2017 Student Satisfaction Survey
2017 Student Satisfaction Survey Institutional Summary
Purpose, Methods, & Participation 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 following: University alignment with Core Values, Mission, Core Themes, and Vision; academic experience; overall experience; and satisfaction. The 2017 SSS was conducted via an online survey tool during a two-week period in March and April. Student participation was solicited via email to all of RMUoHP’s 570 degree-seeking graduate students. While 366 students (64.21%) started the survey by completing the initial email-embedded Net Promoter Score item, 251 students (44.04%) completed the survey. The survey completion rate decreased from the 2016 SSS by 12.10%. While the survey start rates are similar between 2016 and 2017, the use of a key email embedded item resulted in an increased quantity of meaningful responses to that item (Net Promoter Score). Reduced participation is attributed in part to the simultaneous institution-wide survey data collection from another department. Future efforts to centralize survey coordination are currently underway. Student demographics are included in Tables 1-6. In addition to the previously listed topics, the survey included additional open-ended items to clarify quantitative data and technology items related to assist the University in future student software and systems planning. The technology items are not included in this report, but have been provided to the University Technology Committee for use in future planning.
Reporting & Usage This report contains means for all scaled survey items, additional quantitative data, and a summary of themes related to open-ended items. To address population differences and improve reliability, post-professional (PP) student and entry-level (EL) student data were presented separately from overall institutional means. The institutional means for the 2016 SSS were also included for comparison. Variations in response counts were attributed to a “no basis for judgment” choice that was excluded from calculations. For appropriate five-point Likert scaled items, the University defines score values as follows: scores ≤ 3.99 are improvement opportunities (bolded red); scores between 4.0-4.49 are acceptable; and scores ≥ 4.5 are exceptional (bolded). However, several survey items did not fall into these interpretation guidelines, as explained in table narratives. In addition to means, statistical analysis explored a variety of variable relationships and, when significant, these relationships are described in this report. While the 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 at least three students responded. Data from this report were used as a tool within the functional area and academic program assessment and continuous improvement cycles.
Highlights Institutional Strengths (Across All Students) Advocating Clinical Inquiry Promoting Service Mission Fulfillment Evidence-Based Practice
Admissions Student Services Safety Curriculum Relevance
Degree Outcomes Faculty Knowledge of Best Clinical Practice Developing Catalysts for Healthcare Change Overall Satisfaction
Improvement Opportunities & Implementation Suggestions (By Student Population) o Improve Diversity in Entry-Level Programs – Take deliberate initiatives to increase faculty and student diversity. Enhance mentorship/advisement relationships and consideration of feedback, both of which were predictors for diversity agreement. o Provide &/or Encourage Post-Professional Student Service – Explore opportunities to meaningfully engage post-professional students in service on-site, non-traditionally, or within home communities. Explore how service is measured within this population.
o Enhanced Perceived Value for Entry-Level Programs – Continue enhancing the total RMUoHP experience, including social factors, mentorship, technology, and competitive pricing. o Address Entry-Level Student Feedback – Provide a culture receptive to student feedback. Report to students when changes are made that considered student feedback. o Increase the Net Promoter Score across All Students – Enhance the student experience to improve student loyalty and institutional growth. 1
Demographics As demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2, the majority of RMUoHP students who completed the survey were white/Caucasian (80.66%) and female (58.46%). Of the respondents, the majority of whom started their degree program in 2015 or 2016 (Table 4), 69.88% were younger than age 40, with 38.25% between ages 25-29 (Table 3), reflecting the University’s youngest mean population of students to date. Participants represented twenty-four degree programs and tracks (Table 5) and, with consideration for the potential and actual respondents, the entry-level students more heavily influenced these findings than would be expected (Table 6). Table 1. Sex (n = 337) Answer % n Female 58.46% 197 Male 41.54% 140 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity (n = 331) Answer White/Caucasian Two or More Races Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Asian American Indian or Alaska Native Table 3. Age Range (n = 332) Answer % n 20 to 24 years 6.33% 21 25 to 29 years 38.25% 127 30 to 34 years 15.96% 53 35 to 39 years 9.34% 31 40 to 44 years 8.13% 27 45 to 49 years 7.83% 26 50 to 54 years 7.23% 24 55 to 59 years 4.22% 14 60 to 64 years 2.41% 8 65 to 69 years 0.30% 1 Table 4. Program Start Year (n = 335) n Answer %
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1.49% 0.00% 1.49% 5.67% 2.09% 5.37% 34.33% 49.55%
5 0 5 19 7 18 115 166
% 80.66% 6.04% 0.00% 3.93% 3.93% 5.14% 0.30%
n 267 20 0 13 13 17 1
Table 3. Responses by Degree Program & Track (n = 335) Answer Athletic Training (PhD) Health Promotion & Wellness (PhD) Health Science (DSc - Athletic Training) Health Science (DSc - Health Promotion & Wellness) Health Science (DSc - Health Promotion & Wellness/Human & Sport Performance (Concurrent)) Health Science (DSc - Human & Sport Performance) Health Science (DSc - Neurologic Rehabilitation) Health Science (MS - Rehabilitative Science) Health Science (MS - Sport Performance) Nursing (PhD) Nursing Practice (Post-baccalaureate DNP (FNP)) Nursing Practice (Post-master's DNP) Occupational Therapy - Administration & Practice Management Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Advanced Practice Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Aging Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Education 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 (PhD) Pediatric Science (PhD) Physical Therapy (Entry-level DPT) Physical Therapy - Pediatric Science Elective Track (Transitional DPT) Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS) Speech-Language Pathology (Post-professional ClinScD)
% 3.28% 2.69% 2.39% 1.79% 2.69% 1.19% 0.60% 0.60% 0.60% 0.60% 6.27% 2.69% 0.90% 2.99% 0.90% 2.39% 1.19% 0.90% 1.49% 0.30% 26.87% 3.28% 22.69% 10.75%
n 11 9 8 6 9 4 2 2 2 2 21 9 3 10 3 8 4 3 5 1 90 11 76 36
Table 4. Comparison between Potential & Actual Participants by Entry-Level (EL) & Post-Professional (PP) Degree Program Degree Program Potential Potential n% Actual Actual n% Difference n% (n = 570) (n = 335) Health Sciences (DSc/PhD, PP) 134 23.51% 57 17.01% -6.5% Health Science (MS, PP) 13 2.28% 4 1.19% -1.09% Nursing Practice (DNP, EL) 43 7.54% 21 6.27% -1.27 Nursing Practice (DNP, PP) 10 1.75% 9 2.69% +0.94 Occupational Therapy (OTD, PP) 70 12.28% 31 9.25% -3.03% Physical Therapy (DPT, EL) 109 19.12% 90 26.87% +7.75% Physical Therapy (DPT, PP) 22 3.86% 11 3.28% -0.58% Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS, EL) 94 16.49% 76 22.69% +6.20% Speech-Language Pathology (ClinScD, PP) 75 13.16% 36 10.75% -2.41% 2
