2016 Student Satisfaction Survey Summary
2016 STUDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY Summary INTRODUCTION PURPOSE As part of RMUoHP’s systematic institutional assessment and continuous improvement process, the purpose of the annual Student Satisfaction Survey (SSS) is to assess student perception of the University’s alignment with its Core Values, Mission, Vision, and Core Themes; University and academic experiences; and overall satisfaction. METHODS & PARTICIPATION The 2016 SSS was completed in March and April via an online survey tool and included the following topics: demographics, Core Values, Mission, Vision, Core Themes, University experiences, facilities, personnel, services and programs, clinical inquiry and learning, academic experiences, academic rigor, and satisfaction. Open-ended items added meaning to the survey by providing clarification to quantitative items. Student participation was solicited via email. RMUoHP’s 472 degree-seeking graduate students were sent the survey invitation and follow-up reminders that each included completion instructions and details regarding the survey’s anonymity and aggregate reporting. Twohundred-ninety-nine of the 472 (63.35%) students started the survey and 265 (56.14%) students completed the survey, approximately 10% greater than in 2015. The students represented eight degree programs and 21 program emphases (Tables 4 and 5). The comparison between actual and potential participants (Table 4) reveals an alignment with less than 6% variation, suggesting the data is a reasonable representation of the student population as a whole. Tables 1-6 include demographics for race/ethnicity; sex; age range; potential and actual participation by degree program; program emphasis; and start year. REPORTING & USAGE This report contains data for all partially and fully completed surveys, including scaled and open-ended survey items. For appropriate five-point Likert scaled items, the University defines mean score values as follows: scores ≤ 3.99 are improvement opportunities; scores between 4.0-4.49 are acceptable; and, scores ≥ 4.5 are exceptional. To address population differences and improve reliability, post-professional student and entry-level student data were presented separately in addition to Institutional means. For 2016, the entry-level data includes three degree tracks or programs: post-baccalaureate Doctor of Nursing Practice, entry-level Doctor of Physical Therapy, and Master of Physician Assistant Studies. The post-professional data includes the following degree tracks or programs: Master of Science, post-master’s Doctor of Nursing Practice, transitional Doctor of Physical Therapy, post-professional Doctor of Occupational Therapy, Doctor of Clinical Science, Doctor of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy. Variations in response quantities were attributed to a “no basis for judgment” option that was excluded from calculations. Comparisons from 2015 University means were also included when applicable. While this summary report was provided for the consumption of the entire University community, filtered reports by program were also provided to the respective Program Directors when responses were greater than an n of three. Report findings are used within RMUoHP’s assessment and continuous improvement cycles. RESULTS SUMMARY RMUoHP’s students agreed regarding the University’s fulfillment of its Core Values, Mission, Vision, and Core Themes and the culture of student-centeredness supported by University personnel (both faculty and staff) and services. Both entry-level and post-professional students experienced challenging and stimulating learning within evidencebased curricula at RMUoHP. Of the responding students, 97.74% indicated overall satisfaction with the University. While overall satisfaction was exceptional, the Net Promoter Scores revealed the potential to strengthen student loyalty. Improvement opportunities varied across populations and responses were clarified through open-ended survey items. Entry-level students reported opportunities to explore diversity, increase study spaces, and address other facilities suggestions. Post-professional students, however, provided ideas related to the curriculum, academic model, and academic services. 1
DEMOGRAPHICS As demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2, the majority of RMUoHP students who completed the survey were white/Caucasian (79.93%) and female (64.55%). Of the respondents, 66.22% were younger than age 40, with 33.78% between ages 40-69 (Table 3). The aforementioned potential and actual responses by degree are described in Table 4. Tables 5 and 6 address participants by degree program emphasis and start year, providing additional detail regarding the survey population. Table 1. Race/Ethnicity (n = 299) #
Answer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic or Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White/Caucasian Two or More Races
Table 3. Age Range (n = 299) n
n%
#
Answer
1 8 21 16 0 239 14
0.33 2.68 7.02 5.35 0.00 79.93 4.68
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 69 years
Table 2. Sex (n = 299) #
Answer
n
n%
1 2
Female Male
193 106
64.55 35.45
n
n%
21 92 47 38 35 20 17 21 5 3
7.02 30.77 15.72 12.71 11.71 6.69 5.69 7.02 1.67 1.00
Table 4. Comparison between Potential and Actual Survey Participants by Degree Program Degree Program
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Master of Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS) Master of Science in Health Science (MSHS) Doctor of Clinical Science - Speech-Language Pathology (ClinScD) Doctor of Occupational Therapy (Post-Professional OTD) Doctor of Physical Therapy (Entry-level DPT) Doctor of Physical Therapy (Transitional DPT) Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) Doctor of Science (DSc)/Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Potential n (n = 472)
Potential n%
Actual n (n = 300)
Actual n%
Difference n% (Potential vs. Actual)
45 9 58 78 103 1 48 130
9.53 1.91 12.29 16.53 21.82 0.21 10.17 27.54
44 3 43 46 77 1 21 65
14.67 1.0 14.33 15.33 25.67 0.33 7.0 21.67
+5.14 -0.91 +2.04 -1.20 +3.85 +0.12 -3.17 -5.87
2
Table 5. Responses by Degree Program Emphasis (n = 300) #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Answer Options
Athletic Training (PhD) (Students who began prior to 2013.) Health Promotion & Wellness (PhD) (Students who began prior to 2013.) Health Science (MS - Rehabilitative Science) Health Science (MS - Sport Performance) Health Science (DSc - Athletic Training) Health Science (DSc - Clinical Electrophysiology) Health Science (DSc - Health Promotion & Wellness) Health Science (DSc - Health Promotion & Wellness/Human & Sport Performance (Concurrent Enrollment)) Health Science (DSc - Human & Sport Performance) Nursing (PhD) (Students who began prior to 2013.) Nursing Practice (Post-master's DNP) Nursing Practice (Post-baccalaureate DNP (FNP)) Occupational Therapy (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Education Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Pediatric Science Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Orthopaedic & Sports Science (PhD) (Students who began prior to 2013.) Pediatric Science (PhD) (Students who began prior to 2013.) Physical Therapy (Entry-level DPT) Physical Therapy - Pediatric Science Elective Track (Transitional DPT) Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS) Speech-Language Pathology (Post-professional ClinScD)
n
n%
12 8 2 1 15 1 5 3 4 3 4 17 37 6 3 8 6 77 1 44 43
4.00 2.67 0.67 0.33 5.00 0.33 1.67 1.00 1.33 1.00 1.33 5.67 12.33 2.00 1.00 2.67 2.00 25.67 0.33 14.67 14.33
Table 6. Program Start Year (n = 300) #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Answer Options
