2013 Student Satisfaction Survey
2013 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 Summary (SSS) is to assess student perception of the University’s alignment with its mission and core values; student academic and overall experiences; and general satisfaction across functions, programs, and services. Methods and participation. The 2013 survey was conducted via on online survey tool in November 2013 and included demographics, core values and mission, services and support, library services and bookstore, physical facilities and services, academic experiences, overall satisfaction, and open-ended questions. Student participation was solicited via email. All of RMUoHP’s 462 active degree-seeking students were sent the survey invitation and follow-up reminders with instructions and details regarding the survey’s anonymity and aggregate reporting. Two-hundred-seventy-eight (60.17%) students started the survey and 260 (56.28%) students completed the survey. The students represented the entry-level Doctor of Physical Therapy (eDPT) degree program and five post-professional degree programs with 22 program emphases (Tables 3 and 4). There is a slight disparity between the actual and potential survey responses by degree program (Table 4) through which data may be influenced, particularly skewing responses of post-professional students (with increased responses of Doctor of Science (DSc)/Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) students and decreased responses from Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) students). Additionally, eDPT student responses may skew the data when considered with the institutional means; therefore, the entry-level student data was separated from that of post-professional students to increase the meaningfulness of the data. Tables 1-6 include demographics for race/ethnicity; sex; age range; potential and actual participation by degree program; program emphasis; and start year. Reporting and usage. This report contains the quantitative data and means for all scaled survey items, general commentary, and a summary of themes related to open-ended items. For appropriate five-point Likert scaled items, the University defines 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 are presented separately. Detailed distributions and means for overall institutional data, post-professional means (“PP”) and entrylevel means (“EL”) are each presented when appropriate. Variations in response quantities are attributed to a “no basis for judgment” option that was excluded from calculations. While this summary report is provided for the consumption of the entire University community, filtered reports by program are also provided to the individual Program Directors when responses are greater than an n of three. Data from this report are used as a tool within the institutional and academic assessment and continuous improvement cycles. Results summary. A majority of students agrees the University fulfills its mission and core values; however, there is a disparity between student populations that continues across the results. Students are supportive of the addition of the second mission sentence and core value of “service.” Improvement opportunities across populations include expanded support services and library resources. The limited use of University’s bookstore creates an effectiveness assessment opportunity. When considering the new facilities, entry-level students most strongly recommended increased study areas and fitness facilities, while post-professional students prefer writing and statistics labs. Regarding academic experiences, the mean scores across all students are within acceptable ranges. Post-professional students reported exceptional scores for curriculum relevance, program outcomes, and program director support. Entrylevel students found improvement opportunities with technology and facilities, rigor, model, and responsiveness to feedback. Overall, 90% of the students are satisfied with their RMUoHP experience. Entry-level students are generally less satisfied than are the post-professional students and they are less likely to refer others to the program. Post-professional student scores reflect loyalty and the increased likelihood they are actively referring others to the University. 1
Open-ended comments aligned with quantitative data, but provided additional detail. For example, many entry-level students reported dissatisfaction in areas of communication and tuition increases. Both populations have concern with specific courses and faculty. However, across all students, many reported positive academic experiences, quality faculty, a culture of student centeredness, and quality personnel. Because the University monitors student satisfaction through many methods beyond this annual survey (e.g., course and faculty surveys, student council feedback, direct advisement, focus groups), adjustments have already been completed or are planned as part of RMUoHP’s continuous improvement efforts, including the following: • • • • • •
2014 Campus Relocation – The nearly doubling of square footage includes expanded study and lounge spaces, classrooms and laboratories, cadaver lab, showers, and access to a fitness center and cafeteria. Hiring of a full-time anatomist and additional support personnel. Increased investment in library resources. Implementation of the comprehensive Teaching Effectiveness Program. Enhanced new student orientation. Improving communication regarding tuition rates.
DEMOGRAPHICS As demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2, the majority of RMUoHP students who completed the survey are white/Caucasian (83.45%) and female (59.35%). Over 83% of the participants were within the 25-54 years of age ranges (Table 3). The aforementioned potential and actual responses by degree are described in Table 4. Tables 5 and 6 include a breakdown of respondents by degree program emphasis and start year, providing an additional layer of participant detail. Table 1. Race/Ethnicity (n = 278) # 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 Other
Table 2. Sex (n = 278) # Answer
1 2
Female Male
n
n%
1 16 10 13 0 232 6
0.36 5.76 3.60 4.68 0.00 83.45 2.16
n
n%
165 113
59.35 40.65
2
Table 3. Age Range (n = 277) # Answer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
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 70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years 80 to 84 years 85 to 89 years
Table 4. Comparison between Potential and Actual Survey Responses by Degree Program Degree Program Potential n (n = 462)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Entry-level Doctor of Physical Therapy (eDPT) Master of Science (MS) Post-Professional Doctor of Occupational Therapy (OTD) Transitional Doctor of Physical Therapy (tDPT) Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) Doctor of Science (DSc)/ Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
133 4 95 45 55 130
n
n%
20 70 35 36 32 29 29 19 5 2 0 0 0 0
7.22 25.27 12.64 13.00 11.55 10.47 10.47 6.86 1.81 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Potential n%
Actual n (n = 278)
Actual n%
Difference n% (Potential vs. Actual)
28.79 0.87 20.56 9.74 11.90 28.14
92 2 58 23 15 88
33.09 0.72 20.86 8.27 5.40 31.65