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 (Tables 7-8). Institutional means were within the acceptable and exceptional ranges in Table 7, with clinical inquiry, service, and mission 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. Entry-level students rated this improvement opportunity at 3.98 in 2016. Based upon an exploration of survey data and regression analysis for entry-level students, many items were found as clearly significant (P < .01) predictors for strong agreement to diversity, including mentorship and advisement relationships formed and consideration of feedback. Attention to these areas may address underlying challenges regarding diversity (academic freedom, varied educational experiences, or broad recruitment of students and faculty). Table 8 demonstrates mission fulfillment through the Core Themes, for which Core Theme 1 – Developing Evidence-Based Practitioners received exceptional means across populations. Table 5. Core Values, Mission, & Vision Question A. The University advocates clinical inquiry that challenges practice standards, expands evidence-based practice, increases clinical research, develops healthcare change agents, & encourages experiential learning. (Clinical Inquiry) B. The University provides a student--centered environment through relevant & participatory courses & a supportive University community. (Student-Centeredness) C. The University demonstrates integrity in its interactions with all its constituents. (Integrity) D. The University cultivates diversity through academic freedom, varied educational experiences, & broad recruitment of students & faculty. (Diversity) E. The University fosters skills essential to leadership roles in healthcare, academia, research & the community. (Leadership) F. The University operates with respect for the natural environment. (Sustainability) G. The University promotes service to community, healthcare, & education. (Service) H. The University fulfills its mission to educate current & future healthcare professionals for outcomes-oriented, evidence-based practice. The University demonstrates mission fulfillment through the quality of its education & success of its students in academic programs that develop leaders skilled in clinical inquiry & prepared to effect healthcare change. (Mission) I. The University is progressing towards vision fulfillment to advance the quality, delivery, & efficacy of healthcare. (Vision)
Strongly Disagree 1.72%
Somewhat Disagree 0.69%
Neutral
Strongly Agree 75.86%
Univ Mean 4.65 (n = 290)
EL Mean
PP Mean
4.14%
Somewhat Agree 17.59%
4.59 (n = 157)
4.72 (n = 133)
2016 Univ Mean 4.67 (n = 282)
1.37%
6.16%
6.85%
25.00%
60.62%
4.37 (n = 292)
4.30 (n = 159)
4.46 (n = 133)
4.48 (n = 281)
2.41%
2.76%
7.24%
19.66%
67.93%
3.91%
6.76%
9.96%
29.18%
50.18%
4.48 (n = 290) 4.15 (n = 281)
4.42 (n = 158) 3.95 (n = 153)
4.55 (n = 132) 4.39 (n = 128)
4.49 (n = 274) 4.20 (n = 274)
1.37%
3.09%
6.87%
28.18%
60.48%
1.54%
3.09%
10.81%
22.39%
62.16%
1.82%
2.55%
6.18%
17.45%
72.00%
2.78%
2.43%
3.82%
15.63%
75.35%
4.43 (n = 291) 4.41 (n = 259) 4.55 (n = 275) 4.58 (n = 288)
4.35 (n = 159) 4.33 (n = 141) 4.58 (n = 156) 4.50 (n = 156)
4.53 (n = 132) 4.49 (n = 118) 4.52 (n = 139) 4.68 (n = 132)
4.51 (n = 279) 4.31 (n = 248) 4.53 (n = 256) 4.64 (n = 277)
2.46%
2.46%
6.32%
21.40%
67.37%
4.49 (n = 285)
4.43 (n = 154)
4.56 (n = 131)
4.60 (n = 277)
3
Table 6. Core Themes Question A. RMUoHP develops evidence-based practitioners by educating current & future healthcare professionals to synthesize evidence-based principles into practice. (Core Theme 1 - Developing Evidence-Based Practitioners) B. RMUoHP elevates clinical inquiry proficiency through learning experiences that challenge practice standards, expand evidence-based practice, increase clinical research, develop healthcare change agents, & encourage experiential learning. (Core Theme 2 - Elevating Clinical Inquiry Proficiency) C. RMUoHP ensures educational quality through student-centered academic programs, services, & continuous improvement. (Core Theme 3 - Ensuring Educational Quality) D. RMUoHP nurtures student success by engaging students in professional & personal growth opportunities. (Core Theme 4 - Nurturing Student Success)
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Univ Mean
EL Mean
PP Mean
2016 Univ Mean
1.74%
1.74%
2.79%
14.63%
79.09%
4.68 (n = 287)
4.63 (n = 155)
4.73 (n = 132)
4.70 (n = 277)
1.75%
3.15%
5.94%
20.98%
68.18%
4.51 (n = 286)
4.39 (n = 154)
4.64 (n = 132)
4.62 (n = 277)
2.78%
4.86%
6.94%
22.57%
62.85%
4.38 (n = 288)
4.30 (n = 156)
4.47 (n = 132)
4.50 (n = 280)
2.80%
3.15%
9.44%
28.32%
56.29%
4.32 (n = 286)
4.33 (n = 156)
4.32 (n = 130)
4.45 (n = 277)
University Experiences Using the same Likert scale, students were asked to rate their agreement to statements regarding broad University experiences (Table 9). At 3.90, the perception of program value falls within the improvement opportunity range for entry-level participants (3.62). Post-professional participants also rated service activities at 3.97, which may indicate an opportunity to be more deliberate regarding promoting behaviors related to the service core value. Across all programs, personnel and services were rated within the acceptable or exceptional ranges (Tables 10-11). Participants were also asked to comment regarding any feelings of dissatisfaction with personnel or services. These comment themes are identified later in this report. To explore entry-level participant perspective of program value, survey variables were evaluated for their relationship with perception of program value (quality education and a competitive price). It was discovered that, although the relationships were correlated, perspective of program value does not predict overall satisfaction (nor is the reverse true). However, many items predict program value any may be considered for further analysis. Sense of belonging, career advisement, faculty engagement, consideration of feedback, and other social factors were considerations for program value, as were preparation for the program through materials, interactions with employees and services, and orientation. Finally, faculty were also factors in perceived value, specifically for the aforementioned engagement as well as use of contemporary technology to enhance learning experiences. Table 7. University Experiences Question A. The admissions process & staff considered my abilities, needs, & expectations. B. Through the admissions process, I felt well informed to begin my degree program. C. Through interactions with University constituents, I feel a sense of belonging to the RMUoHP community. D. Through the University’s website, handbooks, & employees, I am empowered with sufficient information related to University policies & procedures. E. Through the University's orientation program(s), I felt prepared to begin my program.
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Univ Mean
EL Mean
PP Mean
2016 Univ Mean
2.56%
2.20%
3.66%
17.95%
73.63%
1.44%
5.78%
6.50%
22.74%
63.54%
2.55%
5.11%
10.58%
25.55%
56.20%
1.82%
3.28%
5.11%
28.10%
61.68%
4.58 (n = 273) 4.41 (n = 277) 4.28 (n = 274) 4.45 (n = 274)
4.63 (n = 151) 4.49 (n = 154) 4.29 (n = 151) 4.44 (n = 150)
4.52 (n = 122) 4.31 (n = 123) 4.26 (n = 123) 4.45 (n = 124)
4.67 (n = 269) 4.46 (n = 275) 4.36 (n = 275) 4.40 (n = 275)
1.46%
2.92%
8.76%
26.28%
60.58%
4.42 (n = 274)
4.44 (n = 151)
4.39 (n = 123)
4.34 (n = 272)
(Table 9 Continues) 4
(Table 9 Continued)
Question
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Univ Mean
EL Mean
PP Mean
2016 Univ Mean
F. At RMUoHP, I have been provided information, opportunities, or been encouraged to participate in (or continue to participate in) service activities (e.g., RMUoHP-affiliated service initiatives or committees, professional or community organizations, employer institution committees). G. I feel safe when I am on campus.
3.33%
6.30%
8.15%
28.52%
53.70%
4.23 (n = 270)
4.42 (n = 153)
3.97 (n = 117)
4.29 (n = 262)
2.31%
0.00%
1.92%
6.92%
88.85%
H. The RMUoHP campus includes quality facilities to support the studentcentered learning environment. I. The RMUoHP campus includes quality technology to support the studentcentered learning environment. J. The RMUoHP campus includes quality equipment to support the studentcentered learning environment. K. My academic program is a good value; it provides quality education at a competitive price. L. The University demonstrates continuous improvement.