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
n
n%
1 1 1 5 2 6 20 13 76 175
0.33 0.33 0.33 1.67 0.67 2.00 6.67 4.33 25.33 58.33
3
CORE VALUES, MISSION, VISION, & CORE THEMES Students were asked to rate their level of agreement to statements regarding the University’s relevant Core Values, Mission, Vision, and Core Themes (Table 7). Institutional means were within the acceptable and exceptional ranges, with clinical inquiry, leadership, Mission, Vision, and Core Themes 1 (Developing Evidence-Based Practitioners) and 2 (Elevating Clinical Inquiry Proficiency) scoring over 4.5 (exceptional) across all populations. One item scored below the acceptable threshold: entry-level student rating for the Core Value of diversity, which response may trigger exploration into the underlying cause regarding academic freedom, varied educational experiences, or broad recruitment of students and faculty. Other than diversity, institutional means are comparable or higher in 2016 than in 2015. Table 7. Core Values, Mission, Vision, and Core Themes #
Question
1
The University advocates clinical inquiry that challenges practice standards, expands evidence-based practice, increases clinical research, develops healthcare change agents, and encourages experiential learning. (Clinical Inquiry) The University provides a student--centered environment through relevant and participatory courses and a supportive University community. (Student-Centeredness) The University demonstrates integrity in its interactions with all its constituents. (Integrity) The University cultivates diversity through academic freedom, varied educational experiences, and broad recruitment of students and faculty. (Diversity) The University fosters skills essential to leadership roles in healthcare, academia, research and the community. (Leadership) The University operates with respect for the natural environment. (Sustainability) The University promotes service to community, healthcare, and education. (Service) The University fulfills its mission to educate current and future healthcare professionals for outcomes-oriented, evidence-based practice. The University demonstrates mission fulfillment through the quality of its education and success of its students in academic programs that develop leaders skilled in clinical inquiry and prepared to effect healthcare change. (Mission)
2
3 4
5 6 7 8
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Univ Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
2015 Univ Mean
8
2
3
50
219
282
4.67
4.66 (n = 157)
4.68 (n = 125)
4.59 (n = 201)
8
10
5
74
184
281
4.48
4.45 (n = 155)
4.52 (n = 126)
4.37 (n = 200)
7
11
13
52
191
274
4.49
13
16
24
72
149
274
4.20
4.55 (n = 148) 4.39 (n = 146)
4.43 (n = 126) 3.98 (n = 128)
4.47 (n = 190) 4.34 (n = 193)
8
4
12
69
186
279
4.51
7
10
31
50
150
248
4.31
7
2
15
57
175
256
4.53
7
5
3
52
210
277
4.64
4.51 (n = 153) 4.35 (n = 135) 4.38 (n = 133) 4.66 (n = 151)
4.51 (n = 126) 4.27 (n = 13) 4.69 (n = 123) 4.61 (n = 126)
4.47 (n = 201) 4.30 (n = 172) 4.42 (n = 187) 4.64 (n = 197)
(Table 7 Continues)
4
Table 7. Core Values, Mission, Vision, and Core Themes (Continued) #
Question
9
10
11
12
13
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Univ Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
2015 Univ Mean
The University is progressing towards vision fulfillment to advance the quality, delivery, and efficacy of healthcare. (Vision)
8
3
8
55
203
277
4.60
4.56 (n = 152)
4.62 (n = 198)
RMUoHP develops evidence-based practitioners by educating current and future healthcare professionals to synthesize evidence-based principles into practice. (Core Theme 1 - Developing Evidence-Based Practitioners) RMUoHP elevates clinical inquiry proficiency through learning experiences that challenge practice standards, expand evidence-based practice, increase clinical research, develop healthcare change agents, and encourage experiential learning. (Core Theme 2 - Elevating Clinical Inquiry Proficiency) RMUoHP ensures educational quality through student-centered academic programs, services, and continuous improvement. (Core Theme 3 - Ensuring Educational Quality) RMUoHP nurtures student success by engaging students in professional and personal growth opportunities. (Core Theme 4 Nurturing Student Success)
8
3
1
41
224
277
4.70
4.70 (n = 151)
4.64 (n = 125) 4.69 (n = 126)
8
3
3
57
206
277
4.62
4.64 (n = 152)
4.61 (n = 125)
N/A
5
10
12
65
188
280
4.50
4.49 (n = 154)
N/A
7
7
13
78
172
277
4.45
4.40 (n = 151)
4.52 (n = 126) 4.50 (n = 126)
N/A
N/A
UNIVERSITY EXPERIENCES Using the same Likert scale, students were asked to rate their agreement to statements regarding broad University experiences (Table 8). All institutional means are in the acceptable or exceptional ranges. Particularly noteworthy are exceptional scores across all populations for the following: admission process and staff consideration of abilities, needs and expectations; feelings of safety on campus; and the University’s demonstration of continuous improvement. Additionally, between 2015 and 2016, the score related to service-related information, opportunities, or encouragement increased from 3.93 to 4.29. For 2016, the only score below the acceptable threshold (4.0) was the entry-level rating for good value (quality education at a competitive price). Open-ended comment themes, identified later in this report, clarify the high or increasing tuition as the origin of this rating. Because the University campus is now located across two non-adjacent buildings, students were asked to comment about challenges related to facilities. While postprofessional students shared limited comments, entry-level students noted study space limitations and challenges with the new location for financial aid offices (Table 9). Study space limitations were again supported within the open-ended themes at the end of this report. Students were also asked to rate their level of satisfaction with University personnel and the adequacy of services (Tables 10 and 11). Means across all populations were in the acceptable or exceptional ranges, demonstrating a consistent quality of support that is described in the supporting open-ended themes as a culture of student-centeredness (Core Value). Additionally, students were invited to comment on their ratings. The feedback, presented in Table 12, indicates many positive comments as well as an opportunity to explore technological and library resource limitations.
5
Table 8. University Experiences #
Question
1
The admissions process and staff considered my abilities, needs, and expectations. Through the admissions process, I felt well informed to begin my degree program. Through interactions with University constituents, I feel a sense of belonging to the RMUoHP community. Through the University’s website, handbooks, and employees, I am empowered with sufficient information related to University policies and procedures. Through the University's orientation program(s), I felt prepared to begin my program. At RMUoHP, I have been provided information, opportunities, or encouraged to participate in service activities (e.g., community service, committee service, professional service). I feel safe when I am on campus.
2 3 4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12
The RMUoHP campus includes quality facilities to support the student-centered learning environment. The RMUoHP campus includes quality technology to support the student-centered learning environment. The RMUoHP campus includes quality equipment to support the student-centered learning environment. My academic program is a good value; it provides quality education at a competitive price. The University demonstrates continuous improvement.