+ 4.3 - 0.15 + 0.30 -1.47 - 6.5 + 3.51
3
Table 5. Responses by Degree Program Emphasis (n = 278) # Answer Options
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Athletic Training (DSc/PhD) (Students who began prior to 2013.) Clinical Electrophysiology (DSc) Health Promotion & Wellness (DSc/PhD) (Students who began prior to 2013.) Health Science (MS - Pediatric Exercise Science) Health Science (MS - Sports Performance) Health Science (DSc - Athletic Training) (Students who began in 2013.) Health Science (DSc - Health Promotion & Wellness) (Students who began in 2013.) Nursing (PhD) Nursing Practice (Post-master's DNP) Nursing Practice (Post-baccalaureate DNP (FNP)) Occupational Therapy (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Administration & Practice Management Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Aging Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Hand Therapy Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Pediatric Science Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Orthopaedic & Sports Science (DSc/PhD) Pediatric Science (DSc/PhD) Physical Therapy (Entry-level DPT) Physical Therapy (Transitional DPT) Physical Therapy - Administration & Practice Management Elective Track (Transitional DPT) Physical Therapy - Aging Elective Track (Transitional DPT) Physical Therapy - Pediatric Science Elective Track (Transitional DPT)
Table 6. Program Start Year (n = 278) Answer Options
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
n
n%
2 2 2 4 11 12 54 68 123
0.72 0.72 0.72 1.44 3.96 4.32 19.42 24.46 44.24
n
n%
21 3 23 0 2 6 3 7 13 2 25 9 4 6 14 15 10 92 9 4 0 10
7.55 1.08 8.27 0.00 0.72 2.16 1.08 2.52 4.68 0.72 8.99 3.24 1.44 2.16 5.04 5.40 3.60 33.09 3.24 1.44 0.00 3.60
4
CORE VALUES & UNIVERSITY MISSION Students were asked to rate their level of agreement to statements regarding the University’s core values and to what extent their degree program outcomes align with the University’s mission statement (Table 7). Mean scores for the University and post-professional students are within the acceptable and exceptional ranges, with scholarship, leadership, and degree program alignment with the RMUoHP mission as exceptional. Three items fell below 4.0 for the entry-level students: integrity, diversity, and viability. Additionally, the University inquired of students their level of support for the addition of a new core value of “service,” an inherent quality within healthcare professions and which value has been increasingly woven into University curricula and culture, and to comment on their rationale (regardless of their response). As demonstrated in Table 8, over 90% of responding students supported the additional core value. RMUoHP also sought student feedback regarding their potential support for a modification of the University’s mission statement to add a second sentence that would reflect the totality of the University: “The mission of Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions is to educate current and future healthcare professionals for outcomes-oriented, evidence-based practice. The University demonstrates educational quality and student success through academic programs that develop healthcare leaders skilled in clinical inquiry and prepared to effect healthcare change.” Over 85% of students indicated support for this change. There was a noted difference between the levels of support across student populations. As with the core value, students were also asked to comment on their rationale. Table 7. Core Values and Mission Statement Question
A. The University contributes to the creation of new knowledge and its application through peer--reviewed research and original scholarship. B. The University provides a student--centered environment through relevant and participatory courses and a supportive University community. C. The University demonstrates integrity in its interactions with all its constituents. D. The University cultivates diversity through academic freedom, varied educational experiences, and broad recruitment of students and faculty. E. The University fosters skills essential to leadership roles in healthcare, academia, research and the community. F. The University operates with respect for the natural environment. G. The University generates and manages its resources in a manner that will ensure the long--term success and operation of the institution. H. The outcomes of my degree program support the University’s mission to educate current and future healthcare professionals for outcomes--oriented, evidence--based practice.
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
4
8
20
53
166
251
4.47
4.63 (n = 171)
4.14 (n = 80)
9
13
15
77
147
261
4.30
4.44 (n = 177)
4.02 (n = 84)
10
14
15
49
157
245
4.34
4.59 (n = 163)
3.85 (n = 82)
9
16
32
59
135
251
4.18
4.38 (n = 167)
3.76 (n = 84)
4
4
12
72
166
258
4.52
4.66 (n = 176)
4.22 (n = 82)
5
4
29
42
127
207
4.36
4.48 (n = 133)
4.15 (n = 74)
4
13
37
43
103
200
4.14
4.36 (n = 123)
3.79 (n = 77)
6
2
11
42
197
258
4.64
4.75 (n = 175)
4.40 (n = 83)
5
Table 8. Responses of Support to Add “Service” as a Core Value (n = 262) Answer
I would support this additional core value. I do not support this additional core value.
n (n = 262)
n%
PP n (n = 178)
PP n %
EL n (n = 84)
EL n %
239 23
91.22 8.78
160 18
89.89 10.11
79 5
94.05 5.95
PP n (n = 178)
PP n %
EL n (n = 84)
EL n %
160 18
89.89 10.11
65 19
77.38 22.62
Table 9. Responses of Support to Add Second Sentence of University Mission Statement (n = 262) Answer n% n (n = 262)
I would support the addition of the second sentence. I would support the addition of the second sentence.
225 37
85.88 14.12
6
SERVICES & SUPPORT Using the same Likert scale, students were asked to rate their agreement to statements regarding University services and support (Table 10). Across all students, three items feel below the acceptable level of 4.0: interactions resulting in a sense of belonging, adequacy of student services, and confidence in feedback consideration. Post-professional students rated only the student services item below acceptable, while entry-level students had five additional items. Table 10. Student Services and Support Question
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
A. Through interactions with University constituents, I feel a sense of belonging to the RMUoHP community. B. Throughout the admissions process, I received accurate and timely communication. C. Because of the admissions process and staff, I felt well informed to begin my degree program. D. The admissions process and staff considered my abilities, needs, and expectations. E. Through the University’s website, handbooks, and employees, I am able to obtain sufficient information related to University policies and procedures. F. RMUoHP provides adequate access to information regarding the campus and community. G. RMUoHP provides adequate information regarding technical knowledge and equipment requirements for my program. H. University orientation(s) (e.g., RMU 101, programmatic, and literature searching) helped me to feel prepared to begin my program. I. RMUoHP provides adequate student services (e.g., advising, Student Council, career support, community assistance). J. In general, University staff are helpful and responsive.