4.43%
5.90%
5.90%
19.93%
63.84%
4.01%
5.84%
7.66%
24.45%
58.03%
4.87%
4.49%
7.87%
22.85%
59.93%
9.09%
8.00%
12.00%
25.82%
45.09%
2.62%
4.49%
8.24%
25.09%
59.55%
4.80 (n = 260) 4.33 (n = 271) 4.27 (n = 274) 4.28 (n = 267) 3.90 (n = 275) 4.34 (n = 267)
4.80 (n = 142) 4.10 (n = 150) 4.08 (n = 153) 4.11 (n = 150) 3.62 (n = 151) 4.29 (n = 150)
4.80 (n = 118) 4.61 (n = 121) 4.50 (n = 121) 4.50 (n = 117) 4.24 (n = 124) 4.41 (n = 117)
4.82 (n = 262) 4.51 (n = 249) 4.32 (n = 269) 4.41 (n = 266) 4.15 (n = 273) 4.58 (n = 269)
Table 8. Satisfaction with University Personnel Question Very Dissatisfied A. Admissions 0.41%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 1.65%
Neutral 5.35%
Somewhat Satisfied 16.87%
Very Satisfied 75.72%
B. Student Services
0.86%
2.16%
6.47%
18.53%
71.98%
C. Learning Resource Center
1.26%
1.68%
9.66%
17.23%
70.17%
D. Instructional Technology
1.30%
3.03%
10.39%
14.29%
71.00%
E. Registrar
0.44%
1.75%
8.30%
13.54%
75.98%
F. Technical Support
2.35%
2.82%
9.86%
12.21%
72.77%
G. Institutional Review Board
1.37%
0.68%
11.64%
12.33%
73.97%
H. Finance & Financial Aid
3.40%
6.38%
7.66%
18.72%
63.83%
Univ Mean 4.66 (n = 243) 4.59 (n = 232) 4.53 (n = 238) 4.51 (n = 231) 4.63 (n = 229) 4.50 (n = 213) 4.57 (n = 146) 4.33 (n = 235)
EL Mean 4.61 (n = 135) 4.54 (n = 139) 4.47 (n = 125) 4.33 (n = 128) 4.46 (n = 123) 4.30 (n = 124) 4.37 (n = 70) 4.19 (n = 137)
PP Mean 4.71 (n = 108) 4.66 (n = 93) 4.60 (n = 113) 4.73 (n = 103) 4.82 (n = 106) 4.79 (n = 89) 4.75 (n = 76) 4.53 (n = 98)
2016 Univ Mean 4.80 (n = 258) 4.73 (n = 239) 4.45 (n = 253) 4.55 (n = 235) 4.74 (n = 243) 4.68 (n = 208) 4.66 (n = 151) 4.73 (n = 231)
5
Table 9. Adequacy of Services/Programs to Support Educational Goal Achievement &/or Enhance the Student Experience Question Very Inadequate Somewhat Inadequate Neutral Somewhat Adequate Very Adequate A. Admissions 0.41% 2.07% 3.72% 18.18% 75.62% B. Student Services
0.43%
1.74%
7.39%
19.57%
70.87%
C. Learning Resource Center
0.42%
2.94%
9.66%
16.81%
70.17%
D. Instructional Technology
1.72%
2.16%
9.48%
18.53%
68.10%
E. Registrar
0.88%
0.88%
9.65%
12.72%
75.88%
F. Technical Support
2.76%
2.30%
8.76%
14.29%
71.89%
G. Institutional Review Board
0.65%
0.65%
10.46%
15.03%
73.20%
H. Finance & Financial Aid
2.16%
5.19%
11.69%
17.75%
63.20%
Univ Mean 4.67 (n = 242) 4.59 (n = 230) 4.53 (n = 238) 4.49 (n = 232) 4.62 (n = 228) 4.50 (n = 217) 4.59 (n = 153) 4.35 (n = 231)
EL Mean 4.60 (n = 133) 4.51 (n = 136) 4.48 (n = 125) 4.31 (n = 128) 4.43 (n = 122) 4.26 (n = 125) 4.43 (n = 177) 4.19 (n = 136)
PP Mean 4.74 (n = 109) 4.69 (n = 94) 4.59 (n = 113) 4.71 (n = 104) 4.83 (n = 106) 4.83 (n = 92) 4.76 (n = 76) 4.57 (n = 95)
2016 Univ Mean 4.75 (n = 260) 4.71 (n = 238) 4.39 (n = 254) 4.53 (n = 242) 4.69 (n = 243) 4.64 (n = 210) 4.59 (n = 154) 4.65 (n = 233)
Academic Experiences Regarding students’ academic experiences, participants responded to statements regarding general experiences, academic rigor, clinical inquiry, and learning. For the general academic experiences (Table 12), all institutional means were in the acceptable or exceptional ranges; however, one entry-level students indicated at 3.99 mean agreement regarding feedback being considered and addressed, a slight decline from the 2016 score of 4.05. Continuous improvement strategies for this item are inherent within the stated behaviors. As a whole, participants indicated agreement regarding the appropriateness of the degree program rigor. However, the 2016 response for post-professional students increased almost 10% over 2016 for the program being overly rigorous (Table 13). On the topics of clinical inquiry and learning (Table 14), all mean scores were within the acceptable or exceptional ranges, which again demonstrated support for the University’s Mission and Core Themes. Table 10. General Academic Experiences Question
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Univ Mean
EL Mean
PP Mean
2016 Univ Mean
A. The academic model is effectively structured for learning. B. My program curriculum is relevant to my academic & professional goals. C. My degree program has clear, identifiable outcomes.
1.20%
2.79%
4.38%
30.28%
61.35%
2.39%
1.59%
2.79%
19.52%
73.71%
1.60%
2.80%
2.40%
19.60%
73.60%
D. Individual courses support my degree program’s learning outcomes. E. Through engagement in my learning experience, my Program Director(s) creates a supportive learning environment.
1.61%
2.81%
4.02%
26.91%
64.66%
2.02%
4.05%
4.86%
15.38%
73.68%
4.48 (n = 251) 4.61 (n = 251) 4.61 (n = 250) 4.50 (n = 249) 4.55 (n = 247)
4.41 (n = 138) 4.56 (n = 138) 4.58 (n = 138) 4.47 (n = 137) 4.49 (n = 136)
4.57 (n = 113) 4.66 (n = 113) 4.64 (n = 112) 4.54 (n = 112) 4.62 (n = 131)
4.70 (n = 265) 4.72 (n = 266) 4.79 (n = 266) 4.67 (n = 265) 4.73 (n = 265)
(Table 12 Continues)
6
(Table 12 Continued)
Question F. I receive adequate advising regarding my careerrelated questions (e.g., via Program Director, Faculty, Career Services). G. Through engagement in my learning experience, my faculty create a supportive learning environment. H. My faculty demonstrate current knowledge of best clinical practice. I. My faculty use contemporary teaching methods that enhance my learning experience. J. My faculty use contemporary educational technologies to enhance my learning experience. K. I am confident feedback to my Faculty & Program Director is seriously considered & addressed. L. I have formed meaningful formal & informal mentorship & advisement relationships across my academic experience.
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Univ Mean
EL Mean
PP Mean
2016 Univ Mean
3.00%
4.72%
9.01%
19.31%
63.95%
4.36 (n = 233)
4.32 (n = 134)
4.42 (n = 99)
4.60 (n = 256)
2.01%
2.41%
5.62%
25.30%
64.66%
1.61%
1.20%
2.41%
20.88%
73.90%
1.20%
4.40%
5.60%
26.40%
62.40%
1.20%
1.60%
6.40%
26.40%
64.40%
5.20%
8.00%
9.20%
18.40%
59.20%
3.24%
6.07%
9.72%
22.27%
58.70%
4.48 (n = 249) 4.64 (n = 249) 4.44 (n = 250) 4.51 (n = 250) 4.18 (n = 250) 4.27 (n = 247)
4.43 (n = 138) 4.58 (n = 138) 4.33 (n = 138) 4.45 (n = 138) 3.99 (n = 138) 4.20 (n = 138)
4.55 (n = 111) 4.72 (n = 111) 4.58 (n = 112) 4.59 (n = 112) 4.43 (n = 112) 4.35 (n = 110)
4.68 (n = 265) 4.78 (n = 264) 4.68 (n = 265) 4.61 (n = 266) 4.41 (n = 265) 4.57 (n = 262)
Table 11. Perception of Academic Rigor (n = 251) Answer A. In general, the program has inconsistent or low levels of rigor, leaving me feeling disengaged or bored in many courses. B. In general, the level of rigor provides a challenging & stimulating learning environment appropriate for graduate education. C. In general, my learning process is stifled or I'm often overwhelmed because the program is overly rigorous.
Table 12. Clinical Inquiry & Learning Question
Strongly Disagree 1.20%
Somewhat Disagree 2.39%
Neutral
B. I am competent at critically evaluating literature.
0.80%
C. I am competent in my ability to synthesize evidence-based principles into realistic practice settings. D. My participation in experiential learning activities (e.g., clinical experiences, practicum, thesis, capstone, dissertation) has enhanced my clinical inquiry proficiency. E. I am developing knowledge & skills that will allow me to challenge current practice standards & serve as a catalyst for healthcare change. F. The knowledge I have gained from my degree program has improved my skills as an evidence-based clinician, educator, or researcher.