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Univ Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
2015 Univ Mean
6
4
5
42
212
269
4.67
6
12
9
71
177
275
4.46
7
14
18
70
166
275
4.36
4
8
25
74
164
275
4.40
4.66 (n = 148) 4.41 (n = 150) 4.29 (n = 150) 4.46 (n = 151)
4.69 (n = 121) 4.52 (n = 125) 4.44 (n = 125) 4.34 (n = 124)
4.55 (n = 192) 4.48 (n = 197) 4.28 (n = 195) 4.30 (n = 197)
7
10
18
85
152
272
4.34
10
9
25
70
148
262
4.29
4.35 (n = 149) 4.06 (n = 140)
4.33 (n = 123) 4.55 (n = 122)
4.31 (n = 197) 3.93 (n = 187)
6
0
3
18
235
262
4.82
4
9
18
44
174
249
4.51
8
10
21
79
151
269
4.32
7
5
20
75
159
266
4.41
11
19
26
79
138
273
4.15
5
1
11
68
184
269
4.58
4.80 (n = 142) 4.52 (n = 135) 4.36 (n = 144) 4.43 (n = 141) 4.37 (n = 148) 4.57 (n = 144)
4.83 (n = 120) 4.49 (n = 114) 4.27 (n = 125) 4.38 (n = 125) 3.89 (n = 125) 4.59 (n = 125)
4.73 (n = 191) 4.43 (n = 192) 4.23 (n = 190) 4.32 (n = 184) 4.20 (n = 194) 4.48 (n = 186)
Table 9. Additional Facilities Comment Themes n
Entry-Level (N = 10)
n
Post-Professional (N = 7)
5 2
Study Space Limitations Challenges with Financial Aid Location
2
Positive Comments Regarding Campus
6
Table 10. Satisfaction with University Personnel #
Question
Very Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Very Satisfied
n
Univ Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
2015 Univ Mean
1
Admissions
1
2
3
35
217
258
4.80
2
Student Services
1
4
9
31
194
239
4.73
3
Learning Resource Center
3
11
20
54
165
253
4.45
4
Instructional Technology
4
3
15
51
162
235
4.55
5
Registrar
1
1
14
29
198
243
4.74
6
Technical Support
2
3
12
26
165
208
4.68
7
Institutional Review Board
0
1
18
12
120
151
4.66
8
Finance and Financial Aid
1
4
6
35
185
231
4.73
4.81 (n = 136) 4.71 (n = 119) 4.55 (n = 138) 4.64 (n = 131) 4.78 (n = 135) 4.76 (n = 107) 4.78 (n = 93) 4.73 (n = 114)
4.80 (n = 122) 4.75 (n = 120) 4.33 (n = 115) 4.43 (n = 115) 4.69 (n = 108) 4.59 (n = 101) 4.47 (n = 58) 4.73 (n = 117)
4.73 (n = 175) 4.61 (n = 160) 4.20 (n = 170) 4.45 (n = 159) 4.75 (n = 164) 4.46 (n = 117) 4.56 (n = 71) 4.71 (n = 148)
Table 11. Adequacy of University Services/Programs to Support Educational Goal Achievement and/or Enhance the Student Experience #
Question
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Univ Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
2015 Univ Mean
1
Admissions
0
3
8
41
208
260
4.75
2
Student Services
0
2
13
38
185
238
4.71
3
Learning Resource Center
4
12
19
65
154
254
4.39
4
Instructional Technology
4
3
18
53
164
242
4.53
5
Registrar
1
2
19
28
193
243
4.69
6
Technical Support
3
3
12
30
162
210
4.64
7
Institutional Review Board
0
1
20
20
113
154
4.59
8
Finance and Financial Aid
1
5
9
44
174
233
4.65
4.80 (n = 136) 4.73 (n = 120) 4.45 (n = 139) 4.64 (n = 136) 4.75 (n = 134) 4.73 (n = 109) 4.76 (n = 93) 4.70 (n = 115)
4.69 (n = 122) 4.69 (n = 118) 4.32 (n = 115) 4.39 (n = 106) 4.61 (n = 109) 4.54 (n = 101) 4.33 (n = 61) 4.61 (n = 118)
4.67 (n = 177) 4.56 (n = 165) 4.09 (n = 173) 4.39 (n = 167) 4.68 (n = 165) 4.45 (n = 124) 4.55 (n = 78) 4.68 (n = 148)
7
Table 12. Additional Personnel or Services Comment Themes n
Entry-Level (N = 20)
n
Post-Professional (N = 24)
11
Technology Enhancement Request (e.g., Better LRC and Classroom Computers, Strengthened Wifi, Wireless Printing Instructions, Reliable Classroom Systems) Overall Positive Experience Quality Staff Faculty Not on Time or Not Prepared (Classes Cancelled) Specific Curriculum Suggestions
12
Specific Staff Commendation
6 5 4 4
Library Resource Limitations Specific Faculty Complaint Overall Positive Experience Culture of Student-Centeredness
3 2 2 2
ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES To analyze students’ academic experiences, participants responded to statements regarding clinical inquiry, learning, general experiences, and academic rigor. On the topics of clinical inquiry and learning (Table 13), post-professional students scored all items within the exceptional range and entry-level students scored all items in either acceptable or exceptional ranges. These scores demonstrate additional support for the University’s Mission and Core Themes. For the general academic experiences (Table 14), all post-professional means were again in the exceptional range and entry-level means were in either acceptable or exceptional ranges. All but one institutional mean were exceptional. In comparison to 2015, students increasingly agree (94.36%) regarding the appropriate level of the challenging and stimulating learning environment at RMUoHP (Table 15). Table 13. Clinical Inquiry and Learning #
Question
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Univ Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
2015 Univ Mean
1
I am competent at locating literature.
0
5
10
94
157
266
4.52
2
I am competent at critically evaluating literature.
0
5
11
117
133
266
4.42
3
I am competent in my ability to synthesize evidencebased principles into realistic practice settings. My participation in experiential learning activities (e.g., clinical experiences, practicum, thesis, capstone, dissertation) has enhanced my clinical inquiry proficiency. I am developing knowledge and skills that will allow me to challenge current practice standards and serve as a catalyst for healthcare change. The knowledge I have gained from my degree program has improved my skills as an evidence-based clinician, educator, or researcher.
0
4
16
88
156
264
4.50
0
1
20
45
162
228
4.61
4.64 (n = 144) 4.54 (n = 144) 4.68 (n = 143) 4.75 (n = 128)
4.37 (n = 122) 4.28 (n = 122) 4.29 (n = 121) 4.44 (n = 100)
4.61 (n = 183) 4.55 (n = 183) 4.48 (n = 183) 4.65 (n = 142)
0
1
6
61
197
265
4.71
4.79 (n = 143)
4.62 (n = 122)
4.76 (n = 182)
0
1
4
39
217
261
4.81
4.87 (n = 142)
4.73 (n = 119)
4.83 (n = 180)
4
5
6
8
Table 14. General Academic Experiences #
Question
1 2 3 4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11 12
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Univ Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
2015 Univ Mean
The academic model is effectively structured for learning. My program curriculum is relevant to my academic and professional goals. My degree program has clear, identifiable outcomes.
0
3
3
65
194
265
4.70
0
3
5
56
202
266
4.72
0
3
5
36
222
266
4.79
Individual courses support my degree program’s learning outcomes. Through engagement in my learning experience, my Program Director(s) creates a supportive learning environment. I receive adequate advising regarding my careerrelated questions (e.g., via Program Director, Faculty, Career Services). Through engagement in my learning experience, my faculty create a supportive learning environment. My faculty demonstrate current knowledge of best clinical practice. My faculty use contemporary educational technologies to enhance my learning experience. My faculty use contemporary teaching methods that enhance my learning experience. I am confident feedback to my Faculty and Program Director is seriously considered and addressed. I have formed meaningful formal and informal mentorship and advisement relationships across my academic experience.
