Background
Standardised assessments are essential for diagnosing conditions, evaluating therapy, and formulating prognoses within physiotherapy. However, due to various barriers, including lack of knowledge, accessibility issues, and time constraints their routine use remains inconsistent. Defining a core set of standardised assessments for entry-level education is crucial in addressing these challenges. This study therefore aimed to establish such
a core assessment set for Austria’s bachelor’s degree programmes for neurological physiotherapy and develop corresponding educational materials.
Methods
A multistage process (2019–2024) was applied: (1) definition of the scope of the core assessment set; (2) preparation of a modified Delphi process, including initial screening of recommended assessments; (3) development of the core set through a modified Delphi process; (4) categorisation of assessments according to the intended level of student engagement; and (5) creation of the necessary content and structure for educational material to facilitate implementation. Representatives of all nine Austrian bachelor’s programmes participated in the whole process. Assessments were categorised according to their intended level of student engagement: RECOGNISING (students should become familiar with the assessment through exposure) and APPLYING (students should learn how to perform and interpret the assessment). Voting results were analysed using descriptive statistics.
Results
Based on a number of 102 assessments as recommended by the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy with 17 supplementary assessments included to infuse Austrian context, assessment screening and three Delphi rounds were administered. Results classified 15 assessments as RECOGNISING and 22 assessments as APPLYING. Nineteen assessments were placed on a supplementary list for further learning. Educational materials were developed to support students and educators.
Conclusions
The consensus-based core assessment set for neurological physiotherapy education in Austria ensures a necessary consistency across bachelor’s degree programmes. The developed educational materials support
Andrea Greisberger, Meike Klinger, Anna Dopona, Manuela Riegler, Veronika Müller, Agnes Wilhelm, Theres Wess, Annette Nägele, Hannes Aftenberger, Katharina Kurz and Barbara Seebacher
Disease Category: Neurology
Disease Name: Ataxia, Brain injury (traumatic), Facial nerve paresis, Multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's disease, Spinal cord injury (SCI), Stroke
Age Range: 18 - 120
Sex: Either
Nature of Intervention: Physiotherapy
- Clinical experts
- Other
- Researchers
- COS (Other)
- Delphi process
- Literature review
- Survey
Recommendations of the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy (ANPT) are the starting point for the process. In preparation, the recommended standardised assessments will be classified according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
The relevance of each assessment will be assessed according for the Austrian context by the study team using a 4-point Likert scale (1=not relevant, 2=mostly not relevant, 3=mostly relevant, 4=relevant). Assessments rated 3 or 4 by all team members will be excluded for the upcoming Delphi process.
For the Delphi process one faculty member per educational institution will be invited to participate. Full-time or part-time teachers in the field of neurology (subfield: central lesions) are eligible. As there are nine educational institutions for physiotherapy in Austria, a maximum of nine faculty members might participate.
Preparing the Delphi process, faculty members will be asked to rate each assessment on a 4-point Likert scale (1=not relevant, 2=mostly not relevant, 3=mostly relevant, 4=relevant). Assessments that are rated 3 or 4 by all participants will be excluded from the list. In addition, participants can add standardised assessments during this step; a justification for the relevance of the assessment has to be given.
The Delphi process is divided in two steps: First, within an anonymous survey, participants have to answer the following question, using a 3-point Likert scale (1=should definitely be included, 2=unclear and 3=should not be included): Which assessment should be included in a core outcome set? Assessments with ambiguous results will be considered in the subsequent second step of a structured discussion. These two steps will be repeated until consensus is reached.
Finally, a systematic literature search will be conducted for the remaining assessments in order to provide students and faculty members with compact information on the psychometric properties and practicability of each assessment. In addition, necessary steps will be defined to keep the core outcome set up to date.