329–53.
20. Crawford BF, Sinclair AL. Sinclair Physical therapist and physical therapist assistant clinical performance instruments: validation study technical brief. Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association; 2023.
21. Sinclair AL. Research studies to support reliability and validity of the PT CPI and PTA CPI (2020 No. 072). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization; 2020.
22. Wetherbee E, Dupre AM, Feinn RS, et al. Relationship between narrative comments and ratings for entry-level performance on the Clinical Performance Instrument: a call to rethink the Clinical Performance Instrument. J Phys Ther Educ (2018) 32(4): 333–43. doi: 10.1097/JTE.0000000000000060
23. Harris JL, Rogers AP, Caramagno JP. Analysis of practice for the physical therapy profession: report memo 2021 (2021 No. 100). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization 2021.
24. Crawford BF, Borawski EA, Sinclair AL. Alignment of the physical therapist and physical therapist assistant clinical performance instrument content to current practice standards (2022 No. 052). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization; 2022.
25. Crawford BF, May M, Sinclair AL, et al. Revising the physical therapist and physical therapist assistant clinical performance instrument performance criteria and rating scales (2022 No. 104). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization; 2022.
26. Crawford BF, Sinclair AL. Intended uses of the physical therapist and physical therapist assistant clinical performance instruments (2022 No. 037). Human Resources Research Organization.
27. Crawford BF, Sinclair AL. Developing a preliminary passing standard and scoring model for the revised physical therapist and physical therapist assistant clinical performance instruments (2022 No. 116). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization; 2022.
28. Campbell DF, Alameri M, Macahilig-Rice F, et al. Validation of the revised American Physical Therapy Association physical therapist clinical performance instrument 3.0. Phys Ther (2025) 105(4). doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzaf015
29. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform (2009) 42(2): 377–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
30. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software partners. J Biomed Inform (2019) 95: 103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
31. Designing Surveys and Questionnaires. In: Portney LG. eds. Foundations of clinical research: applications to evidence-based practice, 4e. F. A. Davis Company; 2020. Available from: https://fadavispt-mhmedical-com.rdas-proxy.mercy.edu/content.aspx?bookid=2885§ionid=243181135 [cited 01 March 2025].
32. IBM Corp. Released 2020. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
33. Davies RS. Designing surveys for evaluations and research. Ed Tech Books. Available from: https://edtechbooks.org/designing_surveys?tab=front [cited 26 August 2024].
34. Tsuda HC, Low S, Vlad G. A description of comments written by clinical instructors on the Clinical Performance Instrument. J Phys Ther Educ (2007) 21(1): 56–62. doi: 10.1097/00001416-200701000-00008
35. Vendrely A, Carter R. The influence of training on the rating of physical therapist student performance in the clinical setting. J Allied Health (2004) 33(1): 62–69.
36. Davies R, Hanna E, Cott C. ‘They put you on your toes’: physical therapists’ perceived benefits from and barriers to supervising students in the clinical setting. Physiother Can (2011) 63(2): 224–33. doi: 10.3138/ptc.2010-07
37. Rabena-Amen AK, Raja B, Davenport TE. Obstacles to physical therapy clinical instruction: a qualitative study of clinical instructors. Internet J Allied Health Sci Pract (2024) 22(4): Article 11.
38. Anderson C, Cosgrove M, Lees D, et al. What clinical instructors want: perspectives on a new assessment tool for students in the clinical environment. Physiother Can (2014) 66(3): 322–28. doi: 10.3138/ptc.2013-27
39. Apke TL, Whalen M, Buford J. Effects of student physical therapists on clinical instructor productivity across settings in an academic medical center. Phys Ther (2020) 100(2): 209–16. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzz148
40. Jensen G, Mostrom E. Handbook of teaching and learning for physical therapists. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.
41. Recker-Hughes C, Padial C, Becker E, et al. Clinical site directors’ perspectives on clinical education. J Phys Ther Educ (2016) 30: 21–7. doi: 10.1097/00001416-201630030-00005
Article Details
Keywords:
Clinical Performance Instrument 3.0, Perceptions, PT Clinical Instructors, PT Students
Issue
Section
Original Research Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Hansen, R., Struble-Fitzsimmons, D., & Ryans, K. (2025). Physical therapist student and clinical instructor perceptions of the Clinical Performance Instrument 3.0 (CPI 3.0): an exploratory descriptive study. The Journal of Clinical Education in Physical Therapy, 7. https://doi.org/10.52214/jcept.v7.13048