0
3
8
62
192
265
4.67
1
3
12
34
215
265
4.73
4.79 (n = 144) 4.76 (n = 144) 4.85 (n = 144) 4.74 (n = 144) 4.80 (n = 143)
4.59 (n = 121) 4.67 (n = 122) 4.72 (n = 122) 4.59 (n = 121) 4.65 (n = 122)
4.53 (n = 184) 4.77 (n = 184) 4.72 (n = 184) 4.68 (n = 183) 4.70 (n = 184)
1
5
14
55
181
256
4.60
4.63 (n = 137)
4.57 (n = 119)
4.55 (n = 168)
0
4
11
51
199
265
4.68
0
1
6
44
213
264
4.78
0
3
18
58
187
266
4.61
0
4
10
53
198
265
4.68
6
16
17
50
176
265
4.41
2
6
18
51
185
262
4.57
4.78 (n = 143) 4.83 (n = 142) 4.76 (n = 144) 4.81 (n = 143) 4.72 (n = 143) 4.66 (n = 140)
4.56 (n = 122) 4.71 (n = 122) 4.44 (n = 122) 4.52 (n = 122) 4.05 (n = 122) 4.47 (n = 122)
4.64 (n = 184) 4.73 (n = 184) 4.57 (n = 184) 4.59 (n = 184) 4.48 (n = 181) 4.49 (n = 181)
Table 15. Perception of Academic Rigor #
Answer
1
In general, the program has inconsistent or low levels of rigor, leaving me feeling disengaged or bored in many courses. In general, the level of rigor provides a challenging and stimulating learning environment appropriate for graduate education. In general, my learning process is stifled or I'm often overwhelmed because the program is overly rigorous.
2 3
Univ (n = 184)
Univ %
PP (n = 144)
PP %
EL (n = 122)
EL%
2015 Univ (n = 184)
2015 Univ Mean
5
1.88
2
1.39
3
2.46
5
2.72
251
94.36
136
94.44
115
94.26
166
90.22
10
3.76
6
4.17
4
3.28
13
7.07
9
OVERALL SATISFACTION In a simple yes or no question (Table 17), RMUoHP students were asked about their overall satisfaction with RMUoHP. The majority of responses were overwhelmingly “yes” at 97.74%, a slight increase over 2015. RMUoHP students indicated broad satisfaction with their academic and overall experiences at the University, as demonstrated in Tables 1819 in which institutional means were within the exceptional range and, again, slightly elevated from 2015. RMUoHP also measured the likelihood of RMUoHP students in referring the University to a friend, family member, or colleague for his or her education (Table 20). The Net Promoter Score (NPS), which measures loyalty and may be used to promote growth, was calculated from a 0-10-point scale (with 10 representing “absolutely will recommend”) by adding the percentage of nine and 10 scores (promoters) and then subtracting the percentage of zero-through-six scores (detractors). The NPS provides meaningful information regarding University growth and, as such, is measured across University constituents. According to NetPromoter.com, “Companies with the most efficient growth engines operate at NPS efficiency ratings of 50 to 80%. But the average firm sputters along at an NPS efficiency of only 5 to 10%. In other words, Promoters barely outnumber Detractors.” As the University’s NPS decreased from 2015 (51.63%) to 2016 (49.78%), this suggest an opportunity to continue exploring strategies to increase loyalty that move students from the “neutral” range (7-8) to becoming “active” promoters (9-10). Table 16. Responses to “All things considered, are you satisfied with your RMUoHP experience?” Answer
Yes No
Univ n (n = 265)
Univ n%
PP n (n = 144)
PP n%
EL n (n = 121)
EL n%
2015 Univ (n = 179) (%)
259 6
97.74 2.26
140 4
97.22 2.78
119 2
98.35% 1.65%
172 (96.09) 7 (3.91)
Table 17. Satisfaction with RMUoHP Academic Experience #
Answer
1 2 3 4 5
Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Mean
Univ n (n = 265)
PP n (n = 144 )
EL n (n = 121 )
2015 Univ (n = 182)
0 1 12 89 163 4.56
0 0 2 41 101 4.69
0 1 10 48 62 4.41
0 5 8 57 112 4.52
Univ n (n = 265)
PP n (n = 144)
EL n (n = 121 )
2014 Univ (n = 182)
0 3 10 86 166 4.57
0 1 2 42 99 4.66
0 2 8 44 67 4.45
1 3 10 55 113 4.52
Table 18. Satisfaction with Overall RMUoHP Experience #
Answer
1 2 3 4 5
Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Mean
10
Table 19. Net Promoter Score (NPS) How likely is it that you would recommend RMUoHP to a friend, family member, or colleague for his or her education?
Univ n (%) (n = 265)
PP n (%) (n = 144)
EL n (%) (n = 121)
2015 Univ n (%) (n = 182)
0 – Not Likely to Recommend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 – Absolutely Will Recommend Mean (NPS)
0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.75) 1 (0.38) 5 (1.89) 12 (4.53) 14 (5.28) 25 (9.43) 40 (15.09) 61 (23.02) 105 (39.62) 8.55 (49.78 NPS)
0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.69) 1 (0.69) 3 (2.08) 6 (4.17) 13 (9.03) 17 (11.81) 36 (25.00) 67 (46.53) 8.88 (63.90 NPS)
0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (1.65) 0 (0.00) 4 (3.31) 9 (7.44) 8 (6.61) 12 (9.92) 23 (19.01) 25 (20.66) 38 (31.40) 8.15 (33.05 NPS)
1 (0.55) 2 (1.10) 0 (0) 3 (1.65) 3 (1.65) 9 (4.95) 8 (4.40) 14 (7.69) 22 (12.09) 35 (19.23) 85 (46.70) 8.54 (51.63 NPS)
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS To provide additional clarity to the survey’s quantitative results, students were asked to comment on three additional open-ended items. Similar ideas that appeared in approximately 10% of the responses (by survey item) were considered themes. Many comments included multiple ideas and each of these ideas was counted individually. While this report addresses only the themes, individual responses were provided to the appropriate Program Director and academic leadership for consideration in the assessment and continuous improvement process. In the first item, students were asked to provide a reason for their response regarding likelihood of recommending RMUoHP to a friend, family member, or colleague for his or her education (NPS). The third and fourth items requested the students to comment upon any University improvement opportunities or strengths, respectively. Entry-level comment themes are found in Tables 21-23, while post-professional comment themes are found in Tables 24-26. Although many comment themes were unique to the respective populations, common themes appeared as strengths in the overall and academic experiences, quality faculty and staff, culture of student-centeredness, quality curriculum and evidence-based practice emphasis, and willingness to recommend RMUoHP to others. Improvement opportunities across both populations were related to faculty (e.g., specific concerns or increasing the quantity of faculty in a program). Entry-level students had more facilities-related requests and tuition concerns than did the post-professional students, who were more likely to suggest specific ideas related to academic programming and services. Post-professional students also noted strengths in the programs’ application to practice, program directors, and hybrid academic model.
