VIEWS: 29 PAGES: 1 POSTED ON: 4/29/2012
PACKRAT: a predictor of success on the PANCE Derek E. Wilson, PA-S and Richard Muma, PhD, MPH, PA-C Wichita State University, Dept of Physician Assistant ABSTRACT RESULTS The performance of student in this study showed an overall first time pass rate of 95% (class Introduction: The ultimate goal for physician assistant programs is to provide the Table 1: PACKRAT vs. PANCE Descriptive Data of 2003) and 90% (class of 2004). Comparison of student scores on the PACKRAT (as right amount of education and clinical experience for preparation of their students reported by number correct) to the performance on the PANCE (as measured by the for clinical practice. In addition, programs must adequately prepare students for reported score) showed a statistically significant relationship (P<0.001) with Pearson successful completion of the Physician Assistant National Certifying Examination Mean Std. Deviation N Correlation Coefficient of 0.602 for PACKRAT 1/PANCE and 0.744 for PACKRAT 2/PANCE. (PANCE). Knowing that program completion and PANCE completion are required to Linear regression of PACKRAT 1 and 2 (as measured by the number correct) versus PANCE practice as a PA, practice exams like the Physician Assistant Clinical Knowledge PANCE 490.1310 95.23791 84 (as measured by the reported score) showed a significant relationship between the Rating and Assessment Tool (PACKRAT) may be a good predictor for PANCE PACKRAT 1 and PANCE (P<0.05) and PACKRAT 2 and PANCE (P<0.001). The regression PACKRAT 1 140.5476 18.1675 84 performance.1 of the PACKRAT scores on PANCE scores revealed an r score of 0.74 and r2 of 0.55. PACKRAT 2 152.4762 13.76085 84 Therefore, 55% of the variance in the PANCE scores can be accounted for by the variance Methodology: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether PACKRAT exam for PACKRAT scores. scores served as a predictor of PANCE scores for Wichita State University PA classes 2003-2004. The data of interests included PACKRAT 1 (administered at the end of the first year), PACKRAT 2 (administered at the end of the second year), and PANCE exam raw scores (administered after graduation). The relationship between Table 2: Linear Regression of PACKRAT and PANCE Scores the scores was evaluated by determination of the correlation coefficient. Analysis of the predictive value of PACKRAT results with respect to passing the PANCE was DISCUSSION Adjusted R Std. Error of the Statistical significance discovered in the study was very strong. The measured correlation accomplished using linear regression. Model R R Square Square Estimate coefficient of 0.602 and 0.744 demonstrated that performance on PACKRAT is correlated to the Results: Combined correlations of the class of 2003-2004 between PACKRAT and PACKRAT 1 .765a 0.586 0.576 62.05009 score on the PANCE. Limitations included not only the small sample size but also the specific PANCE scores showed correlation coefficients of 0.602 (P<0.001) for PACKRAT 1 focus on Wichita State University Physician Assistant students. Factors not measured in this PACKRAT 2 .744b 0.554 0.548 63.99499 and 0.744 (P<0.001) for PACKRAT 2. Linear regression showed a significant particular study include grade point average, previous healthcare experience, age, gender, relationship between PACKRAT scores and PANCE performance (P<0.001). ethnicity, and degree type. Also variation exists in each PACKRAT exam, as it is modified each year. Other possible limitations include whether students taking the PACKRAT 1 and 2 exams Conclusion: PACKRAT scores are strongly correlated with PANCE performance. focused seriously on preparation as compared to the PANCE exam. The PACKRAT appears to predict student outcome on the PANCE. a. P = .015 b. P = .000 Importance of the study findings demonstrate the strong predictor of the PACKRAT exam on PANCE performance, thus allowing students an opportunity for early intervention in order to PURPOSE prepare for the PANCE. The analysis of the both the PACKRAT compared to PANCE scores may improve the assessment of the program curriculum, but equally important, the PACKRAT may be predictive of passing the PANCE. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate Table 3: PACKRAT and PANCE Correlation Coefficients whether proficiency on the PACKRAT exam serves as a predictor of PANCE scores for Wichita State University physician assistant classes of 2003-2004. CONCLUSION Wichita State University PA students’ PACKRAT scores are strongly correlated with PANCE METHODS performance. PACKRAT 2 (taken after the clinical year) has a higher correlation to PANCE Pearson Correlation PANCE performance. The PACKRAT appears to predict WSU PA student outcomes on the PANCE.2-3 Setting Wichita State University Physician Assistant Program Study population WSU PA graduating class of 2003 and 2004 (n=84) PACKRAT 1* 0.602 Study design Retrospective study using PA program administrative records REFERENCES 1. National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants (NCCPA). Certification Confidentiality & IRB approval. This study was approved by the WSU institutional PACKRAT 2+ 0.744 Standard: The Value of the PA-C. www.nccpa.net review board (IRB) previous to any data collection or analysis 2. Cody JT, Adamson KA, Parker RL, Brakhage CH. Evaluation of the Relationship Between Student Performance on the PACKRAT and PANCE Examinations. Perspective on Measurements / Data points collected Correlation analysis was conducted comparing Sig. (1-tailed) *P<0.001 Physician AssistanEducation. 2004;15(1):42-46. PACKRAT 1 and PANCE; and PACKRAT 2 and PANCE scores using linear models to 3. Oakes DL, MacLaren LM, Gorie CT, Finstuen K. Predicting Success on the Physician determine how the scores relate. Logistic regression was used to assess the Capability Assistnat National Certifying Examination. Perspective on Physician Assistant Education. of PACRAT 1 and PACRAT 2 to predict the PANCE score. Statistical analysis was 1999;10:63-69 accomplished using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version +P<0.001 12.0 (Tables 1-3).
Pages to are hidden for
"pa0605024.ppt - Wichita State University"Please download to view full document