A. I am competent at locating literature.
Univ % 3.19% (n = 8) 85.66% (n = 215) 11.16% (n = 28)
EL % 2.17% (n = 3) 84.78% (n = 117) 13.04% (n = 118)
3.59%
Somewhat Agree 35.46%
Strongly Agree 57.37%
1.20%
7.60%
42.00%
48.40%
0.80%
0.40%
3.98%
41.43%
53.39%
1.33%
1.33%
6.22%
24.44%
66.67%
1.20%
0.80%
4.40%
22.00%
71.60%
1.20%
0.40%
2.41%
16.06%
79.92%
PP % 4.42% (n = 5) 86.73% (n = 98) 8.85% (n = 10)
2016 Univ % 1.88% (n = 5) 94.36% (n = 251) 3.76% (n = 10)
Univ Mean 4.45 (n = 251) 4.36 (n = 250) 4.46 (n = 251) 4.54 (n = 225)
EL Mean
PP Mean
4.28 (n = 138) 4.23 (n = 137) 4.31 (n = 138) 4.44 (n = 121)
4.67 (n = 113) 4.52 (n = 113) 4.65 (n = 113) 4.65 (n = 104)
2016 Univ Mean 4.52 (n = 266) 4.42 (n = 266) 4.50 (n = 264) 4.61 (n = 228)
4.62 (n = 250) 4.73 (n = 249)
4.52 (n = 137) 4.68 (n = 136)
4.74 (n = 113) 4.80 (n = 113)
4.71 (n = 265) 4.81 (n = 261) 7
Overall Satisfaction Multiple data points were utilized to explore student satisfaction. As demonstrated in Table 15, all means for academic experience and overall experience were in the acceptable range. 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 16) through the Net Promoter Score (NPS), which measures loyalty and may be used to promote growth. The University aspires to NPS at 50% or higher, however, there was a significant decrease from 2016 to 2017. This decrease suggests an opportunity to continue exploring strategies to increase loyalty that move students from the “neutral” range (7-8) to becoming “active” promoters (9-10). Finally, 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 95.62%. An analysis of variables that predict increase NPS revealed clear significance (P < .01) for student responses across many variables, revealing the holistic nature of the student experience. Survey items in which strong agreement predicts the same in an NPS included the following: provided University information, service activities, facilities and equipment, personnel (admissions, student services, technical support, registrar, financial aid), services and programs (student services, technical support, registrar, financial aid), academic model structure, clear program outcomes, career advisement, faculty knowledge of best practices, and mentorship relationships. Focused efforts in any or all of these areas may result in increased NPS and overall satisfaction. Table 13. Academic & University Experience Satisfaction (n = 251) Question A. How satisfied are you with your academic experience at RMUoHP? B. How satisfied are you with your overall experience at RMUoHP?
Very Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Univ Mean (n = 251)
EL Mean (n = 138)
PP Mean (n = 113)
2016 Univ Mean (n = 265)
1.59%
5.58%
2.39%
30.68%
59.76%
4.41
4.38
4.45
4.56
1.20%
5.18%
4.78%
37.05%
51.79%
4.33
4.28
4.39
4.57
Table 14. How likely is it that you would recommend RMUoHP to a friend, family member, or colleague for his or her education? (Net Promoter Score) EL n (%) PP n (%) 2016 Univ n (%) Answer Univ n (%) (n = 366)
(n = 187)
(n = 179)
(n = 265)
0
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00)
1
3 (0.82%)
0 (0.00%)
3 (1.68%)
0 (0.00)
2
7 (1.91%)
5 (2.67%)
2 (1.12%)
2 (0.75)
3
10 (2.73%)
4 (2.14%)
6 (3.35%)
1 (0.38)
4
5 (1.37%)
3 (1.60%)
2 (1.12%)
5 (1.89)
5
18 (4.92%)
10 (5.35%)
8 (4.47%)
12 (4.53)
6
26 (7.10%)
15 (8.02%)
11 (6.15%)
14 (5.28)
7
57 (15.57%)
33 (17.65%)
24 (13.41%)
25 (9.43)
8
71 (19.40%)
44 (23.53%)
27 (15.08%)
40 (15.09)
9
63 (17.21%)
25 (13.37%)
38 (21.23%)
61 (23.02)
10
106 (28.96%)
48 (25.67%)
58 (32.40%)
105 (39.62)
Mean (NPS)
7.94 (27.32%)
7.82 (19.25%)
8.07 (35.75%)
8.55 (49.78 NPS)
Table 15. All things considered, are you satisfied with your RMUoHP experience? EL n (%) PP n (%) 2016 Univ n (%) Answer Univ n (%) (n = 251)
(n = 138)
(n = 113)
(n = 265)
Yes
240 (95.62%)
131 (94.93%)
109 (96.46%)
259 (97.74%)
No
11 (4.38%)
7 (5.07%)
4 (3.54%)
6 (2.26%) 8
Open-Ended Questions To provide additional clarity to the survey’s quantitative results, students were asked to comment on four open-ended items: Feelings of Dissatisfaction with Personnel or Inadequacy of Services at RMUoHP. NPS Detractor Feelings of Dissatisfaction/NPS Promoter Positive Feelings. Additional Comments Most Positive, Memorable Experience at RMUoHP. 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. Participant population (entry-level, post-professional) themes are presented in Tables 18-22. 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. Table 16. Comment Themes Regarding Any Feelings of Dissatisfaction with Personnel or Inadequacy of Services at RMUoHP n
Entry-Level Themes (N = 21)
9 6 6 3 3
Financial Aid Complaint Wifi/Internet Connectivity Complaint Classroom Technology Complaint Technology Fee Increase Limited Study Spaces
n
Post-Professional Themes (N = 21)
4 4 3 3 3 2
Financial Aid Complaint Specific Personnel Complaint Misinformed Regarding Degree Program Inadequate Library Resources Limited Scholarship Opportunities and Communications Limited Feelings of Connection to University
Table 17. NPS Detractor Themes for Feelings of Dissatisfaction n
Entry-Level Themes (N = 31)
13 9 8 7 7 5 4 3 3 3
High Cost of Attendance Schedule Disorganization Inexperienced Faculty Communication Challenges Inadequate or Low Quality Resources General Positive Commentary Program Not Receptive to Feedback Diversity Challenges Not Enough Student Study Space Challenges with Institutional Level Student-Centeredness Course Quality Inconsistency
n
Post-Professional Themes (N = 19)
5 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2
Communication Challenges with Faculty Lack of Terminal Project Support Curriculum Challenges Workload Too High for Working Adult Challenges with Course Organization Tuition and Fees Challenges Inaccurate Representation of Completion Timeline Unclear Program Objectives Inconsistent Grading Practices
9
Table 18. NPS Promoter Themes for Positive Feelings about RMUoHP
Table 20. Comment Themes about the Most Positive, Memorable Experience at RMUoHP
n
Entry-Level Themes (N = 54)
n
Entry-Level Themes (N = 71)
36 33 7 7 6
Quality Faculty Culture of Student-Centeredness Small Institution Size Quality Facilities Quality Educational Experience
n
Post-Professional Themes (N = 61)
38 22 16 14 13 9 8 8 8 6
Quality Faculty Culture of Student-Centeredness Quality Staff Non-Traditional Academic Model High Quality, Organized Curriculum Overall Positive Experience Application to Practice Quality Academic Experience Cohort Experience Quality Program Director
34 23 13 10 9 9 8 7 7
Specific Faculty Commendation Quality Faculty Culture of Student-Centeredness Lifelong Relationships Built Within Cohort/Program Mentorship Experiences with Faculty Specific Staff Commendation Quality Educational Experience Positive Experience with President Nielsen Quality Lab Experiences
n
Post-Professional Themes (N = 69)
36 23 18 17 11 10 7
Specific Faculty Commendation Lifelong Relationships Built Within Cohort/Program On-Campus Residency Weeks Quality Faculty Culture of Student Centeredness Quality Academic Experience Overall Positive Experience
Table 19. Additional Entry-Level Comment Themes for Feedback to Share with Programs & University Leaders n
Entry-Level Themes (N = 45)
10 7 6 4 4 4
Tuition and Fees Concerns Specific Faculty Complaint Overall Positive Experience Outdated Equipment or Technology Disconnect Between Entry-Level Programs Inexperienced Faculty Lack of Study Space
n
Post-Professional Theme (N = 48)
7 6 5 5 4 4
Specific Faculty Complaint Challenges to Terminal Project Processes Program More Rigorous Than Expected Additional Faculty Requested Overall Positive Experience Curriculum Suggestions
10
Purpose, Methods, & Participation 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 following: University alignment with Core Values, Mission, Core Themes, and Vision; academic experience; overall experience; and satisfaction. The 2017 SSS was conducted via an online survey tool during a two-week period in March and April. Student participation was solicited via email to all of RMUoHP’s 570 degree-seeking graduate students. While 366 students (64.21%) started the survey by completing the initial email-embedded Net Promoter Score item, 251 students (44.04%) completed the survey. The survey completion rate decreased from the 2016 SSS by 12.10%. While the survey start rates are similar between 2016 and 2017, the use of a key email embedded item resulted in an increased quantity of meaningful responses to that item (Net Promoter Score). Reduced participation is attributed in part to the simultaneous institution-wide survey data collection from another department. Future efforts to centralize survey coordination are currently underway. Student demographics are included in Tables 1-6. In addition to the previously listed topics, the survey included additional open-ended items to clarify quantitative data and technology items related to assist the University in future student software and systems planning. The technology items are not included in this report, but have been provided to the University Technology Committee for use in future planning.
