Predictors of Success On The National Physical Therapy Licensure Examination

PREDICTORS OF SUCCESS ON THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL THERAPY
LICENSURE EXAMINATION
Kristie E. Vinson
A Dissertation presented to the faculty of Arkansas State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY

December 2018
Approved by
Dr. Joseph Nichols, Dissertation Advisor

Dr. Roy Lee Aldridge, Jr., Committee Member
Dr. Rick Hux, Committee Member
Dr. Annette Hux, Committee Member
Dr. Joan Henley, Committee Member

ProQuest Number: 10975513

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 10975513

Published by ProQuest LLC (2018 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© 2018
Kristie E. Vinson
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
ABSTRACT
Kristie E. Vinson
PREDICTORS OF SUCCESS ON THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL THERAPY
LICENSURE EXAMINATION
This study examined the relationship of the scores on the Practice Exam &
Assessment Tool (PEAT) to the scaled scores on the National Physical Therapy
Examination (NPTE). A correlation analysis examined the relationship of the exam
scores from three cohorts of Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students on the PEAT
and NPTE. This study sought to determine if the performance on the PEAT was a
predictor of first-time pass rate on the NPTE. It was expected that PEAT scores would
have a positive correlation to the NPTE scores. The results indicated a moderate to strong
correlation between overall PEAT scores as well as subtest scores with the NPTE. In
addition, students that passed the PEAT were highly likely to pass the NPTE on the first
attempt. Not only did students that passed the PEAT go on to pass the NPTE, but a
significantly high number of those students who failed the PEAT (60.7%) were found to
have gone on to pass the NPTE on the first attempt as well. The multiple regression
formula was found to be highly significant with the overall PEAT score and the four
subtest scores in predicting performance on the NPTE. In the equation, Evaluation and
Examination carried the most weight with respect to the prediction of the NPTE scaled
score. This formula can be used to predict overall NPTE scores based on PEAT scores as
well as to demonstrate the areas of needed remediation. The results obtained from this
iii
study will be useful in better preparing future graduates for successful performance on
the NPTE. Students, who do not pass the PEAT, will be remediated, particularly in the
areas of Evaluation and Examination, in order to be adequately prepared for the NPTE.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The successful completion of the study would not have been possible without the
support of many people. I would like to thank my dissertation committee members, Dr.
Joseph Nichols, Dr. Roy Lee Aldridge, Jr., Dr. Rick Hux, Dr. Annette Hux, and Dr. Joan
Henley for their guidance and support throughout this journey.
I extend a special thank you to the students and faculty in the Department of
Physical Therapy for the encouragement you have given me over the past several years.
Student success is of utmost importance, and the reason I chose this topic for my
dissertation. It is my hope that this project will benefit students in future cohorts.
Many thanks to my family for the endless love and support in all facets of my life;
you have encouraged and motivated me when I needed it most, and for that I am eternally
grateful. To my sweet boy, Noah, I thank you for your unconditional love. You have
given me the strength and desire to overcome adversity and focus on achieving this goal.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................x
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1
Background for the Study ........................................................................................1
The Problem .............................................................................................................3
The Purpose of the Study .........................................................................................3
Research Questions ..................................................................................................4
Research Design.......................................................................................................4
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations..........................................................5
Definition of Terms..................................................................................................5
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction ..............................................................................................................7
NPTE Process ..........................................................................................................7
Academic and Non-Academic Variables Impacting NPTE Success .......................8
PT Prediction Studies...................................................................................8
PTA Prediction Studies ..............................................................................14
Summary ................................................................................................................16
III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
Introduction ............................................................................................................18
The Problem ...........................................................................................................18
The Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................18
Research Design.....................................................................................................19
vi
Setting, Population and Sample .............................................................................20
Variables ................................................................................................................20
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................20
Data ........................................................................................................................21
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................21
Summary ................................................................................................................24
IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Presentation of the Data .........................................................................................25
Purpose of the Analysis .........................................................................................25
Treatment of the Data ............................................................................................26
Definition of Terms Pertinent to this Chapter........................................................29
Analysis of the Data ...............................................................................................30
