Page 74 - Magnetic Resonance Flipbook

Example of Assessment Plan and Analysis Associate Level-Clinical Competency Goal

Goal I– Students will demonstrate clinical competency.
Student Measurement Timeframe – Benchmark – Actual Data Past 3 – 5 years of Data
Learning Tools – A formative Should be a score Results - Results –
Outcomes – A minimum of 2 measure used above passing. Include the Identify each year’s results
measuring (while students Examples are: number of separately for comparison
tools/assessment are in the first A percentage students purposes.
methods per year of the score, evaluated
student learning program), and a A score based on a
outcome is summative scale, such as a
required. measure used Likert score
(when students (include the scale)
are close to
program
completion and/or
graduates) is
recommended for
best practices.
1. Students will Lab Practical Semester 2 Students will 2021 8.3 2020 9.04 n = 10
apply magnetic Form receive a (average 2019 9.30 n = 8
field safety ≥ 8.0 (average score) 2018 8.80 n = 8
measures. Question #9 score) 2017 8.2 n = 8
(on a 10-point n = 8/9 2016 8.70 n = 9
scale) (number of
students who
met score of
8.0 or higher)

Met
Clinical Semester 5 Students will 2021 9.7 2020 9.34 n = 10
Evaluation Form receive a 2019 9.30 n = 8
≥ 9.5 n = 8/9 2018 8.80 n = 8
Question #4 (on a 10-point 2017 9.33 n = 8
scale) Met 2016 9.70 n = 9
2. Students will Clinical Semester 3 Students will 2021 8.5 2020 8.40 n = 10
obtain magnetic Evaluation Form receive a 2019 8.20 n = 8
resonance ≥ 8.0 n = 8/9 2018 8.53 n = 8
images of Question #10 (on a 10-point 2017 7.41 n = 8
acceptable scale) Met 2016 8.70 n = 9
diagnostic
quality.

MRI 340 Final Semester 5 Students will 2021 88 2020 94 n = 10
Examination receive a 2019 97 n = 8
≥ 90% n = 7/9 2018 96 n = 8
Questions 20-27 (on average of all 2017 87 n = 8
questions) Unmet 2016 89 n = 9

Analysis – (To include key findings, 3-5 year trending comparisons, steps to take to enhance student learning):
Goal I SLO 1: The benchmark for both the first year and second year students has been met for 2021, but data results for the second-
year students has been inconsistent for the past 6 years with no discernable trend. Discussion included concerns with the first-year
students being assessed in the laboratory setting which may not be a realistic situation, while the second-year students are being
assessed in the clinical setting by many different technologists. Data will continue to be evaluated. A future potential action plan may