Reporting & Usage This report contains means for all scaled survey items, additional quantitative data, and a summary of themes related to open-ended items. To address population differences and improve reliability, post-professional (PP) student and entry-level (EL) student data were presented separately from overall institutional means. The institutional means for the 2016 SSS were also included for comparison. Variations in response counts were attributed to a “no basis for judgment” choice that was excluded from calculations. For appropriate five-point Likert scaled items, the University defines score values as follows: scores ≤ 3.99 are improvement opportunities (bolded red); scores between 4.0-4.49 are acceptable; and scores ≥ 4.5 are exceptional (bolded). However, several survey items did not fall into these interpretation guidelines, as explained in table narratives. In addition to means, statistical analysis explored a variety of variable relationships and, when significant, these relationships are described in this report. While the 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 at least three students responded. Data from this report were used as a tool within the functional area and academic program assessment and continuous improvement cycles.
Highlights Institutional Strengths (Across All Students) Advocating Clinical Inquiry Promoting Service Mission Fulfillment Evidence-Based Practice
Admissions Student Services Safety Curriculum Relevance
Degree Outcomes Faculty Knowledge of Best Clinical Practice Developing Catalysts for Healthcare Change Overall Satisfaction
Improvement Opportunities & Implementation Suggestions (By Student Population) o Improve Diversity in Entry-Level Programs – Take deliberate initiatives to increase faculty and student diversity. Enhance mentorship/advisement relationships and consideration of feedback, both of which were predictors for diversity agreement. o Provide &/or Encourage Post-Professional Student Service – Explore opportunities to meaningfully engage post-professional students in service on-site, non-traditionally, or within home communities. Explore how service is measured within this population.
o Enhanced Perceived Value for Entry-Level Programs – Continue enhancing the total RMUoHP experience, including social factors, mentorship, technology, and competitive pricing. o Address Entry-Level Student Feedback – Provide a culture receptive to student feedback. Report to students when changes are made that considered student feedback. o Increase the Net Promoter Score across All Students – Enhance the student experience to improve student loyalty and institutional growth. 1
Demographics As demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2, the majority of RMUoHP students who completed the survey were white/Caucasian (80.66%) and female (58.46%). Of the respondents, the majority of whom started their degree program in 2015 or 2016 (Table 4), 69.88% were younger than age 40, with 38.25% between ages 25-29 (Table 3), reflecting the University’s youngest mean population of students to date. Participants represented twenty-four degree programs and tracks (Table 5) and, with consideration for the potential and actual respondents, the entry-level students more heavily influenced these findings than would be expected (Table 6). Table 1. Sex (n = 337) Answer % n Female 58.46% 197 Male 41.54% 140 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity (n = 331) Answer White/Caucasian Two or More Races Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Asian American Indian or Alaska Native Table 3. Age Range (n = 332) Answer % n 20 to 24 years 6.33% 21 25 to 29 years 38.25% 127 30 to 34 years 15.96% 53 35 to 39 years 9.34% 31 40 to 44 years 8.13% 27 45 to 49 years 7.83% 26 50 to 54 years 7.23% 24 55 to 59 years 4.22% 14 60 to 64 years 2.41% 8 65 to 69 years 0.30% 1 Table 4. Program Start Year (n = 335) n Answer %
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1.49% 0.00% 1.49% 5.67% 2.09% 5.37% 34.33% 49.55%
5 0 5 19 7 18 115 166
% 80.66% 6.04% 0.00% 3.93% 3.93% 5.14% 0.30%
n 267 20 0 13 13 17 1
Table 3. Responses by Degree Program & Track (n = 335) Answer Athletic Training (PhD) Health Promotion & Wellness (PhD) Health Science (DSc - Athletic Training) Health Science (DSc - Health Promotion & Wellness) Health Science (DSc - Health Promotion & Wellness/Human & Sport Performance (Concurrent)) Health Science (DSc - Human & Sport Performance) Health Science (DSc - Neurologic Rehabilitation) Health Science (MS - Rehabilitative Science) Health Science (MS - Sport Performance) Nursing (PhD) Nursing Practice (Post-baccalaureate DNP (FNP)) Nursing Practice (Post-master's DNP) Occupational Therapy - Administration & Practice Management Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Advanced Practice Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Aging Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) Occupational Therapy - Education 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 (PhD) Pediatric Science (PhD) Physical Therapy (Entry-level DPT) Physical Therapy - Pediatric Science Elective Track (Transitional DPT) Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS) Speech-Language Pathology (Post-professional ClinScD)
% 3.28% 2.69% 2.39% 1.79% 2.69% 1.19% 0.60% 0.60% 0.60% 0.60% 6.27% 2.69% 0.90% 2.99% 0.90% 2.39% 1.19% 0.90% 1.49% 0.30% 26.87% 3.28% 22.69% 10.75%
n 11 9 8 6 9 4 2 2 2 2 21 9 3 10 3 8 4 3 5 1 90 11 76 36
Table 4. Comparison between Potential & Actual Participants by Entry-Level (EL) & Post-Professional (PP) Degree Program Degree Program Potential Potential n% Actual Actual n% Difference n% (n = 570) (n = 335) Health Sciences (DSc/PhD, PP) 134 23.51% 57 17.01% -6.5% Health Science (MS, PP) 13 2.28% 4 1.19% -1.09% Nursing Practice (DNP, EL) 43 7.54% 21 6.27% -1.27 Nursing Practice (DNP, PP) 10 1.75% 9 2.69% +0.94 Occupational Therapy (OTD, PP) 70 12.28% 31 9.25% -3.03% Physical Therapy (DPT, EL) 109 19.12% 90 26.87% +7.75% Physical Therapy (DPT, PP) 22 3.86% 11 3.28% -0.58% Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS, EL) 94 16.49% 76 22.69% +6.20% Speech-Language Pathology (ClinScD, PP) 75 13.16% 36 10.75% -2.41% 2
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 (Tables 7-8). Institutional means were within the acceptable and exceptional ranges in Table 7, with clinical inquiry, service, and mission 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. Entry-level students rated this improvement opportunity at 3.98 in 2016. Based upon an exploration of survey data and regression analysis for entry-level students, many items were found as clearly significant (P < .01) predictors for strong agreement to diversity, including mentorship and advisement relationships formed and consideration of feedback. Attention to these areas may address underlying challenges regarding diversity (academic freedom, varied educational experiences, or broad recruitment of students and faculty). Table 8 demonstrates mission fulfillment through the Core Themes, for which Core Theme 1 – Developing Evidence-Based Practitioners received exceptional means across populations. Table 5. Core Values, Mission, & Vision Question A. The University advocates clinical inquiry that challenges practice standards, expands evidence-based practice, increases clinical