Determination of Research Question and Hypothesis 1 ............................30
Summary of Major Findings ..................................................................................52
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Introduction ............................................................................................................54
The Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................54
Summary of Findings .............................................................................................55
Discussion ..............................................................................................................57
Limitations .............................................................................................................58
Conclusions ............................................................................................................58
Recommendations for Future Research and Practice ............................................59
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................60
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................66
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Data Contingency Table Indicating Pass Fail Association for PEAT and NPTE........28
2. Descriptive Statistics for the Sample; NPTE and PEAT Scaled Scores ......................28
3. Model Summary: Simple Linear Regression Statistics NPTE vs. PEAT Total Scaled
Scores ...........................................................................................................................31
4. ANOVA: NPTE vs. PEAT Total Scaled Scores ..........................................................31
5. Coefficients of the Simple Linear Regression Equation: NPTE vs. PEAT Total Scaled
Scores ...........................................................................................................................31
6. Model Summary: Simple Linear Regression Statistics NPTE vs. Examination Scaled
Scores ...........................................................................................................................35
7. ANOVA: NPTE vs. Examination Scaled Scores .........................................................35
8. Coefficients of the Simple Linear Regression Equation: NPTE vs. Examination

Scores ...........................................................................................................................35
9. Model Summary: Simple Linear Regression Statistics NPTE vs. Evaluation Scaled
Scores ...........................................................................................................................37
10. ANOVA: NPTE vs. Evaluation Scaled Scores ............................................................37
11. Coefficients of the Simple Linear Regression Equation: NPTE vs. Evaluation Scores37
12. Model Summary: Simple Linear Regression Statistics NPTE vs. Interventions Scaled
Scores ...........................................................................................................................39
13. ANOVA: NPTE vs. Interventions Scaled Scores ........................................................39
14. Coefficients of the Simple Linear Regression Equation: NPTE vs. Interventions
Scores ...........................................................................................................................40
15. Model Summary: Simple Linear Regression Statistics NPTE vs. Non-Systems Scaled
Scores ...........................................................................................................................41
16. ANOVA: NPTE vs. Non-Systems Scaled Scores........................................................42
viii
17. Coefficients of the Simple Linear Regression Equation: NPTE vs. Non-Systems
Scores ...........................................................................................................................42
18. Rank Order Listing of Beta Coefficients from each “Content” Area for Regression
Equations......................................................................................................................44
19. Determination of Collinearity for Independent Variable of the Study ........................46
20. Model Summary: MLR Regression Statistics NPTE vs. Categorical Scaled Scores ..47
21. ANOVA: MLR NPTE vs. Categorical Scaled Scores .................................................47
22. MLR Coefficients of the Regression Equations with t-Score Significance: NPTE vs.
Categorical Scaled Scores ............................................................................................47
23. Rank Order Listing of Beta Coefficients from each “Content” Area for Regression
Equations......................................................................................................................49
24. Contingency Table for the Pearson Chi-Square Test of Independence .......................50
25. Results Table for the Pearson Chi-Square Test of Independence ................................51
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Regression Line Plot for NPTE vs. PEAT Total Scaled Scores ..................................32
2. Regression Line Plot for NPTE vs. PEAT Examination Scaled Scores ......................36
3. Regression Line Plot for NPTE vs. PEAT Evaluation Scaled Scores .........................38
4. Regression Line Plot for NPTE vs. PEAT Interventions Scaled Scores .....................40
5. Regression Line Plot for NPTE vs. PEAT Non-Systems Scaled Scores .....................42
6. Graph and Data Output for Calculation of Sample Size and Resulting Alpha Level ..48
x
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background for the Study
Physical Therapist education programs convey an entry-level doctoral degree and
require accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education
(CAPTE). Consistent with other healthcare occupations, physical therapy students are
required to graduate from an accredited program and pass a national licensure exam in
order to receive a license to practice as a physical therapist. Physical therapy graduates
unable to pass the National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE) are denied licensure
and are unable to practice as a physical therapist.
The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (FSBPT) develops,
maintains, and administers the National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE) for
physical therapists (PT) and physical therapist assistants (PTA). The PT and PTA exams
are designed to assess basic entry-level competence after graduation from an accredited
program or from an equivalent non-accredited program. The FSBPT cites two reasons for
the NPTE: “1. To help ensure that only those individuals who have the requisite
knowledge of physical therapy are licensed in the physical therapy field; 2. To help
regulatory authorities evaluate candidates and provide standards that are comparable from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction” (FSBPT, 2018).