4
24
30
115
87
260
3.99
6
15
8
76
156
261
4.38
4
8
22
89
138
261
4.34
2
11
19
93
130
255
4.33
1
3
17
104
134
259
4.42
4.13 (n = 178) 4.44 (n = 178) 4.46 (n = 178) 4.41 (n = 172) 4.50 (n = 177)
3.67 (n = 82) 4.27 (n = 83) 4.07 (n = 83) 4.14 (n = 83) 4.23 (n = 82)
2
8
23
112
112
257
4.26
3
12
18
104
124
261
4.28
4.47 (n = 175) 4.43 (n = 178)
3.80 (n = 82) 3.95 (n = 83)
3
14
39
91
102
249
4.10
4.32 (n = 156)
3.64 (n = 78)
7
24
60
73
74
238
3.77
3.96 (n = 177)
3.40 (n = 82)
6
5
10
77
162
260
4.48
K. I am confident my feedback is seriously considered and addressed. L. I can rely on the Finance/ Financial Aid Office to provide accurate and timely information. M. All things considered, this program is a good value.
14
24
30
77
113
258
3.97
6
14
27
55
121
223
4.22
5
13
31
78
132
259
4.23
4.57 (n = 176) 4.32 (n = 142) 4.35 (n = 176) 4.44 (n = 175)
4.28 (n = 83) 3.23 (n = 82) 3.99 (n = 81) 3.78 (n = 83)
7
LIBRARY SERVICES & BOOKSTORE For 2013, the Library Services and bookstore areas of the survey were expanded to collect additional data for the assessment and continuous improvement processes. The data in Table 11 reflects many of the new items. While the University does not require books are purchased from RMUoHP’s bookstore, the additional information provides insight into its effectiveness. The highest scores are regarding the knowledgeable personnel and the lowest scores are for future intent to purchase from the bookstore. As demonstrated in Table 12, 72% of students have not purchased from RMUoHP’s bookstore. Table 13 indicates that 58% of students have used training materials on the Library Services webpage and over 80% of students either used the materials or know the materials exist. Finally, students were asked to comment regarding why they have not purchased from the University’s bookstore as well as provide any additional feedback regarding Library Services or the bookstore. The comments were provided directly to Library Services. Table 11. Library Services and Bookstore Question
A. I am adequately prepared to use electronic library resources. B. RMUoHP’s electronic library resources are sufficient for my academic requirements. C. Library and Resource Center staff are knowledgeable. D. Library Services personnel are responsive to my requests for assistance. E. Library Services provides adequate material to support my educational needs. F. My experience with the University's online bookstore (WebMedBooks) has been generally positive. G. Prices for course materials at the RMUoHP online bookstore are comparable to other websites. H. It is easy to locate my course materials on the RMUoHP online bookstore website. I. I will purchase future course materials from the RMUoHP online bookstore website.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
1
10
28
136
85
260
4.13
13
42
43
114
47
259
3.54
1
1
20
98
129
249
4.42
3
8
29
73
120
233
4.28
6
33
38
98
72
247
3.80
5
8
59
44
42
158
3.70
4.31 (n = 177) 3.52 (n = 176) 4.49 (n = 173) 4.35 (n = 162) 3.79 (n = 168) 3.91 (n = 103)
3.76 (n = 83) 3.59 (n = 83) 4.26 (n = 76) 4.14 (n = 71) 3.81 (n = 79) 3.29 (n = 55)
13
56
48
36
32
185
3.10
3.27 (n = 119)
2.79 (n = 66)
1
5
37
68
62
173
4.07
40
60
51
19
29
199
2.68
4.30 (n = 115) 2.92 (n = 131)
3.60 (n = 58) 2.24 (n = 68)
8
Table 12. Responses regarding whether the Student has Ever Purchased Materials via the University Bookstore (n = 260) Answer n% PP n PP n% n (n = 260) (n = 177)
Yes No
73 187
28 72
60 117
34 66
EL n (n = 83)
EL n%
13 70
16 84
Table 13. Responses regarding whether the Student has Ever Used Training Materials on the Library Services Webpages (n = 260) Answer n% PR n PR n% EL n n (n = 260) (n = 177) (n = 83)
Yes No, but I know they exist. No, but I did not know they exist.
151 62 47
58 24 18
111 41 25
63 23 14
EL n %
40 21 22
48 25 27
PHYSICAL FACILITIES & SERVICES In association with the University’s 2014 campus relocation, the University requested students rank their individual priorities for commonly-requested items identified by students, student council, administration, and faculty. Students were also able to provide comments regarding their ranking preferences. The sevenpoint scale placed the greatest priority on the item ranked 1 and the lowest priority was ranked 7. While the overall mean scores were quite similar, the postprofessional students prioritized the scientific writing and statistics labs while the entry-level students prioritized fitness facilities and increased student study areas. Table 14. Ranked Physical Facilities Preferences (n = 260) Statistic Fitness Scientific Writing Lab (Physical Facilities and/or Virtual Tutorial Support)
Mean PP Mean
Statistics Lab (Physical and/or Virtual Tutorial Support)
Increased Student Lounge Spaces & Equipment
Increase Student Study Areas
Food Services or Cafeteria
Other
3.32 3.79
3.24 2.71
3.46 2.73
3.71 3.84
3.93 4.50
3.77 3.64
6.57 6.79
2.31
4.39
5.00
3.45
2.72
4.04
6.10
(n = 177)
EL Mean (n = 83)
9
ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES To analyze students’ academic experiences, the survey participants responded to 10 statements. The overall and post-professional for each statement are within the acceptable range of 4.0-4.49. Four items from the entry-level responses fall into the range for improvement opportunity: technology and facilities, academic model, academic rigor, and responsiveness. The latter of these items were one-tenth of a point or less from the satisfactory range. Table 15. Academic Experiences Question