research, develops healthcare change agents, & encourages experiential learning. (Clinical Inquiry) B. The University provides a student--centered environment through relevant & participatory courses & a supportive University community. (Student-Centeredness) C. The University demonstrates integrity in its interactions with all its constituents. (Integrity) D. The University cultivates diversity through academic freedom, varied educational experiences, & broad recruitment of students & faculty. (Diversity) E. The University fosters skills essential to leadership roles in healthcare, academia, research & the community. (Leadership) F. The University operates with respect for the natural environment. (Sustainability) G. The University promotes service to community, healthcare, & education. (Service) H. The University fulfills its mission to educate current & future healthcare professionals for outcomes-oriented, evidence-based practice. The University demonstrates mission fulfillment through the quality of its education & success of its students in academic programs that develop leaders skilled in clinical inquiry & prepared to effect healthcare change. (Mission) I. The University is progressing towards vision fulfillment to advance the quality, delivery, & efficacy of healthcare. (Vision)
Strongly Disagree 1.72%
Somewhat Disagree 0.69%
Neutral
Strongly Agree 75.86%
Univ Mean 4.65 (n = 290)
EL Mean
PP Mean
4.14%
Somewhat Agree 17.59%
4.59 (n = 157)
4.72 (n = 133)
2016 Univ Mean 4.67 (n = 282)
1.37%
6.16%
6.85%
25.00%
60.62%
4.37 (n = 292)
4.30 (n = 159)
4.46 (n = 133)
4.48 (n = 281)
2.41%
2.76%
7.24%
19.66%
67.93%
3.91%
6.76%
9.96%
29.18%
50.18%
4.48 (n = 290) 4.15 (n = 281)
4.42 (n = 158) 3.95 (n = 153)
4.55 (n = 132) 4.39 (n = 128)
4.49 (n = 274) 4.20 (n = 274)
1.37%
3.09%
6.87%
28.18%
60.48%
1.54%
3.09%
10.81%
22.39%
62.16%
1.82%
2.55%
6.18%
17.45%
72.00%
2.78%
2.43%
3.82%
15.63%
75.35%
4.43 (n = 291) 4.41 (n = 259) 4.55 (n = 275) 4.58 (n = 288)
4.35 (n = 159) 4.33 (n = 141) 4.58 (n = 156) 4.50 (n = 156)
4.53 (n = 132) 4.49 (n = 118) 4.52 (n = 139) 4.68 (n = 132)
4.51 (n = 279) 4.31 (n = 248) 4.53 (n = 256) 4.64 (n = 277)
2.46%
2.46%
6.32%
21.40%
67.37%
4.49 (n = 285)
4.43 (n = 154)
4.56 (n = 131)
4.60 (n = 277)
3
Table 6. Core Themes Question A. RMUoHP develops evidence-based practitioners by educating current & future healthcare professionals to synthesize evidence-based principles into practice. (Core Theme 1 - Developing Evidence-Based Practitioners) B. RMUoHP elevates clinical inquiry proficiency through learning experiences that challenge practice standards, expand evidence-based practice, increase clinical research, develop healthcare change agents, & encourage experiential learning. (Core Theme 2 - Elevating Clinical Inquiry Proficiency) C. RMUoHP ensures educational quality through student-centered academic programs, services, & continuous improvement. (Core Theme 3 - Ensuring Educational Quality) D. RMUoHP nurtures student success by engaging students in professional & personal growth opportunities. (Core Theme 4 - Nurturing Student Success)
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Univ Mean
EL Mean
PP Mean
2016 Univ Mean
1.74%
1.74%
2.79%
14.63%
79.09%
4.68 (n = 287)
4.63 (n = 155)
4.73 (n = 132)
4.70 (n = 277)
1.75%
3.15%
5.94%
20.98%
68.18%
4.51 (n = 286)
4.39 (n = 154)
4.64 (n = 132)
4.62 (n = 277)
2.78%
4.86%
6.94%
22.57%
62.85%
4.38 (n = 288)
4.30 (n = 156)
4.47 (n = 132)
4.50 (n = 280)
2.80%
3.15%
9.44%
28.32%
56.29%
4.32 (n = 286)
4.33 (n = 156)
4.32 (n = 130)
4.45 (n = 277)
University Experiences Using the same Likert scale, students were asked to rate their agreement to statements regarding broad University experiences (Table 9). At 3.90, the perception of program value falls within the improvement opportunity range for entry-level participants (3.62). Post-professional participants also rated service activities at 3.97, which may indicate an opportunity to be more deliberate regarding promoting behaviors related to the service core value. Across all programs, personnel and services were rated within the acceptable or exceptional ranges (Tables 10-11). Participants were also asked to comment regarding any feelings of dissatisfaction with personnel or services. These comment themes are identified later in this report. To explore entry-level participant perspective of program value, survey variables were evaluated for their relationship with perception of program value (quality education and a competitive price). It was discovered that, although the relationships were correlated, perspective of program value does not predict overall satisfaction (nor is the reverse true). However, many items predict program value any may be considered for further analysis. Sense of belonging, career advisement, faculty engagement, consideration of feedback, and other social factors were considerations for program value, as were preparation for the program through materials, interactions with employees and services, and orientation. Finally, faculty were also factors in perceived value, specifically for the aforementioned engagement as well as use of contemporary technology to enhance learning experiences. Table 7. University Experiences Question A. The admissions process & staff considered my abilities, needs, & expectations. B. Through the admissions process, I felt well informed to begin my degree program. C. Through interactions with University constituents, I feel a sense of belonging to the RMUoHP community. D. Through the University’s website, handbooks, & employees, I am empowered with sufficient information related to University policies & procedures. E. Through the University's orientation program(s), I felt prepared to begin my program.
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Univ Mean
EL Mean
PP Mean
2016 Univ Mean
2.56%
2.20%
3.66%
17.95%
73.63%
1.44%
5.78%
6.50%
22.74%
63.54%
2.55%
5.11%
10.58%
25.55%
56.20%
1.82%
3.28%
5.11%
28.10%
61.68%
4.58 (n = 273) 4.41 (n = 277) 4.28 (n = 274) 4.45 (n = 274)
4.63 (n = 151) 4.49 (n = 154) 4.29 (n = 151) 4.44 (n = 150)
4.52 (n = 122) 4.31 (n = 123) 4.26 (n = 123) 4.45 (n = 124)
4.67 (n = 269) 4.46 (n = 275) 4.36 (n = 275) 4.40 (n = 275)
1.46%
2.92%
8.76%
26.28%
60.58%
4.42 (n = 274)
4.44 (n = 151)
4.39 (n = 123)
4.34 (n = 272)
(Table 9 Continues) 4
(Table 9 Continued)
Question
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Univ Mean
EL Mean
PP Mean
2016 Univ Mean
F. At RMUoHP, I have been provided information, opportunities, or been encouraged to participate in (or continue to participate in) service activities (e.g., RMUoHP-affiliated service initiatives or committees, professional or community organizations, employer institution committees). G. I feel safe when I am on campus.
3.33%
6.30%
8.15%
28.52%
53.70%
4.23 (n = 270)
4.42 (n = 153)
3.97 (n = 117)
4.29 (n = 262)
2.31%
0.00%
1.92%
6.92%
88.85%
H. The RMUoHP campus includes quality facilities to support the studentcentered learning environment. I. The RMUoHP campus includes quality technology to support the studentcentered learning environment. J. The RMUoHP campus includes quality equipment to support the studentcentered learning environment. K. My academic program is a good value; it provides quality education at a competitive price. L. The University demonstrates continuous improvement.