The NPTE passing score is a reflection of the level of performance necessary to
provide minimally safe and competent physical therapy. The current score required to
1
pass the exam is a scaled score of 600. The NPTE consists of 250 objective, multiple-
choice questions covering the major areas of physical therapy. The questions for the
NPTE are written by physical therapists representing a variety of practice settings
throughout the United States. All item writers are trained by the FSBPT to produce test
questions that cover the major areas of PT practice and are reflective of test content
outlines. Prior to questions appearing on the exam, the items are reviewed by an
independent panel of experts to determine their suitability for inclusion in the exam test
bank. In addition, new items are pretested as unscored items on the exam to gather
statistical information. Only those questions with appropriate statistical characteristics are
eligible to appear on the scored portion of future versions of the NPTE.
The NPTE – PT Test content outline, effective January 2013, was the content
outline that applied to this study. The outline of the exam included the following content
categories: 1. Physical Therapy Examination (26.5%); 2. Foundations for Evaluation,
Differential Diagnosis, and Prognosis (32.5%); 3. Interventions (28.5%); and 4. Non-
System Domains (12.5%). The “Non-System Domains” includes questions related to
equipment and devices, therapeutic modalities, safety and protection, professional
responsibilities, research and evidence-based practice. Within the first three categories
(Examination, Evaluation, and Interventions), the questions were divided according to
body systems: 1. Cardiovascular/Pulmonary & Lymphatic Systems (16.5%),
Musculoskeletal System (30.5%), Neuromuscular & Nervous Systems (25.0%), and
Other Systems (15.5%). The “Other Systems” section includes integumentary (5.0%),
metabolic and endocrine (3.5%), gastrointestinal (1.5%), genitourinary (2.0%), and
system interactions (3.5%) (FSBPT, 2012).
2
The Practice Exam & Assessment Tool (PEAT) is a computer based exam
developed by the FSBPT for candidates preparing for the NPTE. The PEAT was
designed to assist candidates in recognizing their strengths and weaknesses before they
take the national exam. The PEAT consists of two separate exams. One is a retired exam
and the other is a practice form. Both versions consist of 250 multiple choice questions
presented in a format similar to the NPTE (FSBPT, 2018).
The PEAT is presented with the same format and questions as the actual NPTE.
The exam provides immediate results to candidates, including a detailed breakdown by
content area and system. In addition to the automated scoring and detailed results,
candidates are provided with explanations, rationales, and references for each question to
develop a better understanding of what is expected from them on the NPTE (FSBPT,
2018).
The Problem
Physical therapy program graduates must successfully complete the NPTE in
order to obtain a license to practice. Although a literature review revealed studies that
investigated various cognitive and non-cognitive variables regarding their ability to
predict success on the NPTE, no known studies to date investigated the relationship of
the PEAT and the NPTE.
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of the scaled scores
on the PEAT to the scaled scores on the NPTE. A greater understanding of the factors
that impact the NPTE outcomes will assist faculty and students in developing effective
plans to improve first time pass rates on the NPTE.
3
Research Questions
The following research questions were addressed in this investigation:
1. How did total scaled scores on the PEAT correlate to scaled scores on the
NPTE and could they be predicted by a valid regression equation?
2. How did each subtest of the PEAT correlate to the total scaled score on the
NPTE and were valid regression equations determinable for each predictor that could
provide information as to the relative “importance” of each?
3. What was the rank order and relative “weight” of the multiple linear regression
outcomes for the Beta (partial coefficients) of the regression equation, thus defining their
relative importance to the prediction of the NPTE scores for students based on the PEAT?
4. For candidates included in the sample that passed or failed the PEAT, what
percentage of those candidates went on to pass or fail the NPTE?
Research Design
This study was a retrospective correlation research design. Simple and multiple
linear regression analyses were used to explore relationships between independent and
dependent variables. The independent and dependent variables were comprised of DPT
students’ data. The decision to use a correlational design was supported by the need for
this research to determine the quantitative relationship of several components within the
content and systems professional practice areas assessed by both the NPTE and PEAT.
Correlation and regression analysis allows one to formulate a mathematical relationship
between two or more variables and quantify the strength of the relationship and make
predictions as to outcomes based on input data, the predictors. Cohen and Cohen (1983)
in their text on regression analyses, suggest statistical regression and correlation
4
techniques “have the capacity to mirror, with a high degree of fidelity, the complexity of
the relationships that often characterize the situations that arise in the behavioral
sciences” (p. 7).