A. The University's technology and facilities (i.e., equipment, classroom technology, WebStudy) are sufficient to support my learning experience. B. The academic rigor is appropriate for this type of academic program. C. The academic model is effectively structured for learning. D. My program curriculum is relevant to my academic and professional goals. E. My degree program has clear, identifiable outcomes. F. Individual courses support my degree program’s learning outcomes. G. My Program Director(s) creates a supportive learning environment for my academic experience. H. Through my Program Director(s) and faculty, I receive adequate advising regarding my career-related questions. I. The faculty create a supportive learning environment for my academic experience. J. If consulted, the University is responsive to academic needs and concerns.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
4
18
25
137
74
258
4.00
4.15 (n = 175)
3.70 (n = 83)
2
20
9
100
129
260
4.28
3
20
25
93
118
259
4.17
1
5
18
88
148
260
4.45
2
5
10
95
148
260
4.47
1
6
27
107
119
260
4.30
2
8
15
74
159
258
4.47
4.45 (n = 177) 4.34 (n = 177) 4.58 (n = 177) 4.59 (n = 177) 4.39 (n = 177) 4.64 (n = 176)
3.93 (n = 83) 3.79 (n = 82) 4.17 (n = 83) 4.22 (n = 83) 4.10 (n = 83) 4.11 (n = 82)
4
11
23
84
123
245
4.27
4.31 (n = 163)
4.20 (n = 82)
7
4
19
98
132
260
4.32
5
11
24
85
118
243
4.23
4.36 (n = 177) 4.41 (n = 160)
4.24 (n = 83) 3.90 (n = 83)
10
OVERALL SATISFACT ION In a simple yes or no question (Table 16), RMUoHP students were asked about their overall satisfaction with RMUoHP. The response was overwhelmingly “yes” at 90%. The extents to which students are satisfied with their degree program and RMUoHP experience are demonstrated in Tables 17-19. While overall and post-professional scores falls in the acceptable ranges, entry-level scores fall below 4.0. RMUoHP also measured the likelihood of RMUoHP students in referring the University to a friend, family member, or colleague for his or her education. The Net Promoter Score (NPS), which measures loyalty and may be used to promote growth, is calculated by adding the percentage of nine and 10 scores (promoters) and then subtracting the percentage of zero-through-six scores (detractors). Although the NPS is primarily used for non-academic institutions, it still represents meaningful information regarding University growth and 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.” The University’s net promoter score for the 2013 Student Satisfaction Survey was 33.09%, which was driven by the post-professional score of 53.68%. The entry-level score demonstrates poor levels of institutional loyalty. These scores indicate the post-professional students are actively and positively referring others to the University, while the entry-level students are less engaged in active referrals. On the 0-10 scale, with 10 representing “absolutely will recommend,” the average response for students was 7.92; the post-professional student mean was 8.49 and the entry-level student mean was 6.69. Table 16. Responses to “All things considered, are you satisfied with your RMUoHP experience?” Answer n% PP n PP n% n (n = 260) (n = 177)
Yes No
235 25
90% 10%
Table 17. Overall Satisfaction with RMUoHP Degree Program # Answer
1 2 3 4 5
Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Mean
168 9
EL n (n = 83)
EL n%
67 16
81% 19%
95% 5% n (n = 260)
PP n (n = 177)
EL n (n = 83)
2 14 21 103 120 4.25
1 5 7 65 99 4.45
1 9 14 38 21 3.83
11
Table 18. Overall Satisfaction with RMUoHP Experience # Answer
1 2 3 4 5
Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Mean
n (n = 260)
PP n (n = 177)
EL n (n = 83)
6 17 21 120 96 4.09
1 6 7 80 83 4.34
5 11 14 40 13 3.54
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?
0 – Not Likely to Recommend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 – Absolutely Will Recommend Mean
n (n = 260)
PP n (n = 177)
EL n (n = 83)
3 (1.15%) 3 (1.15%) 4 (1.54%) 13 (5.00%) 5 (1.92%) 16 (6.15%) 11 (4.23%) 21 (8.08%) 43 (16.54%) 59 (22.69%) 82 (31.54%) 7.92 (33.09% NPS)
2 (1.13%) 2 (1.13%) 1 (0.56%) 3 (1.69%) 2 (1.13%) 10 (5.65%) 4 (2.26%) 10 (5.65%) 24 (13.56%) 44 (24.86%) 75 (42.37%) 8.49 (53.68% NPS)
1 (1.20%) 1 (1.20%) 3 (3.61%) 10 (12.05%) 3 (3.61%) 6 (7.23%) 7 (8.43%) 11 (13.25%) 19 (22.89%) 15 (18.07%) 7 (8.43%) 6.69 (0%)
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS To provide additional clarity to the survey’s quantitative results, students were asked to comment on three open-ended items related to general satisfaction. Similar ideas that appeared in at least 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 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 second item inquired regarding the University or degree program weaknesses and the final item asked for the strengths. Tables 20-22 reflect the themes of entry-level students. The comments are generally consistent with the quantitative survey items, suggesting improvement opportunities related to communication, facilities, and with specific course or faculty. Among the strengths are many quality faculty and courses, the strong clinical education, and student-centeredness of faculty and staff.