11
Table 20. EL Comment Themes for RMUoHP Referral Score Rational (N = 73)
Table 23. PP Comment Themes for RMUoHP Referral Score Rational (N = 98)
n
Theme
n
Theme
29 22 20 15 15 8 8 7
Overall Positive Experience Positive Academic Experience Quality Faculty Tuition Concerns (Cost Too High or Increasing Tuition) Specific Faculty Complaint Culture of Student-Centeredness Program/Faculty Still Developing Would/Have Already Recommended
33 25 24 23 20 18 17 14 9
Positive Academic Experience Application to Practice Overall Positive Experience Quality Academic Model Highly Rigorous Would/Have Already Recommended Quality Faculty Depends Upon the Individual Culture of Student-Centeredness
Table 21. EL Comment Themes for University or Degree Program Improvement Opportunities (N = 50) n
Theme
8 7 6 6 5 5
Facilities Logistics Requests (Fix Icemakers, Add Microwaves, Allow Lights on Longer, Replace Library & Classroom Computers) Additional Study Areas Needed Positive Commentary Specific Faculty Complaint Increased Consideration for Student Feedback Tuition Concerns (Cost Too High or Increasing Tuition)
Table 22. EL Comment Themes for University or Degree Program Strengths (N = 41) n
22 13 7 7 5 4
12
Table 24. PP Comment Themes for University or Degree Program Improvement Opportunities (N = 66) n
Theme
16 7 7 6
Curriculum Suggestion Capstone Suggestions Academic Model Suggestion Increase Quantity of Program Faculty Provide Additional Academic Services (Stats Lab, Writing Lab, Research & Publication Skills Lab)
6
Table 25. PP Comment Themes for University or Degree Program Strengths (N = 59)
Theme
n
Theme
Quality Faculty Culture of Student-Centeredness Excellent Clinical & Lab Experiences Specific Faculty Commendation Specific Staff Commendation Quality Curriculum & EBP Emphasis
22 18 13 12 12 8 6 6
Culture of Student-Centeredness Quality Faculty Specific Faculty Commendation Quality Program Director Quality Academic Model Specific Staff Commendation Quality Curriculum & EBP Emphasis Quality Staff
DEMOGRAPHICS As demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2, the majority of RMUoHP students who completed the survey were white/Caucasian (79.93%) and female (64.55%). Of the respondents, 66.22% were younger than age 40, with 33.78% between ages 40-69 (Table 3). The aforementioned potential and actual responses by degree are described in Table 4. Tables 5 and 6 address participants by degree program emphasis and start year, providing additional detail regarding the survey population. Table 1. Race/Ethnicity (n = 299) #
Answer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic or Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White/Caucasian Two or More Races
Table 3. Age Range (n = 299) n
n%
#
Answer
1 8 21 16 0 239 14
0.33 2.68 7.02 5.35 0.00 79.93 4.68
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 69 years
Table 2. Sex (n = 299) #
Answer
n
n%
1 2
Female Male
193 106
64.55 35.45
n
n%
21 92 47 38 35 20 17 21 5 3
7.02 30.77 15.72 12.71 11.71 6.69 5.69 7.02 1.67 1.00
Table 4. Comparison between Potential and Actual Survey Participants by Degree Program Degree Program
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Master of Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS) Master of Science in Health Science (MSHS) Doctor of Clinical Science - Speech-Language Pathology (ClinScD) Doctor of Occupational Therapy (Post-Professional OTD) Doctor of Physical Therapy (Entry-level DPT) Doctor of Physical Therapy (Transitional DPT) Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) Doctor of Science (DSc)/Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Potential n (n = 472)
Potential n%
Actual n (n = 300)
Actual n%
Difference n% (Potential vs. Actual)
45 9 58 78 103 1 48 130
9.53 1.91 12.29 16.53 21.82 0.21 10.17 27.54
44 3 43 46 77 1 21 65
14.67 1.0 14.33 15.33 25.67 0.33 7.0 21.67
+5.14 -0.91 +2.04 -1.20 +3.85 +0.12 -3.17 -5.87
2
Table 5. Responses by Degree Program Emphasis (n = 300) #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Answer Options
Athletic Training (PhD) (Students who began prior to 2013.) Health Promotion & Wellness (PhD) (Students who began prior to 2013.) Health Science (MS - Rehabilitative Science) Health Science (MS - Sport Performance) Health Science (DSc - Athletic Training) Health Science (DSc - Clinical Electrophysiology) Health Science (DSc - Health Promotion & Wellness) Health Science (DSc - Health Promotion & Wellness/Human & Sport Performance (Concurrent Enrollment)) Health Science (DSc - Human & Sport Performance) Nursing (PhD) (Students who began prior to 2013.) Nursing Practice (Post-master's DNP) Nursing Practice (Post-baccalaureate DNP (FNP)) Occupational Therapy (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Education Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Pediatric Science Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Orthopaedic & Sports Science (PhD) (Students who began prior to 2013.) Pediatric Science (PhD) (Students who began prior to 2013.) Physical Therapy (Entry-level DPT) Physical Therapy - Pediatric Science Elective Track (Transitional DPT) Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS) Speech-Language Pathology (Post-professional ClinScD)
n
n%
12 8 2 1 15 1 5 3 4 3 4 17 37 6 3 8 6 77 1 44 43
4.00 2.67 0.67 0.33 5.00 0.33 1.67 1.00 1.33 1.00 1.33 5.67 12.33 2.00 1.00 2.67 2.00 25.67 0.33 14.67 14.33
Table 6. Program Start Year (n = 300) #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Answer Options
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
n
n%
1 1 1 5 2 6 20 13 76 175
0.33 0.33 0.33 1.67 0.67 2.00 6.67 4.33 25.33 58.33
3
CORE VALUES, MISSION, VISION, & CORE THEMES Students were asked to rate their level of agreement to statements regarding the University’s relevant Core Values, Mission, Vision, and Core Themes (Table 7). Institutional means were within the acceptable and exceptional ranges, with clinical inquiry, leadership, Mission, Vision, and Core Themes 1 (Developing Evidence-Based Practitioners) and 2 (Elevating Clinical Inquiry Proficiency) scoring over 4.5 (exceptional) across all populations. One item scored below the acceptable threshold: entry-level student rating for the Core Value of diversity, which response may trigger exploration into the underlying cause regarding academic freedom, varied educational experiences, or broad recruitment of students and faculty. Other than diversity, institutional means are comparable or higher in 2016 than in 2015. Table 7. Core Values, Mission, Vision, and Core Themes #
Question
1