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations
The primary limitation of this study was related to the proposed sample. The
proposed sample was one of convenience and included a population of students/graduates
of one public university in the southeastern United States. The results may be limited to
this population and not generalizable to other programs.
The following were limits to the scope of this study:
1. Only scaled scores on the PEAT and NPTE compiled by the program faculty in
one institution were considered in this investigation.
Delimitations of this study included limiting the scope of this study to three
cohorts of students/graduates from the DPT program from 2015 – 2017. These years were
chosen due to the consistency of the exam reports of the PEAT and the NPTE for that
time period compared with previous years.
Definition of Terms
National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE) – An examination created and
administered by the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy to assess entry-level
competence for physical therapists.
Practice Examination & Assessment Tool (PEAT) – Developed by the Federation
of State Boards of Physical Therapy, the PEAT consists of two separate exams, one
retired exam and one practice form. The PEAT is offered as a practice tool for the NPTE.
Summary
5
As the PEAT and the NPTE were developed and are administered by the same
organization, it was anticipated there would be a strong correlation between the results on
the two exams. The physical therapy program from which the data for this study was
collected uses a passing score on the PEAT as a requirement for successful completion of
the DPT program. It was important to determine if the PEAT played a role in predicting
the NPTE in order to best prepare graduates for passing the NPTE on their first attempt.
In addition, understanding the relationship of the PEAT and the NPTE can help faculty to
make adjustments to curriculum as needed and assist students with preparation for the
NPTE.
6
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (FSBPT) reported pass rates
on the National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE) for first-time candidates of
accredited programs in the United States of 91%, 91%, and 93% for the years of 2015-17
respectively (FSBPT, 2018). For the same time period, the university included in this
study had a 77.8%, 83.3%, and 100% first time pass rate. The review of literature
revealed a plethora of studies of various factors that influenced or predicted success on
the NPTE; however, no studies provided information on the relationship of the Practice
Examination and Assessment Tool (PEAT) and the NPTE. This chapter provided a
relevant review of the literature including the NPTE process, academic and non-academic
variables that contribute to student success on the NPTE, as well as predictive studies in
physical therapy education.
NPTE Process
The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (FSBPT) develops,
maintains, and administers the National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE) for
physical therapists (PT) and physical therapist assistants (PTA). The PT and PTA exams
are designed to assess basic entry-level competence after graduation from an accredited
program or from an equivalent non-accredited program. The FSBPT cites two reasons for
the NPTE: “1. To help ensure that only those individuals who have the requisite
7
knowledge of physical therapy are licensed in the physical therapy field; 2. To help
regulatory authorities evaluate candidates and provide standards that are comparable from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction” (FSBPT, 2018).
The NPTE passing score is a reflection of the level of performance necessary to
provide minimally safe and competent physical therapy. The current score required to
pass the exam is a scaled score of 600. The NPTE consists of 250 objective, multiple-
choice questions covering the major areas of physical therapy. The questions for the
NPTE are written by physical therapists representing a variety of practice settings
throughout the United States. All item writers are trained by the FSBPT to produce test
questions that cover the major areas of PT practice and are reflective of test content
outlines. Prior to questions making it on the exam, the items are reviewed by an
independent panel of experts to determine suitability of the questions for inclusion in the
exam test bank. In addition, new items are pretested as unscored items on the exam to
gather statistical information. Only those questions with appropriate statistical
characteristics are eligible to appear on the scored portion of future versions of the NPTE
(FSBPT, 2018).
Academic and Nonacademic Variables Impacting NPTE Success
PT Prediction Studies
Aldridge, Keith, Sloas, and Mott-Murphree (2010) examined the relationship
between reading comprehension and scaled scores on the NPTE. Reading comprehension
was measured by Nelson Denny Reading Test (NDRT). The study included 67 graduates
from a physical therapist program over a period of five years. The data sources included
scaled scores on the NDRT and the scaled scores on the NPTE. The results indicated a
8
moderate correlation between the composite scaled score on the NDRT and the scaled
score on the NPTE indicating a relationship between the ability to read and comprehend
and the ability to achieve a passing score on the NPTE (Aldridge et al., 2010)
Cook, Engelhard, Landry and McCallum (2015) examined modifiable program
characteristics reflected in the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy
Education (CAPTE) Annual Accreditation Report (AAR) for all accredited programs that
reported pass rates on the NPTE. In addition, they aimed to build a predictive model for
first-time and three-year ultimate pass rates. Cook et al. (2015) conducted an
observational study using programmatic information from all CAPTE-accredited physical
therapist education programs in the United States that graduated students in 2011.
