Assessing Clinical and Academic Performance in a Master’s Level Speech Language Pathology Program: A Path Analysis

Margaret M. Kjelgaard, Anthony J. Guarino

Center for Interprofessional Studies and Innovation, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, US.
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2012.31023                

Abstract

This study assessed a path model to determine the direct and indirect effects on clinical and academic success from students’ undergraduate and graduate performance. Astin’s I-E-O model served as the theoretical foundation for the hypothesized model. Input (I) data included students’ undergraduate information (GPA, major, and GRE scores); Environment (E) data included grades in required graduate courses and formative clinical evaluation; and Output (O) data included PRAXIS score and summative clinical evaluation. The sample was 122 students who completed a SLP Program at a New England graduate school. Results of the path analysis supported the efficacy of the proposed model in determining the direct and indirect effects on professional competence. Graduate students with an undergraduate degree in SLP were at a disadvantage upon entry to the program relative to students from other undergraduate majors. Implications of the study are discussed.

Keywords

Graduate Program; Speech Language Pathology; Path Analysis; Learning Outcomes; Astin’s I-E-O Model

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Astin, A. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: Macmillan.
[2]	Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[3]	Bean, J. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the student attrition process. The Review of Higher Education, 6, 129-148.
[4]	Educational Testing Service (2009). The Praxis Series. Princeton, NJ: McGraw-Hill.
[5]	Forrest, K., & Naremore, R. C. (1998). Analysis of criteria for graduate admissions in speech-language pathology: Predictive utility of application materials. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 57-61.
[6]	Kuncel, N. R., & Hezlett, S. A. (2007). Standardized tests predict graduate students’ success. Science, 315, 1080-1081. doi:10.1126/science.1136618
[7]	Rosovsky, H., & Hartley, M. (2002). Evaluation and the Academy: Are we doing the right thing? Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
[8]	Sacks, P. (1999). Standardized Minds. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
[9]	Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1997). Does the graduate record examination predict meaningful success in the graduate training of psychologists? A case study. American Psychologist, 52, 630-641. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.630
[10]	Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[11]	Zwick, R. (2002). Fair game? The use of standardized admissions in higher education. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.