The University advocates clinical inquiry that challenges practice standards, expands evidence-based practice, increases clinical research, develops healthcare change agents, and encourages experiential learning. (Clinical Inquiry) The University provides a student--centered environment through relevant and participatory courses and a supportive University community. (Student-Centeredness) The University demonstrates integrity in its interactions with all its constituents. (Integrity) The University cultivates diversity through academic freedom, varied educational experiences, and broad recruitment of students and faculty. (Diversity) The University fosters skills essential to leadership roles in healthcare, academia, research and the community. (Leadership) The University operates with respect for the natural environment. (Sustainability) The University promotes service to community, healthcare, and education. (Service) The University fulfills its mission to educate current and future healthcare professionals for outcomes-oriented, evidence-based practice. The University demonstrates mission fulfillment through the quality of its education and success of its students in academic programs that develop leaders skilled in clinical inquiry and prepared to effect healthcare change. (Mission)
2
3 4
5 6 7 8
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Univ Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
2015 Univ Mean
8
2
3
50
219
282
4.67
4.66 (n = 157)
4.68 (n = 125)
4.59 (n = 201)
8
10
5
74
184
281
4.48
4.45 (n = 155)
4.52 (n = 126)
4.37 (n = 200)
7
11
13
52
191
274
4.49
13
16
24
72
149
274
4.20
4.55 (n = 148) 4.39 (n = 146)
4.43 (n = 126) 3.98 (n = 128)
4.47 (n = 190) 4.34 (n = 193)
8
4
12
69
186
279
4.51
7
10
31
50
150
248
4.31
7
2
15
57
175
256
4.53
7
5
3
52
210
277
4.64
4.51 (n = 153) 4.35 (n = 135) 4.38 (n = 133) 4.66 (n = 151)
4.51 (n = 126) 4.27 (n = 13) 4.69 (n = 123) 4.61 (n = 126)
4.47 (n = 201) 4.30 (n = 172) 4.42 (n = 187) 4.64 (n = 197)
(Table 7 Continues)
4
Table 7. Core Values, Mission, Vision, and Core Themes (Continued) #
Question
9
10
11
12
13
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Univ Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
2015 Univ Mean
The University is progressing towards vision fulfillment to advance the quality, delivery, and efficacy of healthcare. (Vision)
8
3
8
55
203
277
4.60
4.56 (n = 152)
4.62 (n = 198)
RMUoHP develops evidence-based practitioners by educating current and future healthcare professionals to synthesize evidence-based principles into practice. (Core Theme 1 - Developing Evidence-Based Practitioners) RMUoHP elevates clinical inquiry proficiency through learning experiences that challenge practice standards, expand evidence-based practice, increase clinical research, develop healthcare change agents, and encourage experiential learning. (Core Theme 2 - Elevating Clinical Inquiry Proficiency) RMUoHP ensures educational quality through student-centered academic programs, services, and continuous improvement. (Core Theme 3 - Ensuring Educational Quality) RMUoHP nurtures student success by engaging students in professional and personal growth opportunities. (Core Theme 4 Nurturing Student Success)
8
3
1
41
224
277
4.70
4.70 (n = 151)
4.64 (n = 125) 4.69 (n = 126)
8
3
3
57
206
277
4.62
4.64 (n = 152)
4.61 (n = 125)
N/A
5
10
12
65
188
280
4.50
4.49 (n = 154)
N/A
7
7
13
78
172
277
4.45
4.40 (n = 151)
4.52 (n = 126) 4.50 (n = 126)
N/A
N/A
UNIVERSITY EXPERIENCES Using the same Likert scale, students were asked to rate their agreement to statements regarding broad University experiences (Table 8). All institutional means are in the acceptable or exceptional ranges. Particularly noteworthy are exceptional scores across all populations for the following: admission process and staff consideration of abilities, needs and expectations; feelings of safety on campus; and the University’s demonstration of continuous improvement. Additionally, between 2015 and 2016, the score related to service-related information, opportunities, or encouragement increased from 3.93 to 4.29. For 2016, the only score below the acceptable threshold (4.0) was the entry-level rating for good value (quality education at a competitive price). Open-ended comment themes, identified later in this report, clarify the high or increasing tuition as the origin of this rating. Because the University campus is now located across two non-adjacent buildings, students were asked to comment about challenges related to facilities. While postprofessional students shared limited comments, entry-level students noted study space limitations and challenges with the new location for financial aid offices (Table 9). Study space limitations were again supported within the open-ended themes at the end of this report. Students were also asked to rate their level of satisfaction with University personnel and the adequacy of services (Tables 10 and 11). Means across all populations were in the acceptable or exceptional ranges, demonstrating a consistent quality of support that is described in the supporting open-ended themes as a culture of student-centeredness (Core Value). Additionally, students were invited to comment on their ratings. The feedback, presented in Table 12, indicates many positive comments as well as an opportunity to explore technological and library resource limitations.
5
Table 8. University Experiences #
Question
1
The admissions process and staff considered my abilities, needs, and expectations. Through the admissions process, I felt well informed to begin my degree program. Through interactions with University constituents, I feel a sense of belonging to the RMUoHP community. Through the University’s website, handbooks, and employees, I am empowered with sufficient information related to University policies and procedures. Through the University's orientation program(s), I felt prepared to begin my program. At RMUoHP, I have been provided information, opportunities, or encouraged to participate in service activities (e.g., community service, committee service, professional service). I feel safe when I am on campus.
2 3 4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12
The RMUoHP campus includes quality facilities to support the student-centered learning environment. The RMUoHP campus includes quality technology to support the student-centered learning environment. The RMUoHP campus includes quality equipment to support the student-centered learning environment. My academic program is a good value; it provides quality education at a competitive price. The University demonstrates continuous improvement.
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Univ Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
2015 Univ Mean
6
4
5
42
212
269
4.67
6
12
9
71
177
275
4.46
7
14
18
70
166
275
4.36
4
8
25
74
164
275
4.40
4.66 (n = 148) 4.41 (n = 150) 4.29 (n = 150) 4.46 (n = 151)
4.69 (n = 121) 4.52 (n = 125) 4.44 (n = 125) 4.34 (n = 124)
4.55 (n = 192) 4.48 (n = 197) 4.28 (n = 195) 4.30 (n = 197)
7
10
18
85
152
272
4.34
10
9
25
70
148
262
4.29
4.35 (n = 149) 4.06 (n = 140)
4.33 (n = 123) 4.55 (n = 122)
4.31 (n = 197) 3.93 (n = 187)
6
0
3
18
235
262
4.82
4
9
18
44
174
249
4.51
8
10
21
79
151
269
4.32
7
5
20
75
159
266
4.41
11
19
26
79
138
273
4.15
5
1
11
68
184
269
4.58
4.80 (n = 142) 4.52 (n = 135) 4.36 (n = 144) 4.43 (n = 141) 4.37 (n = 148) 4.57 (n = 144)
4.83 (n = 120) 4.49 (n = 114) 4.27 (n = 125) 4.38 (n = 125) 3.89 (n = 125) 4.59 (n = 125)
4.73 (n = 191) 4.43 (n = 192) 4.23 (n = 190) 4.32 (n = 184) 4.20 (n = 194) 4.48 (n = 186)
Table 9. Additional Facilities Comment Themes n
Entry-Level (N = 10)
n
Post-Professional (N = 7)
5 2
Study Space Limitations Challenges with Financial Aid Location