Information gathered from the CAPTE AAR included general information about
curriculum, program finance, admissions and enrollment data, graduation rates, faculty
information. In addition the researchers requested specific information regarding clinical
education experiences. The researchers utilized 14 predictive variables and analyzed
them against first time and ultimate pass rates on the NPTE using univariate and
multivariate multinomial regression analysis. They found that the mean undergraduate
grade point average (GPA) and average age of the cohort were associated with first-time
pass rate and mean undergraduate GPA was associated with three-year ultimate pass rate.
Of all the predictive factors included in the study, only mean undergraduate GPA
demonstrated a statistically significant association with both first-time and three-year
ultimate pass rate on the NPTE, thus emphasizing the importance of GPA (Cook et al.,
2015).
9
Fell, Mabey, Mohr, and Ingram (2015), conducted an observational cohort
research study on the records of 290 graduates from two doctor of physical therapy
programs to determine if the pre-professional baccalaureate degree was a predictor of
success in the professional program or on the NPTE. The researchers included the
following variables: admission undergraduate degree status, admission science GPA
(SGPA) and cumulative GPA (CGPA), professional program GPA (PGPA), and scaled
scores for the first attempt on the NPTE, as well as number of attempts to pass the NPTE.
The results indicated admission SGPA and PGPA were predictors of passing the NPTE
on the first attempt; however, degree status was not a significant predictor.
Hollman et al. (2008) conducted a retrospective study to determine the ability of
preadmissions criteria, including performance on a behavioral interview, to predict first-
time performance on the NPTE. The study included data from 141 program graduates
from one institution. Predictor variables included students’ cumulative undergraduate
GPA, performance on the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), and performance on the
behavioral interview. The outcome variable was first-time performance (pass or fail) on
the NPTE. Results of the study indicated the performance on the behavioral interview
was a statistically significant predictor of performance on the NPTE (Hollman et al.,
2008).
Riddle, Utzman, Jewell, Pearson, and Kong (2009) conducted a retrospective
population-based cohort study to “quantify the odds of failure on the NPTE for students
experiencing academic difficulty and for institutional status and Carnegie Classification”
(p. 1182). The researchers recruited 20 programs using quota sampling. The total sample
size for the study was 3,585 students. After adjusting for students who withdrew or were
10
dismissed from their program and other factors, the final analysis was conducted on data
from 3,066 students. The programs provided the following data: demographic
characteristics including age at admission, sex, and racial or ethnic category;
undergraduate GPA; scores on the verbal and quantitative GRE; and categorical data
regarding academic difficulty. For purposes of this study, “Academic difficulty was
defined as failing a course or unit or being placed on academic suspension or probation”
(Riddle et al., p. 1184). The researchers also collected categorical information (pass or
fail) for the students’ performance on the NPTE. Riddle et al. (2009) listed the following
as key predictors of interest: “academic difficulty, institutional status (public or private),
and Carnegie Classification” (p. 1186). Results of the study indicated academic difficulty
was a significant predictor of failing the NPTE (Riddle et al., 2009).
Mohr, Ingram, Hayes, and Du (2005) conducted a study to determine the effect of
educational program characteristics on pass rates on the NPTE. The researchers collected
data through surveys and performed a regression analysis using 21 independent variables
and their role in predicting the pass rate of the program. The independent variables
included items such as funding (public or private), total number of faculty, number of
PhD and EdD faculty, accreditation status, class size, number of weeks of clinical
experience, GRE, years of pre-professional and professional coursework, and others. The
results of the study indicated that accreditation status, number of PhD and EdD faculty
members and the total length of the pre-professional and professional program combined
had a significant relationship to the program pass rates on the NPTE; however, all three
variables together only accounted for 30.2% of the variance in pass rate (Mohr et al.,
2005).
11
Vendrely (2007) examined relationships among academic performance, clinical
performance, critical thinking (CT) skills, and NPTE success. The study included 42
graduates of one PT program. The study utilized scores from the California Critical
Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) to represent CT skills, as well as ratings on the CPI and
program GPA. Results of the study indicated significant relationships between CCTST
and NPTE scores (r=0.307; p=.048) and between program GPA and NPTE scores
(r=0.338; p=.032). The study found no correlation between the CPI and other variables.