12
The post-professional student themes are reflected in Tables 23-25. The improvement opportunities include faculty and course challenges, such as responsiveness of communication and feedback. Additionally, there are suggestions for increased mentoring and tutorial services. Faculty are also the strength of the post-professional programs and many students reported positive experiences with the University. The student-centered environment and hybrid academic model appear to serve these students well. Table 20. EL Comment Themes Regarding RMUoHP Referral Score Rational (N = 63) Theme n
19 16 13 13 10 9 7 7 7 6 6 6
General Positive Experience Tuition Increase Complaint Specific Course Complaint Not a Good Value Poor Communication Experiences with Leadership Facilities Limitations (e.g., cadaver lab) Quality Clinical Education Specific Faculty Complaint Student-Centered Faculty Young Program Showing Improvements Young Program Showing Potential for Improvements Quality Faculty
Table 21. EL Comment Themes Regarding University or Degree Program Weaknesses (N = 65) Theme n
24 19 9 9 8
Specific Course Complaint Specific Faculty Complaint Tuition Increase Complaint Facilities Limitations (e.g., Cadaver Lab, Study Spaces, Showers) Poor Communication Experiences with Leadership
Table 22. EL Comment Themes Regarding University or Degree Program Strengths (N = 58) Theme n
24 18 17 14 9 8 7 5
Quality Faculty Quality Clinical Education Faculty Student-Centeredness Specific Faculty Commendation Staff Student-Centeredness Specific Course Commendation Camaraderie Between Students/Small Class Size Quality Education
13
Table 23. PP Comment Themes Regarding RMUoHP Referral Score Rational (N = 101) Theme n
24 23 17 13 13 12 11 11
Positive Academic Experience General Positive Experience Flexible Academic Model Quality Faculty Would/Have Already Recommended Relevance to/Impact on Career Culture of Student-Centeredness Communication and Feedback Challenges
Table 24. PP Comment Themes Regarding University or Degree Program Weaknesses (N = 101) Theme n
17 13 12 11 10 10
Specific Faculty Complaint Inadequate Faculty Engagement Specific Course Complaint Limited Faculty Responsiveness Need More Mentoring/Tutorial Services (e.g., Scientific Writing, Online Library, Statistics, Hybrid Education) Late Grades or Feedback from Faculty
Table 25. PP Comment Themes Regarding University or Degree Program Strengths (N = 101) Theme n
39 22 18 17 17 17 15
Quality Faculty Positive Academic Experience Hybrid Academic Model Faculty Student-Centeredness Quality Program Director Specific Faculty Commendation Quality Personnel
14
Open-ended comments aligned with quantitative data, but provided additional detail. For example, many entry-level students reported dissatisfaction in areas of communication and tuition increases. Both populations have concern with specific courses and faculty. However, across all students, many reported positive academic experiences, quality faculty, a culture of student centeredness, and quality personnel. Because the University monitors student satisfaction through many methods beyond this annual survey (e.g., course and faculty surveys, student council feedback, direct advisement, focus groups), adjustments have already been completed or are planned as part of RMUoHP’s continuous improvement efforts, including the following: • • • • • •
2014 Campus Relocation – The nearly doubling of square footage includes expanded study and lounge spaces, classrooms and laboratories, cadaver lab, showers, and access to a fitness center and cafeteria. Hiring of a full-time anatomist and additional support personnel. Increased investment in library resources. Implementation of the comprehensive Teaching Effectiveness Program. Enhanced new student orientation. Improving communication regarding tuition rates.
DEMOGRAPHICS As demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2, the majority of RMUoHP students who completed the survey are white/Caucasian (83.45%) and female (59.35%). Over 83% of the participants were within the 25-54 years of age ranges (Table 3). The aforementioned potential and actual responses by degree are described in Table 4. Tables 5 and 6 include a breakdown of respondents by degree program emphasis and start year, providing an additional layer of participant detail. Table 1. Race/Ethnicity (n = 278) # 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 Other
Table 2. Sex (n = 278) # Answer
1 2
Female Male
n
n%
1 16 10 13 0 232 6
0.36 5.76 3.60 4.68 0.00 83.45 2.16
n
n%
165 113
59.35 40.65
2
Table 3. Age Range (n = 277) # Answer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
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 70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years 80 to 84 years 85 to 89 years
Table 4. Comparison between Potential and Actual Survey Responses by Degree Program Degree Program Potential n (n = 462)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Entry-level Doctor of Physical Therapy (eDPT) Master of Science (MS) Post-Professional Doctor of Occupational Therapy (OTD) Transitional Doctor of Physical Therapy (tDPT) Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) Doctor of Science (DSc)/ Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
133 4 95 45 55 130
n
n%
20 70 35 36 32 29 29 19 5 2 0 0 0 0
7.22 25.27 12.64 13.00 11.55 10.47 10.47 6.86 1.81 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Potential n%
Actual n (n = 278)
Actual n%
Difference n% (Potential vs. Actual)
28.79 0.87 20.56 9.74 11.90 28.14
92 2 58 23 15 88
33.09 0.72 20.86 8.27 5.40 31.65
+ 4.3 - 0.15 + 0.30 -1.47 - 6.5 + 3.51
3
Table 5. Responses by Degree Program Emphasis (n = 278) # Answer Options
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Athletic Training (DSc/PhD) (Students who began prior to 2013.) Clinical Electrophysiology (DSc) Health Promotion & Wellness (DSc/PhD) (Students who began prior to 2013.) Health Science (MS - Pediatric Exercise Science) Health Science (MS - Sports Performance) Health Science (DSc - Athletic Training) (Students who began in 2013.) Health Science (DSc - Health Promotion & Wellness) (Students who began in 2013.) Nursing (PhD) Nursing Practice (Post-master's DNP) Nursing Practice (Post-baccalaureate DNP (FNP)) Occupational Therapy (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Administration & Practice Management Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Aging Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Hand Therapy Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Pediatric Science Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Orthopaedic & Sports Science (DSc/PhD) Pediatric Science (DSc/PhD) Physical Therapy (Entry-level DPT) Physical Therapy (Transitional DPT) Physical Therapy - Administration & Practice Management Elective Track (Transitional DPT) Physical Therapy - Aging Elective Track (Transitional DPT) Physical Therapy - Pediatric Science Elective Track (Transitional DPT)
Table 6. Program Start Year (n = 278) Answer Options
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
n
n%
2 2 2 4 11 12 54 68 123
0.72 0.72 0.72 1.44 3.96 4.32 19.42 24.46 44.24
n
n%
21 3 23 0 2 6 3 7 13 2 25 9 4 6 14 15 10 92 9 4 0 10
7.55 1.08 8.27 0.00 0.72 2.16 1.08 2.52 4.68 0.72 8.99 3.24 1.44 2.16 5.04 5.40 3.60 33.09 3.24 1.44 0.00 3.60
4
CORE VALUES & UNIVERSITY MISSION Students were asked to rate their level of agreement to statements regarding the University’s core values and to what extent their degree program outcomes align with the University’s mission statement (Table 7). Mean scores for the University and post-professional students are within the acceptable and exceptional ranges, with scholarship, leadership, and degree program alignment with the RMUoHP mission as exceptional. Three items fell below 4.0 for the entry-level students: integrity, diversity, and viability. Additionally, the University inquired of students their level of support for the addition of a new core value of “service,” an inherent quality within healthcare professions and which value has been increasingly woven into University curricula and culture, and to comment on their rationale (regardless of their response). As demonstrated in Table 8, over 90% of responding students supported the additional core value. RMUoHP also sought student feedback regarding their potential support for a modification of the University’s mission statement to add a second sentence that would reflect the totality of the University: “The mission of Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions is to educate current and future healthcare professionals for outcomes-oriented, evidence-based practice. The University demonstrates educational quality and student success through academic programs that develop healthcare leaders skilled in clinical inquiry and prepared to effect healthcare change.” Over 85% of students indicated support for this change. There was a noted difference between the levels of support across student populations. As with the core value, students were also asked to comment on their rationale. Table 7. Core Values and Mission Statement Question
A. The University contributes to the creation of new knowledge and its application through peer--reviewed research and original scholarship. B. The University provides a student--centered environment through relevant and participatory courses and a supportive University community. C. The University demonstrates integrity in its interactions with all its constituents. D. The University cultivates diversity through academic freedom, varied educational experiences, and broad recruitment of students and faculty. E. The University fosters skills essential to leadership roles in healthcare, academia, research and the community. F. The University operates with respect for the natural environment. G. The University generates and manages its resources in a manner that will ensure the long--term success and operation of the institution. H. The outcomes of my degree program support the University’s mission to educate current and future healthcare professionals for outcomes--oriented, evidence--based practice.