2
Positive Comments Regarding Campus
6
Table 10. Satisfaction with University Personnel #
Question
Very Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Very Satisfied
n
Univ Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
2015 Univ Mean
1
Admissions
1
2
3
35
217
258
4.80
2
Student Services
1
4
9
31
194
239
4.73
3
Learning Resource Center
3
11
20
54
165
253
4.45
4
Instructional Technology
4
3
15
51
162
235
4.55
5
Registrar
1
1
14
29
198
243
4.74
6
Technical Support
2
3
12
26
165
208
4.68
7
Institutional Review Board
0
1
18
12
120
151
4.66
8
Finance and Financial Aid
1
4
6
35
185
231
4.73
4.81 (n = 136) 4.71 (n = 119) 4.55 (n = 138) 4.64 (n = 131) 4.78 (n = 135) 4.76 (n = 107) 4.78 (n = 93) 4.73 (n = 114)
4.80 (n = 122) 4.75 (n = 120) 4.33 (n = 115) 4.43 (n = 115) 4.69 (n = 108) 4.59 (n = 101) 4.47 (n = 58) 4.73 (n = 117)
4.73 (n = 175) 4.61 (n = 160) 4.20 (n = 170) 4.45 (n = 159) 4.75 (n = 164) 4.46 (n = 117) 4.56 (n = 71) 4.71 (n = 148)
Table 11. Adequacy of University Services/Programs to Support Educational Goal Achievement and/or Enhance the Student Experience #
Question
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Univ Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
2015 Univ Mean
1
Admissions
0
3
8
41
208
260
4.75
2
Student Services
0
2
13
38
185
238
4.71
3
Learning Resource Center
4
12
19
65
154
254
4.39
4
Instructional Technology
4
3
18
53
164
242
4.53
5
Registrar
1
2
19
28
193
243
4.69
6
Technical Support
3
3
12
30
162
210
4.64
7
Institutional Review Board
0
1
20
20
113
154
4.59
8
Finance and Financial Aid
1
5
9
44
174
233
4.65
4.80 (n = 136) 4.73 (n = 120) 4.45 (n = 139) 4.64 (n = 136) 4.75 (n = 134) 4.73 (n = 109) 4.76 (n = 93) 4.70 (n = 115)
4.69 (n = 122) 4.69 (n = 118) 4.32 (n = 115) 4.39 (n = 106) 4.61 (n = 109) 4.54 (n = 101) 4.33 (n = 61) 4.61 (n = 118)
4.67 (n = 177) 4.56 (n = 165) 4.09 (n = 173) 4.39 (n = 167) 4.68 (n = 165) 4.45 (n = 124) 4.55 (n = 78) 4.68 (n = 148)
7
Table 12. Additional Personnel or Services Comment Themes n
Entry-Level (N = 20)
n
Post-Professional (N = 24)
11
Technology Enhancement Request (e.g., Better LRC and Classroom Computers, Strengthened Wifi, Wireless Printing Instructions, Reliable Classroom Systems) Overall Positive Experience Quality Staff Faculty Not on Time or Not Prepared (Classes Cancelled) Specific Curriculum Suggestions
12
Specific Staff Commendation
6 5 4 4
Library Resource Limitations Specific Faculty Complaint Overall Positive Experience Culture of Student-Centeredness
3 2 2 2
ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES To analyze students’ academic experiences, participants responded to statements regarding clinical inquiry, learning, general experiences, and academic rigor. On the topics of clinical inquiry and learning (Table 13), post-professional students scored all items within the exceptional range and entry-level students scored all items in either acceptable or exceptional ranges. These scores demonstrate additional support for the University’s Mission and Core Themes. For the general academic experiences (Table 14), all post-professional means were again in the exceptional range and entry-level means were in either acceptable or exceptional ranges. All but one institutional mean were exceptional. In comparison to 2015, students increasingly agree (94.36%) regarding the appropriate level of the challenging and stimulating learning environment at RMUoHP (Table 15). Table 13. Clinical Inquiry and Learning #
Question
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Univ Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
2015 Univ Mean
1
I am competent at locating literature.
0
5
10
94
157
266
4.52
2
I am competent at critically evaluating literature.
0
5
11
117
133
266
4.42
3
I am competent in my ability to synthesize evidencebased principles into realistic practice settings. My participation in experiential learning activities (e.g., clinical experiences, practicum, thesis, capstone, dissertation) has enhanced my clinical inquiry proficiency. I am developing knowledge and skills that will allow me to challenge current practice standards and serve as a catalyst for healthcare change. The knowledge I have gained from my degree program has improved my skills as an evidence-based clinician, educator, or researcher.
0
4
16
88
156
264
4.50
0
1
20
45
162
228
4.61
4.64 (n = 144) 4.54 (n = 144) 4.68 (n = 143) 4.75 (n = 128)
4.37 (n = 122) 4.28 (n = 122) 4.29 (n = 121) 4.44 (n = 100)
4.61 (n = 183) 4.55 (n = 183) 4.48 (n = 183) 4.65 (n = 142)
0
1
6
61
197
265
4.71
4.79 (n = 143)
4.62 (n = 122)
4.76 (n = 182)
0
1
4
39
217
261
4.81
4.87 (n = 142)
4.73 (n = 119)
4.83 (n = 180)
4
5
6
8
Table 14. General Academic Experiences #
Question
1 2 3 4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11 12
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Univ Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
2015 Univ Mean
The academic model is effectively structured for learning. My program curriculum is relevant to my academic and professional goals. My degree program has clear, identifiable outcomes.
0
3
3
65
194
265
4.70
0
3
5
56
202
266
4.72
0
3
5
36
222
266
4.79
Individual courses support my degree program’s learning outcomes. Through engagement in my learning experience, my Program Director(s) creates a supportive learning environment. I receive adequate advising regarding my careerrelated questions (e.g., via Program Director, Faculty, Career Services). Through engagement in my learning experience, my faculty create a supportive learning environment. My faculty demonstrate current knowledge of best clinical practice. My faculty use contemporary educational technologies to enhance my learning experience. My faculty use contemporary teaching methods that enhance my learning experience. I am confident feedback to my Faculty and Program Director is seriously considered and addressed. I have formed meaningful formal and informal mentorship and advisement relationships across my academic experience.
0
3
8
62
192
265
4.67
1
3
12
34
215
265
4.73
4.79 (n = 144) 4.76 (n = 144) 4.85 (n = 144) 4.74 (n = 144) 4.80 (n = 143)
4.59 (n = 121) 4.67 (n = 122) 4.72 (n = 122) 4.59 (n = 121) 4.65 (n = 122)
4.53 (n = 184) 4.77 (n = 184) 4.72 (n = 184) 4.68 (n = 183) 4.70 (n = 184)
1
5
14
55
181
256
4.60
4.63 (n = 137)
4.57 (n = 119)
4.55 (n = 168)
0
4
11
51
199
265
4.68
0
1
6
44
213
264
4.78
0
3
18
58
187
266
4.61
0
4
10
53
198
265
4.68
6
16
17
50
176
265
4.41
2
6
18
51
185
262
4.57
4.78 (n = 143) 4.83 (n = 142) 4.76 (n = 144) 4.81 (n = 143) 4.72 (n = 143) 4.66 (n = 140)
4.56 (n = 122) 4.71 (n = 122) 4.44 (n = 122) 4.52 (n = 122) 4.05 (n = 122) 4.47 (n = 122)
4.64 (n = 184) 4.73 (n = 184) 4.57 (n = 184) 4.59 (n = 184) 4.48 (n = 181) 4.49 (n = 181)
Table 15. Perception of Academic Rigor #
Answer
1
In general, the program has inconsistent or low levels of rigor, leaving me feeling disengaged or bored in many courses. In general, the level of rigor provides a challenging and stimulating learning environment appropriate for graduate education. In general, my learning process is stifled or I'm often overwhelmed because the program is overly rigorous.