The logistic regression analysis utilizing the variables to predict success on the NPTE
was not statistically significant (Vendrely, 2007).
Luedtke-Hoffmann, Dillon, Utsey, and Tomaka (2012) performed a retrospective
study to determine if clinical education performance had a relationship with first time
pass rate on the NPTE. The researchers utilized the clinical grading tool, Physical
Therapist Manual for the Assessment of Clinical Skills (PT MACS). The researchers
examined the relationships between PT MACS section scores with section scores on the
NPTE, PT MACS aggregate scores with the overall score on the NPTE, and program
GPA with NPTE scores. Although a few significant relationships were found among the
PT MACS sections and NPTE sections, the study suggested that a clinical assessment
tool could not predict performance on a cognitive exam such as the NPTE (Leudtke-
Hoffman et al., 2012).
Kosmahl (2005) conducted a study of a physical therapist education program in
one university to determine the relationship between demographic and academic
performance factors and scores on the NPTE. The performance factors included in this
study were age at graduation, program GPA, score on a comprehensive exam (CE), and
12
ratings on the Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI). Kosmahl (2005) examined the
records of 92 alumni from two cohorts at one PT program. The comprehensive exam
administered by the program was a 100 question cased-based multiple-choice exam
developed by program faculty to assess course objectives within the PT curriculum.
Results of the study indicated that CE score and program GPA had significant positive
correlations with score on the NPTE. In addition, “A regression equation developed from
CE score and PGPA was a moderate predictor of NPTE score” (Kosmahl, 2005).
Crawley, Greene, Brown-White, Simpson, and Karavatas (2015) examined the
relationship between post graduate study preparation and first time pass rate on the
NPTE. The study focused on physical therapy graduates from one university in the
northeast United States. For this study, the authors developed an eight question survey
seeking information related to study time, number of practice exams, and types of
examination preparation tools. The survey was emailed to 92 graduates of the program
who met the inclusion criteria and had a response rate of 47%. Crawley et al. (2015)
proposed four hypotheses that would make a student more likely to pass the NPTE on the
first attempt including students who study for the NPTE a minimum of five days per
week, students who study for the NPTE a minimum of four hours a day, students who
take the PEAT, and students who take three or more practice NPTE examinations.
“Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data, and a bivariate analysis was
performed to determine the correlation between study preparation and first attempt pass
rate of the NPTE” (Crawley et al., 2015, p. 48). Results of the study indicated none of the
four hypotheses were supported. Little to no correlation was found between study time,
13
taking the PEAT and number of practice exams and passing the NPTE on the first
attempt.
PTA Prediction Studies
The Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education accredits two
types of physical therapy education programs including physical therapy (PT) programs
and physical therapist assistant (PTA) programs. While the degree requirements are
different for the programs, graduates of both PT and PTA programs are required to pass a
national licensure examination before they are eligible to become licensed therapists. The
Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy is responsible for developing and
administering the National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE). The PT exam consists
of 200 questions and the PTA exam consists of 150 questions. Despite the difference in
the number of questions, a minimum scaled score of 600 is required to pass both the
NPTE PT and PTA exams. Due to the similarity in format of the exams, review of PTA
NPTE prediction studies were deemed relevant to this literature review.
Desmarais, Woble-Valenski, and Oestmann (2011) examined the relationship
between anatomy and physiology grades, PTA program GPA, and scores on the PTA
Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI) with NPTE scores. Data analysis included
correlations and linear regression. Results of the study indicated a stronger relationship
between GPA and NPTE scores than with anatomy grades and NPTE and no relationship
between CPI scores and NPTE. Desmarais et al. (2011) concluded maintaining a high
PTA GPA was important to ensuring success on the NPTE.
Maring and Costello (2009) examined the relationship between PTA program
graduation rates and aimed to develop a model to predict NPTE success. PTA program
14
directors were surveyed to gather information about their programs. Survey responses
were matched with first time and ultimate NPTE pass rates. The surveys included
questions regarding type of institution (public or private), year of program inception,
cohort size, graduation rates, type of curriculum, number of faculty and number of
clinical weeks. Results indicated a significant correlation between first time pass rate and
type of institution, time since program inception, number of clinical education credits as a
percentage of total credits and general education credits as a percentage of total credits.