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
4
8
20
53
166
251
4.47
4.63 (n = 171)
4.14 (n = 80)
9
13
15
77
147
261
4.30
4.44 (n = 177)
4.02 (n = 84)
10
14
15
49
157
245
4.34
4.59 (n = 163)
3.85 (n = 82)
9
16
32
59
135
251
4.18
4.38 (n = 167)
3.76 (n = 84)
4
4
12
72
166
258
4.52
4.66 (n = 176)
4.22 (n = 82)
5
4
29
42
127
207
4.36
4.48 (n = 133)
4.15 (n = 74)
4
13
37
43
103
200
4.14
4.36 (n = 123)
3.79 (n = 77)
6
2
11
42
197
258
4.64
4.75 (n = 175)
4.40 (n = 83)
5
Table 8. Responses of Support to Add “Service” as a Core Value (n = 262) Answer
I would support this additional core value. I do not support this additional core value.
n (n = 262)
n%
PP n (n = 178)
PP n %
EL n (n = 84)
EL n %
239 23
91.22 8.78
160 18
89.89 10.11
79 5
94.05 5.95
PP n (n = 178)
PP n %
EL n (n = 84)
EL n %
160 18
89.89 10.11
65 19
77.38 22.62
Table 9. Responses of Support to Add Second Sentence of University Mission Statement (n = 262) Answer n% n (n = 262)
I would support the addition of the second sentence. I would support the addition of the second sentence.
225 37
85.88 14.12
6
SERVICES & SUPPORT Using the same Likert scale, students were asked to rate their agreement to statements regarding University services and support (Table 10). Across all students, three items feel below the acceptable level of 4.0: interactions resulting in a sense of belonging, adequacy of student services, and confidence in feedback consideration. Post-professional students rated only the student services item below acceptable, while entry-level students had five additional items. Table 10. Student Services and Support Question
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
A. Through interactions with University constituents, I feel a sense of belonging to the RMUoHP community. B. Throughout the admissions process, I received accurate and timely communication. C. Because of the admissions process and staff, I felt well informed to begin my degree program. D. The admissions process and staff considered my abilities, needs, and expectations. E. Through the University’s website, handbooks, and employees, I am able to obtain sufficient information related to University policies and procedures. F. RMUoHP provides adequate access to information regarding the campus and community. G. RMUoHP provides adequate information regarding technical knowledge and equipment requirements for my program. H. University orientation(s) (e.g., RMU 101, programmatic, and literature searching) helped me to feel prepared to begin my program. I. RMUoHP provides adequate student services (e.g., advising, Student Council, career support, community assistance). J. In general, University staff are helpful and responsive.
4
24
30
115
87
260
3.99
6
15
8
76
156
261
4.38
4
8
22
89
138
261
4.34
2
11
19
93
130
255
4.33
1
3
17
104
134
259
4.42
4.13 (n = 178) 4.44 (n = 178) 4.46 (n = 178) 4.41 (n = 172) 4.50 (n = 177)
3.67 (n = 82) 4.27 (n = 83) 4.07 (n = 83) 4.14 (n = 83) 4.23 (n = 82)
2
8
23
112
112
257
4.26
3
12
18
104
124
261
4.28
4.47 (n = 175) 4.43 (n = 178)
3.80 (n = 82) 3.95 (n = 83)
3
14
39
91
102
249
4.10
4.32 (n = 156)
3.64 (n = 78)
7
24
60
73
74
238
3.77
3.96 (n = 177)
3.40 (n = 82)
6
5
10
77
162
260
4.48
K. I am confident my feedback is seriously considered and addressed. L. I can rely on the Finance/ Financial Aid Office to provide accurate and timely information. M. All things considered, this program is a good value.