2 3
Univ (n = 184)
Univ %
PP (n = 144)
PP %
EL (n = 122)
EL%
2015 Univ (n = 184)
2015 Univ Mean
5
1.88
2
1.39
3
2.46
5
2.72
251
94.36
136
94.44
115
94.26
166
90.22
10
3.76
6
4.17
4
3.28
13
7.07
9
OVERALL SATISFACTION In a simple yes or no question (Table 17), RMUoHP students were asked about their overall satisfaction with RMUoHP. The majority of responses were overwhelmingly “yes” at 97.74%, a slight increase over 2015. RMUoHP students indicated broad satisfaction with their academic and overall experiences at the University, as demonstrated in Tables 1819 in which institutional means were within the exceptional range and, again, slightly elevated from 2015. RMUoHP also measured the likelihood of RMUoHP students in referring the University to a friend, family member, or colleague for his or her education (Table 20). The Net Promoter Score (NPS), which measures loyalty and may be used to promote growth, was calculated from a 0-10-point scale (with 10 representing “absolutely will recommend”) by adding the percentage of nine and 10 scores (promoters) and then subtracting the percentage of zero-through-six scores (detractors). The NPS provides meaningful information regarding University growth and, as such, is measured across University constituents. According to NetPromoter.com, “Companies with the most efficient growth engines operate at NPS efficiency ratings of 50 to 80%. But the average firm sputters along at an NPS efficiency of only 5 to 10%. In other words, Promoters barely outnumber Detractors.” As the University’s NPS decreased from 2015 (51.63%) to 2016 (49.78%), this suggest an opportunity to continue exploring strategies to increase loyalty that move students from the “neutral” range (7-8) to becoming “active” promoters (9-10). Table 16. Responses to “All things considered, are you satisfied with your RMUoHP experience?” Answer
Yes No
Univ n (n = 265)
Univ n%
PP n (n = 144)
PP n%
EL n (n = 121)
EL n%
2015 Univ (n = 179) (%)
259 6
97.74 2.26
140 4
97.22 2.78
119 2
98.35% 1.65%
172 (96.09) 7 (3.91)
Table 17. Satisfaction with RMUoHP Academic Experience #
Answer
1 2 3 4 5
Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Mean
Univ n (n = 265)
PP n (n = 144 )
EL n (n = 121 )
2015 Univ (n = 182)
0 1 12 89 163 4.56
0 0 2 41 101 4.69
0 1 10 48 62 4.41
0 5 8 57 112 4.52
Univ n (n = 265)
PP n (n = 144)
EL n (n = 121 )
2014 Univ (n = 182)
0 3 10 86 166 4.57
0 1 2 42 99 4.66
0 2 8 44 67 4.45
1 3 10 55 113 4.52
Table 18. Satisfaction with Overall RMUoHP Experience #
Answer
1 2 3 4 5
Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Mean
10
Table 19. Net Promoter Score (NPS) How likely is it that you would recommend RMUoHP to a friend, family member, or colleague for his or her education?
Univ n (%) (n = 265)
PP n (%) (n = 144)
EL n (%) (n = 121)
2015 Univ n (%) (n = 182)
0 – Not Likely to Recommend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 – Absolutely Will Recommend Mean (NPS)
0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.75) 1 (0.38) 5 (1.89) 12 (4.53) 14 (5.28) 25 (9.43) 40 (15.09) 61 (23.02) 105 (39.62) 8.55 (49.78 NPS)
0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.69) 1 (0.69) 3 (2.08) 6 (4.17) 13 (9.03) 17 (11.81) 36 (25.00) 67 (46.53) 8.88 (63.90 NPS)
0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (1.65) 0 (0.00) 4 (3.31) 9 (7.44) 8 (6.61) 12 (9.92) 23 (19.01) 25 (20.66) 38 (31.40) 8.15 (33.05 NPS)
1 (0.55) 2 (1.10) 0 (0) 3 (1.65) 3 (1.65) 9 (4.95) 8 (4.40) 14 (7.69) 22 (12.09) 35 (19.23) 85 (46.70) 8.54 (51.63 NPS)
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS To provide additional clarity to the survey’s quantitative results, students were asked to comment on three additional open-ended items. Similar ideas that appeared in approximately 10% of the responses (by survey item) were considered themes. Many comments included multiple ideas and each of these ideas was counted individually. While this report addresses only the themes, individual responses were provided to the appropriate Program Director and academic leadership for consideration in the assessment and continuous improvement process. In the first item, students were asked to provide a reason for their response regarding likelihood of recommending RMUoHP to a friend, family member, or colleague for his or her education (NPS). The third and fourth items requested the students to comment upon any University improvement opportunities or strengths, respectively. Entry-level comment themes are found in Tables 21-23, while post-professional comment themes are found in Tables 24-26. Although many comment themes were unique to the respective populations, common themes appeared as strengths in the overall and academic experiences, quality faculty and staff, culture of student-centeredness, quality curriculum and evidence-based practice emphasis, and willingness to recommend RMUoHP to others. Improvement opportunities across both populations were related to faculty (e.g., specific concerns or increasing the quantity of faculty in a program). Entry-level students had more facilities-related requests and tuition concerns than did the post-professional students, who were more likely to suggest specific ideas related to academic programming and services. Post-professional students also noted strengths in the programs’ application to practice, program directors, and hybrid academic model.
11
Table 20. EL Comment Themes for RMUoHP Referral Score Rational (N = 73)
Table 23. PP Comment Themes for RMUoHP Referral Score Rational (N = 98)
n
Theme
n
Theme
29 22 20 15 15 8 8 7
Overall Positive Experience Positive Academic Experience Quality Faculty Tuition Concerns (Cost Too High or Increasing Tuition) Specific Faculty Complaint Culture of Student-Centeredness Program/Faculty Still Developing Would/Have Already Recommended
33 25 24 23 20 18 17 14 9
Positive Academic Experience Application to Practice Overall Positive Experience Quality Academic Model Highly Rigorous Would/Have Already Recommended Quality Faculty Depends Upon the Individual Culture of Student-Centeredness
Table 21. EL Comment Themes for University or Degree Program Improvement Opportunities (N = 50) n
Theme
8 7 6 6 5 5
Facilities Logistics Requests (Fix Icemakers, Add Microwaves, Allow Lights on Longer, Replace Library & Classroom Computers) Additional Study Areas Needed Positive Commentary Specific Faculty Complaint Increased Consideration for Student Feedback Tuition Concerns (Cost Too High or Increasing Tuition)
Table 22. EL Comment Themes for University or Degree Program Strengths (N = 41) n
22 13 7 7 5 4
12
Table 24. PP Comment Themes for University or Degree Program Improvement Opportunities (N = 66) n
Theme
16 7 7 6
Curriculum Suggestion Capstone Suggestions Academic Model Suggestion Increase Quantity of Program Faculty Provide Additional Academic Services (Stats Lab, Writing Lab, Research & Publication Skills Lab)
6
Table 25. PP Comment Themes for University or Degree Program Strengths (N = 59)
Theme
n
Theme
Quality Faculty Culture of Student-Centeredness Excellent Clinical & Lab Experiences Specific Faculty Commendation Specific Staff Commendation Quality Curriculum & EBP Emphasis
22 18 13 12 12 8 6 6
Culture of Student-Centeredness Quality Faculty Specific Faculty Commendation Quality Program Director Quality Academic Model Specific Staff Commendation Quality Curriculum & EBP Emphasis Quality Staff