4.43%
5.90%
5.90%
19.93%
63.84%
4.01%
5.84%
7.66%
24.45%
58.03%
4.87%
4.49%
7.87%
22.85%
59.93%
9.09%
8.00%
12.00%
25.82%
45.09%
2.62%
4.49%
8.24%
25.09%
59.55%
4.80 (n = 260) 4.33 (n = 271) 4.27 (n = 274) 4.28 (n = 267) 3.90 (n = 275) 4.34 (n = 267)
4.80 (n = 142) 4.10 (n = 150) 4.08 (n = 153) 4.11 (n = 150) 3.62 (n = 151) 4.29 (n = 150)
4.80 (n = 118) 4.61 (n = 121) 4.50 (n = 121) 4.50 (n = 117) 4.24 (n = 124) 4.41 (n = 117)
4.82 (n = 262) 4.51 (n = 249) 4.32 (n = 269) 4.41 (n = 266) 4.15 (n = 273) 4.58 (n = 269)
Table 8. Satisfaction with University Personnel Question Very Dissatisfied A. Admissions 0.41%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 1.65%
Neutral 5.35%
Somewhat Satisfied 16.87%
Very Satisfied 75.72%
B. Student Services
0.86%
2.16%
6.47%
18.53%
71.98%
C. Learning Resource Center
1.26%
1.68%
9.66%
17.23%
70.17%
D. Instructional Technology
1.30%
3.03%
10.39%
14.29%
71.00%
E. Registrar
0.44%
1.75%
8.30%
13.54%
75.98%
F. Technical Support
2.35%
2.82%
9.86%
12.21%
72.77%
G. Institutional Review Board
1.37%
0.68%
11.64%
12.33%
73.97%
H. Finance & Financial Aid
3.40%
6.38%
7.66%
18.72%
63.83%
Univ Mean 4.66 (n = 243) 4.59 (n = 232) 4.53 (n = 238) 4.51 (n = 231) 4.63 (n = 229) 4.50 (n = 213) 4.57 (n = 146) 4.33 (n = 235)
EL Mean 4.61 (n = 135) 4.54 (n = 139) 4.47 (n = 125) 4.33 (n = 128) 4.46 (n = 123) 4.30 (n = 124) 4.37 (n = 70) 4.19 (n = 137)
PP Mean 4.71 (n = 108) 4.66 (n = 93) 4.60 (n = 113) 4.73 (n = 103) 4.82 (n = 106) 4.79 (n = 89) 4.75 (n = 76) 4.53 (n = 98)
2016 Univ Mean 4.80 (n = 258) 4.73 (n = 239) 4.45 (n = 253) 4.55 (n = 235) 4.74 (n = 243) 4.68 (n = 208) 4.66 (n = 151) 4.73 (n = 231)
5
Table 9. Adequacy of Services/Programs to Support Educational Goal Achievement &/or Enhance the Student Experience Question Very Inadequate Somewhat Inadequate Neutral Somewhat Adequate Very Adequate A. Admissions 0.41% 2.07% 3.72% 18.18% 75.62% B. Student Services
0.43%
1.74%
7.39%
19.57%
70.87%
C. Learning Resource Center
0.42%
2.94%
9.66%
16.81%
70.17%
D. Instructional Technology
1.72%
2.16%
9.48%
18.53%
68.10%
E. Registrar
0.88%
0.88%
9.65%
12.72%
75.88%
F. Technical Support
2.76%
2.30%
8.76%
14.29%
71.89%
G. Institutional Review Board
0.65%
0.65%
10.46%
15.03%
73.20%
H. Finance & Financial Aid
2.16%
5.19%
11.69%
17.75%
63.20%
Univ Mean 4.67 (n = 242) 4.59 (n = 230) 4.53 (n = 238) 4.49 (n = 232) 4.62 (n = 228) 4.50 (n = 217) 4.59 (n = 153) 4.35 (n = 231)
EL Mean 4.60 (n = 133) 4.51 (n = 136) 4.48 (n = 125) 4.31 (n = 128) 4.43 (n = 122) 4.26 (n = 125) 4.43 (n = 177) 4.19 (n = 136)
PP Mean 4.74 (n = 109) 4.69 (n = 94) 4.59 (n = 113) 4.71 (n = 104) 4.83 (n = 106) 4.83 (n = 92) 4.76 (n = 76) 4.57 (n = 95)
2016 Univ Mean 4.75 (n = 260) 4.71 (n = 238) 4.39 (n = 254) 4.53 (n = 242) 4.69 (n = 243) 4.64 (n = 210) 4.59 (n = 154) 4.65 (n = 233)
Academic Experiences Regarding students’ academic experiences, participants responded to statements regarding general experiences, academic rigor, clinical inquiry, and learning. For the general academic experiences (Table 12), all institutional means were in the acceptable or exceptional ranges; however, one entry-level students indicated at 3.99 mean agreement regarding feedback being considered and addressed, a slight decline from the 2016 score of 4.05. Continuous improvement strategies for this item are inherent within the stated behaviors. As a whole, participants indicated agreement regarding the appropriateness of the degree program rigor. However, the 2016 response for post-professional students increased almost 10% over 2016 for the program being overly rigorous (Table 13). On the topics of clinical inquiry and learning (Table 14), all mean scores were within the acceptable or exceptional ranges, which again demonstrated support for the University’s Mission and Core Themes. Table 10. General Academic Experiences Question
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Univ Mean
EL Mean
PP Mean
2016 Univ Mean
A. The academic model is effectively structured for learning. B. My program curriculum is relevant to my academic & professional goals. C. My degree program has clear, identifiable outcomes.
1.20%
2.79%
4.38%
30.28%
61.35%
2.39%
1.59%
2.79%
19.52%
73.71%
1.60%
2.80%
2.40%
19.60%
73.60%
D. Individual courses support my degree program’s learning outcomes. E. Through engagement in my learning experience, my Program Director(s) creates a supportive learning environment.
1.61%
2.81%
4.02%
26.91%
64.66%
2.02%
4.05%
4.86%
15.38%
73.68%
4.48 (n = 251) 4.61 (n = 251) 4.61 (n = 250) 4.50 (n = 249) 4.55 (n = 247)
4.41 (n = 138) 4.56 (n = 138) 4.58 (n = 138) 4.47 (n = 137) 4.49 (n = 136)
4.57 (n = 113) 4.66 (n = 113) 4.64 (n = 112) 4.54 (n = 112) 4.62 (n = 131)
4.70 (n = 265) 4.72 (n = 266) 4.79 (n = 266) 4.67 (n = 265) 4.73 (n = 265)
(Table 12 Continues)
6
(Table 12 Continued)
Question F. I receive adequate advising regarding my careerrelated questions (e.g., via Program Director, Faculty, Career Services). G. Through engagement in my learning experience, my faculty create a supportive learning environment. H. My faculty demonstrate current knowledge of best clinical practice. I. My faculty use contemporary teaching methods that enhance my learning experience. J. My faculty use contemporary educational technologies to enhance my learning experience. K. I am confident feedback to my Faculty & Program Director is seriously considered & addressed. L. I have formed meaningful formal & informal mentorship & advisement relationships across my academic experience.
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Univ Mean
EL Mean
PP Mean
2016 Univ Mean
3.00%
4.72%
9.01%
19.31%
63.95%
4.36 (n = 233)
4.32 (n = 134)
4.42 (n = 99)
4.60 (n = 256)
2.01%
2.41%
5.62%
25.30%
64.66%
1.61%
1.20%
2.41%
20.88%
73.90%
1.20%
4.40%
5.60%
26.40%
62.40%
1.20%
1.60%
6.40%
26.40%
64.40%
5.20%
8.00%
9.20%
18.40%
59.20%
3.24%
6.07%
9.72%
22.27%
58.70%
4.48 (n = 249) 4.64 (n = 249) 4.44 (n = 250) 4.51 (n = 250) 4.18 (n = 250) 4.27 (n = 247)
4.43 (n = 138) 4.58 (n = 138) 4.33 (n = 138) 4.45 (n = 138) 3.99 (n = 138) 4.20 (n = 138)
4.55 (n = 111) 4.72 (n = 111) 4.58 (n = 112) 4.59 (n = 112) 4.43 (n = 112) 4.35 (n = 110)
4.68 (n = 265) 4.78 (n = 264) 4.68 (n = 265) 4.61 (n = 266) 4.41 (n = 265) 4.57 (n = 262)
Table 11. Perception of Academic Rigor (n = 251) Answer A. In general, the program has inconsistent or low levels of rigor, leaving me feeling disengaged or bored in many courses. B. In general, the level of rigor provides a challenging & stimulating learning environment appropriate for graduate education. C. In general, my learning process is stifled or I'm often overwhelmed because the program is overly rigorous.
Table 12. Clinical Inquiry & Learning Question
Strongly Disagree 1.20%
Somewhat Disagree 2.39%
Neutral
B. I am competent at critically evaluating literature.
0.80%
C. I am competent in my ability to synthesize evidence-based principles into realistic practice settings. D. My participation in experiential learning activities (e.g., clinical experiences, practicum, thesis, capstone, dissertation) has enhanced my clinical inquiry proficiency. E. I am developing knowledge & skills that will allow me to challenge current practice standards & serve as a catalyst for healthcare change. F. The knowledge I have gained from my degree program has improved my skills as an evidence-based clinician, educator, or researcher.