14
24
30
77
113
258
3.97
6
14
27
55
121
223
4.22
5
13
31
78
132
259
4.23
4.57 (n = 176) 4.32 (n = 142) 4.35 (n = 176) 4.44 (n = 175)
4.28 (n = 83) 3.23 (n = 82) 3.99 (n = 81) 3.78 (n = 83)
7
LIBRARY SERVICES & BOOKSTORE For 2013, the Library Services and bookstore areas of the survey were expanded to collect additional data for the assessment and continuous improvement processes. The data in Table 11 reflects many of the new items. While the University does not require books are purchased from RMUoHP’s bookstore, the additional information provides insight into its effectiveness. The highest scores are regarding the knowledgeable personnel and the lowest scores are for future intent to purchase from the bookstore. As demonstrated in Table 12, 72% of students have not purchased from RMUoHP’s bookstore. Table 13 indicates that 58% of students have used training materials on the Library Services webpage and over 80% of students either used the materials or know the materials exist. Finally, students were asked to comment regarding why they have not purchased from the University’s bookstore as well as provide any additional feedback regarding Library Services or the bookstore. The comments were provided directly to Library Services. Table 11. Library Services and Bookstore Question
A. I am adequately prepared to use electronic library resources. B. RMUoHP’s electronic library resources are sufficient for my academic requirements. C. Library and Resource Center staff are knowledgeable. D. Library Services personnel are responsive to my requests for assistance. E. Library Services provides adequate material to support my educational needs. F. My experience with the University's online bookstore (WebMedBooks) has been generally positive. G. Prices for course materials at the RMUoHP online bookstore are comparable to other websites. H. It is easy to locate my course materials on the RMUoHP online bookstore website. I. I will purchase future course materials from the RMUoHP online bookstore website.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
1
10
28
136
85
260
4.13
13
42
43
114
47
259
3.54
1
1
20
98
129
249
4.42
3
8
29
73
120
233
4.28
6
33
38
98
72
247
3.80
5
8
59
44
42
158
3.70
4.31 (n = 177) 3.52 (n = 176) 4.49 (n = 173) 4.35 (n = 162) 3.79 (n = 168) 3.91 (n = 103)
3.76 (n = 83) 3.59 (n = 83) 4.26 (n = 76) 4.14 (n = 71) 3.81 (n = 79) 3.29 (n = 55)
13
56
48
36
32
185
3.10
3.27 (n = 119)
2.79 (n = 66)
1
5
37
68
62
173
4.07
40
60
51
19
29
199
2.68
4.30 (n = 115) 2.92 (n = 131)
3.60 (n = 58) 2.24 (n = 68)
8
Table 12. Responses regarding whether the Student has Ever Purchased Materials via the University Bookstore (n = 260) Answer n% PP n PP n% n (n = 260) (n = 177)
Yes No
73 187
28 72
60 117
34 66
EL n (n = 83)
EL n%
13 70
16 84
Table 13. Responses regarding whether the Student has Ever Used Training Materials on the Library Services Webpages (n = 260) Answer n% PR n PR n% EL n n (n = 260) (n = 177) (n = 83)
Yes No, but I know they exist. No, but I did not know they exist.
151 62 47
58 24 18
111 41 25
63 23 14
EL n %
40 21 22
48 25 27
PHYSICAL FACILITIES & SERVICES In association with the University’s 2014 campus relocation, the University requested students rank their individual priorities for commonly-requested items identified by students, student council, administration, and faculty. Students were also able to provide comments regarding their ranking preferences. The sevenpoint scale placed the greatest priority on the item ranked 1 and the lowest priority was ranked 7. While the overall mean scores were quite similar, the postprofessional students prioritized the scientific writing and statistics labs while the entry-level students prioritized fitness facilities and increased student study areas. Table 14. Ranked Physical Facilities Preferences (n = 260) Statistic Fitness Scientific Writing Lab (Physical Facilities and/or Virtual Tutorial Support)
Mean PP Mean
Statistics Lab (Physical and/or Virtual Tutorial Support)
Increased Student Lounge Spaces & Equipment
Increase Student Study Areas
Food Services or Cafeteria
Other
3.32 3.79
3.24 2.71
3.46 2.73
3.71 3.84
3.93 4.50
3.77 3.64
6.57 6.79
2.31
4.39
5.00
3.45
2.72
4.04
6.10
(n = 177)
EL Mean (n = 83)
9
ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES To analyze students’ academic experiences, the survey participants responded to 10 statements. The overall and post-professional for each statement are within the acceptable range of 4.0-4.49. Four items from the entry-level responses fall into the range for improvement opportunity: technology and facilities, academic model, academic rigor, and responsiveness. The latter of these items were one-tenth of a point or less from the satisfactory range. Table 15. Academic Experiences Question
A. The University's technology and facilities (i.e., equipment, classroom technology, WebStudy) are sufficient to support my learning experience. B. The academic rigor is appropriate for this type of academic program. C. The academic model is effectively structured for learning. D. My program curriculum is relevant to my academic and professional goals. E. My degree program has clear, identifiable outcomes. F. Individual courses support my degree program’s learning outcomes. G. My Program Director(s) creates a supportive learning environment for my academic experience. H. Through my Program Director(s) and faculty, I receive adequate advising regarding my career-related questions. I. The faculty create a supportive learning environment for my academic experience. J. If consulted, the University is responsive to academic needs and concerns.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
n
Mean
PP Mean
EL Mean
4
18
25
137
74
258
4.00
4.15 (n = 175)
3.70 (n = 83)
2
20
9
100
129
260
4.28
3
20
25
93
118
259
4.17
1
5
18
88
148
260
4.45
2
5
10
95
148
260
4.47
1
6
27
107
119
260
4.30
2
8
15
74
159
258
4.47
4.45 (n = 177) 4.34 (n = 177) 4.58 (n = 177) 4.59 (n = 177) 4.39 (n = 177) 4.64 (n = 176)
3.93 (n = 83) 3.79 (n = 82) 4.17 (n = 83) 4.22 (n = 83) 4.10 (n = 83) 4.11 (n = 82)
4
11
23
84
123
245
4.27
4.31 (n = 163)
4.20 (n = 82)
7
4
19
98
132
260
4.32
5
11
24
85
118
243
4.23
4.36 (n = 177) 4.41 (n = 160)
4.24 (n = 83) 3.90 (n = 83)
10
OVERALL SATISFACT ION In a simple yes or no question (Table 16), RMUoHP students were asked about their overall satisfaction with RMUoHP. The response was overwhelmingly “yes” at 90%. The extents to which students are satisfied with their degree program and RMUoHP experience are demonstrated in Tables 17-19. While overall and post-professional scores falls in the acceptable ranges, entry-level scores fall below 4.0. RMUoHP also measured the likelihood of RMUoHP students in referring the University to a friend, family member, or colleague for his or her education. The Net Promoter Score (NPS), which measures loyalty and may be used to promote growth, is calculated by adding the percentage of nine and 10 scores (promoters) and then subtracting the percentage of zero-through-six scores (detractors). Although the NPS is primarily used for non-academic institutions, it still represents meaningful information regarding University growth and 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.” The University’s net promoter score for the 2013 Student Satisfaction Survey was 33.09%, which was driven by the post-professional score of 53.68%. The entry-level score demonstrates poor levels of institutional loyalty. These scores indicate the post-professional students are actively and positively referring others to the University, while the entry-level students are less engaged in active referrals. On the 0-10 scale, with 10 representing “absolutely will recommend,” the average response for students was 7.92; the post-professional student mean was 8.49 and the entry-level student mean was 6.69. Table 16. Responses to “All things considered, are you satisfied with your RMUoHP experience?” Answer n% PP n PP n% n (n = 260) (n = 177)
Yes No
235 25
90% 10%
Table 17. Overall Satisfaction with RMUoHP Degree Program # Answer
1 2 3 4 5
Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Mean
168 9
EL n (n = 83)
EL n%
67 16
81% 19%
95% 5% n (n = 260)
PP n (n = 177)
EL n (n = 83)
2 14 21 103 120 4.25
1 5 7 65 99 4.45
1 9 14 38 21 3.83
11
Table 18. Overall Satisfaction with RMUoHP Experience # Answer
1 2 3 4 5
Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Mean
n (n = 260)
PP n (n = 177)
EL n (n = 83)
6 17 21 120 96 4.09
1 6 7 80 83 4.34
5 11 14 40 13 3.54
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?
0 – Not Likely to Recommend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 – Absolutely Will Recommend Mean
n (n = 260)
PP n (n = 177)
EL n (n = 83)
3 (1.15%) 3 (1.15%) 4 (1.54%) 13 (5.00%) 5 (1.92%) 16 (6.15%) 11 (4.23%) 21 (8.08%) 43 (16.54%) 59 (22.69%) 82 (31.54%) 7.92 (33.09% NPS)
2 (1.13%) 2 (1.13%) 1 (0.56%) 3 (1.69%) 2 (1.13%) 10 (5.65%) 4 (2.26%) 10 (5.65%) 24 (13.56%) 44 (24.86%) 75 (42.37%) 8.49 (53.68% NPS)
1 (1.20%) 1 (1.20%) 3 (3.61%) 10 (12.05%) 3 (3.61%) 6 (7.23%) 7 (8.43%) 11 (13.25%) 19 (22.89%) 15 (18.07%) 7 (8.43%) 6.69 (0%)
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS To provide additional clarity to the survey’s quantitative results, students were asked to comment on three open-ended items related to general satisfaction. Similar ideas that appeared in at least 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 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 second item inquired regarding the University or degree program weaknesses and the final item asked for the strengths. Tables 20-22 reflect the themes of entry-level students. The comments are generally consistent with the quantitative survey items, suggesting improvement opportunities related to communication, facilities, and with specific course or faculty. Among the strengths are many quality faculty and courses, the strong clinical education, and student-centeredness of faculty and staff.
12
The post-professional student themes are reflected in Tables 23-25. The improvement opportunities include faculty and course challenges, such as responsiveness of communication and feedback. Additionally, there are suggestions for increased mentoring and tutorial services. Faculty are also the strength of the post-professional programs and many students reported positive experiences with the University. The student-centered environment and hybrid academic model appear to serve these students well. Table 20. EL Comment Themes Regarding RMUoHP Referral Score Rational (N = 63) Theme n
19 16 13 13 10 9 7 7 7 6 6 6
General Positive Experience Tuition Increase Complaint Specific Course Complaint Not a Good Value Poor Communication Experiences with Leadership Facilities Limitations (e.g., cadaver lab) Quality Clinical Education Specific Faculty Complaint Student-Centered Faculty Young Program Showing Improvements Young Program Showing Potential for Improvements Quality Faculty
Table 21. EL Comment Themes Regarding University or Degree Program Weaknesses (N = 65) Theme n
24 19 9 9 8
Specific Course Complaint Specific Faculty Complaint Tuition Increase Complaint Facilities Limitations (e.g., Cadaver Lab, Study Spaces, Showers) Poor Communication Experiences with Leadership
Table 22. EL Comment Themes Regarding University or Degree Program Strengths (N = 58) Theme n
24 18 17 14 9 8 7 5
Quality Faculty Quality Clinical Education Faculty Student-Centeredness Specific Faculty Commendation Staff Student-Centeredness Specific Course Commendation Camaraderie Between Students/Small Class Size Quality Education
13
Table 23. PP Comment Themes Regarding RMUoHP Referral Score Rational (N = 101) Theme n
24 23 17 13 13 12 11 11
Positive Academic Experience General Positive Experience Flexible Academic Model Quality Faculty Would/Have Already Recommended Relevance to/Impact on Career Culture of Student-Centeredness Communication and Feedback Challenges
Table 24. PP Comment Themes Regarding University or Degree Program Weaknesses (N = 101) Theme n
17 13 12 11 10 10
Specific Faculty Complaint Inadequate Faculty Engagement Specific Course Complaint Limited Faculty Responsiveness Need More Mentoring/Tutorial Services (e.g., Scientific Writing, Online Library, Statistics, Hybrid Education) Late Grades or Feedback from Faculty
Table 25. PP Comment Themes Regarding University or Degree Program Strengths (N = 101) Theme n
39 22 18 17 17 17 15
Quality Faculty Positive Academic Experience Hybrid Academic Model Faculty Student-Centeredness Quality Program Director Specific Faculty Commendation Quality Personnel
14