A. I am competent at locating literature.
Univ % 3.19% (n = 8) 85.66% (n = 215) 11.16% (n = 28)
EL % 2.17% (n = 3) 84.78% (n = 117) 13.04% (n = 118)
3.59%
Somewhat Agree 35.46%
Strongly Agree 57.37%
1.20%
7.60%
42.00%
48.40%
0.80%
0.40%
3.98%
41.43%
53.39%
1.33%
1.33%
6.22%
24.44%
66.67%
1.20%
0.80%
4.40%
22.00%
71.60%
1.20%
0.40%
2.41%
16.06%
79.92%
PP % 4.42% (n = 5) 86.73% (n = 98) 8.85% (n = 10)
2016 Univ % 1.88% (n = 5) 94.36% (n = 251) 3.76% (n = 10)
Univ Mean 4.45 (n = 251) 4.36 (n = 250) 4.46 (n = 251) 4.54 (n = 225)
EL Mean
PP Mean
4.28 (n = 138) 4.23 (n = 137) 4.31 (n = 138) 4.44 (n = 121)
4.67 (n = 113) 4.52 (n = 113) 4.65 (n = 113) 4.65 (n = 104)
2016 Univ Mean 4.52 (n = 266) 4.42 (n = 266) 4.50 (n = 264) 4.61 (n = 228)
4.62 (n = 250) 4.73 (n = 249)
4.52 (n = 137) 4.68 (n = 136)
4.74 (n = 113) 4.80 (n = 113)
4.71 (n = 265) 4.81 (n = 261) 7
Overall Satisfaction Multiple data points were utilized to explore student satisfaction. As demonstrated in Table 15, all means for academic experience and overall experience were in the acceptable range. 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 16) through the Net Promoter Score (NPS), which measures loyalty and may be used to promote growth. The University aspires to NPS at 50% or higher, however, there was a significant decrease from 2016 to 2017. This decrease suggests an opportunity to continue exploring strategies to increase loyalty that move students from the “neutral” range (7-8) to becoming “active” promoters (9-10). Finally, 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 95.62%. An analysis of variables that predict increase NPS revealed clear significance (P < .01) for student responses across many variables, revealing the holistic nature of the student experience. Survey items in which strong agreement predicts the same in an NPS included the following: provided University information, service activities, facilities and equipment, personnel (admissions, student services, technical support, registrar, financial aid), services and programs (student services, technical support, registrar, financial aid), academic model structure, clear program outcomes, career advisement, faculty knowledge of best practices, and mentorship relationships. Focused efforts in any or all of these areas may result in increased NPS and overall satisfaction. Table 13. Academic & University Experience Satisfaction (n = 251) Question A. How satisfied are you with your academic experience at RMUoHP? B. How satisfied are you with your overall experience at RMUoHP?
Very Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Univ Mean (n = 251)
EL Mean (n = 138)
PP Mean (n = 113)
2016 Univ Mean (n = 265)
1.59%
5.58%
2.39%
30.68%
59.76%
4.41
4.38
4.45
4.56
1.20%
5.18%
4.78%
37.05%
51.79%
4.33
4.28
4.39
4.57
Table 14. How likely is it that you would recommend RMUoHP to a friend, family member, or colleague for his or her education? (Net Promoter Score) EL n (%) PP n (%) 2016 Univ n (%) Answer Univ n (%) (n = 366)
(n = 187)
(n = 179)
(n = 265)
0
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00)
1
3 (0.82%)
0 (0.00%)
3 (1.68%)
0 (0.00)
2
7 (1.91%)
5 (2.67%)
2 (1.12%)
2 (0.75)
3
10 (2.73%)
4 (2.14%)
6 (3.35%)
1 (0.38)
4
5 (1.37%)
3 (1.60%)
2 (1.12%)
5 (1.89)
5
18 (4.92%)
10 (5.35%)
8 (4.47%)
12 (4.53)
6
26 (7.10%)
15 (8.02%)
11 (6.15%)
14 (5.28)
7
57 (15.57%)
33 (17.65%)
24 (13.41%)
25 (9.43)
8
71 (19.40%)
44 (23.53%)
27 (15.08%)
40 (15.09)
9
63 (17.21%)
25 (13.37%)
38 (21.23%)
61 (23.02)
10
106 (28.96%)
48 (25.67%)
58 (32.40%)
105 (39.62)
Mean (NPS)
7.94 (27.32%)
7.82 (19.25%)
8.07 (35.75%)
8.55 (49.78 NPS)
Table 15. All things considered, are you satisfied with your RMUoHP experience? EL n (%) PP n (%) 2016 Univ n (%) Answer Univ n (%) (n = 251)
(n = 138)
(n = 113)
(n = 265)
Yes
240 (95.62%)
131 (94.93%)
109 (96.46%)
259 (97.74%)
No
11 (4.38%)
7 (5.07%)
4 (3.54%)
6 (2.26%) 8
Open-Ended Questions To provide additional clarity to the survey’s quantitative results, students were asked to comment on four open-ended items: Feelings of Dissatisfaction with Personnel or Inadequacy of Services at RMUoHP. NPS Detractor Feelings of Dissatisfaction/NPS Promoter Positive Feelings. Additional Comments Most Positive, Memorable Experience at RMUoHP. 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. Participant population (entry-level, post-professional) themes are presented in Tables 18-22. 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. Table 16. Comment Themes Regarding Any Feelings of Dissatisfaction with Personnel or Inadequacy of Services at RMUoHP n
Entry-Level Themes (N = 21)
9 6 6 3 3
Financial Aid Complaint Wifi/Internet Connectivity Complaint Classroom Technology Complaint Technology Fee Increase Limited Study Spaces
n
Post-Professional Themes (N = 21)
4 4 3 3 3 2
Financial Aid Complaint Specific Personnel Complaint Misinformed Regarding Degree Program Inadequate Library Resources Limited Scholarship Opportunities and Communications Limited Feelings of Connection to University
Table 17. NPS Detractor Themes for Feelings of Dissatisfaction n
Entry-Level Themes (N = 31)
13 9 8 7 7 5 4 3 3 3
High Cost of Attendance Schedule Disorganization Inexperienced Faculty Communication Challenges Inadequate or Low Quality Resources General Positive Commentary Program Not Receptive to Feedback Diversity Challenges Not Enough Student Study Space Challenges with Institutional Level Student-Centeredness Course Quality Inconsistency
n
Post-Professional Themes (N = 19)
5 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2
Communication Challenges with Faculty Lack of Terminal Project Support Curriculum Challenges Workload Too High for Working Adult Challenges with Course Organization Tuition and Fees Challenges Inaccurate Representation of Completion Timeline Unclear Program Objectives Inconsistent Grading Practices
9
Table 18. NPS Promoter Themes for Positive Feelings about RMUoHP
Table 20. Comment Themes about the Most Positive, Memorable Experience at RMUoHP
n
Entry-Level Themes (N = 54)
n
Entry-Level Themes (N = 71)
36 33 7 7 6
Quality Faculty Culture of Student-Centeredness Small Institution Size Quality Facilities Quality Educational Experience
n
Post-Professional Themes (N = 61)
38 22 16 14 13 9 8 8 8 6
Quality Faculty Culture of Student-Centeredness Quality Staff Non-Traditional Academic Model High Quality, Organized Curriculum Overall Positive Experience Application to Practice Quality Academic Experience Cohort Experience Quality Program Director
34 23 13 10 9 9 8 7 7
Specific Faculty Commendation Quality Faculty Culture of Student-Centeredness Lifelong Relationships Built Within Cohort/Program Mentorship Experiences with Faculty Specific Staff Commendation Quality Educational Experience Positive Experience with President Nielsen Quality Lab Experiences
n
Post-Professional Themes (N = 69)
36 23 18 17 11 10 7
Specific Faculty Commendation Lifelong Relationships Built Within Cohort/Program On-Campus Residency Weeks Quality Faculty Culture of Student Centeredness Quality Academic Experience Overall Positive Experience
Table 19. Additional Entry-Level Comment Themes for Feedback to Share with Programs & University Leaders n
Entry-Level Themes (N = 45)
10 7 6 4 4 4
Tuition and Fees Concerns Specific Faculty Complaint Overall Positive Experience Outdated Equipment or Technology Disconnect Between Entry-Level Programs Inexperienced Faculty Lack of Study Space
n
Post-Professional Theme (N = 48)
7 6 5 5 4 4
Specific Faculty Complaint Challenges to Terminal Project Processes Program More Rigorous Than Expected Additional Faculty Requested Overall Positive Experience Curriculum Suggestions
10