Based on multiple linear regression analysis, the final model predicting first-time NPTE
pass rate included the year of program inception and the number of clinical credits
expressed as a percent of the total technical credits required by the program. Maring and
Costello (2009) noted that newer programs had higher NPTE success rates than more
established programs.
Maring, Costello, Ulfers, and Zuber (2013) determined graduates from PTA
programs with more laboratory contact hours and less clinical education hours had
increased chance of passing the NPTE on the first attempt. In addition, programs with a
history of CAPTE probation had decreased odds of passing the NPTE. The clinical hours
findings was contradictory to earlier work done by Maring which found that programs
with increased number of clinical education credits had higher first time NPTE success
(Maring & Costello, 2009). Maring et al. (2013) accounted for the variability in results
due to the fact that clinical education credits was used in the 2009 study and clinical
education contact hours was used for the 2013 study.
Sloas, Keith, and Whitehead (2013) investigated relationships between variables
related to programmatic assessment and NPTE scores aiming to predict NPTE scores.
15
Programmatic assessment data included individual course grades in numeric values,
scores on the Nelson Denny Reading Test, admissions GPA, and scores on three mock
exams. Results indicated students scoring below a predicted scaled score of 620 were
identified as at risk of failing the NPTE on the first attempt.
Summary
A review of literature revealed multiple attempts to identify predictors of success
regarding the NPTE. Yet, no study had been conducted to determine whether the PEAT
is a predictor of success in passing the NPTE on the initial attempt. This appeared
unusual since the PEAT is the assessment designed to prepare PT and PTA program
completers for the NPTE. Predictor assessments previously conducted included the
following:
1. Grades in specific courses;
2. GRE scores;
3. Scores on reading assessments;
4. Degree granting institutional characteristics and organization;
5. Demographic factors;
6. Clinical education performance;
7. Pre-professional baccalaureate degrees;
8. Faculty’s doctoral credentials;
9. Clinical assessment tools;
10. Carnegie classification;
11. Behavioral interviews
16
As the PEAT and the NPTE are developed and administered by the same
organization, it was anticipated there would be a strong correlation between the results on
the two exams. The university involved in this study uses a passing score on the PEAT as
a requirement for successful completion of the DPT program. It was important to
determine if the PEAT played a role in predicting the NPTE in order to best prepare
graduates for passing the NPTE on their first attempt. In addition, understanding the
relationship of the PEAT and the NPTE can help faculty to make adjustments to
curriculum as needed and assist students with preparation for the NPTE.
17
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
Introduction
Examination (NPTE). The literature review indicated minimal research existed on
comparing the PEAT with the NPTE.
The Problem
Graduates of physical therapy programs must successfully complete the NPTE in
order to obtain a license to practice. Although a literature review revealed studies that
investigated various cognitive and non-cognitive variables regarding their ability to
predict success on the NPTE, no known studies investigated the relationship of the PEAT
and the NPTE.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of the scores on the
PEAT to the scaled scores on the NPTE. A greater understanding of the factors that
impact the NPTE outcomes will assist faculty and students in developing effective plans
to improve first time pass rates on the NPTE. The following research questions were
addressed in this investigation:
18
outcomes for the Beta (partial coefficients) of the regression equation thus defining their
Research Design
This study was a retrospective correlation research design. Simple and multiple
linear regression analyses were used to explore relationships between independent and
dependent variables. The independent and dependent variables were comprised of data
from students who were enrolled in an accredited DPT program in the Southeastern
region of the United States. The decision to use a correlational design was supported by
the need for this research to determine the quantitative relationship of several components
within the content and systems professional practice areas assessed by both the NPTE
and PEAT. Correlation and regression analysis allows one to formulate a mathematical
relationship between two or more variables and quantify the strength of the relationship
and make predictions as to outcomes based on input data, the predictors. Cohen and
Cohen (1983) in their text on regression analyses suggest statistical regression and
correlation techniques “have the capacity to mirror, with a high degree of fidelity, the
complexity of the relationships that often characterize the situations that arise in the
behavioral sciences” (p. 7).
19
Setting, Population and Sample
Setting
The study was conducted at a public institution of higher education located in the
Southeastern region of the United States. The university is accredited by the regional
institutional accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission, Chicago, Illinois. Individual
programs are accredited by specialized accrediting agencies for the respective programs.
The Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) program is accredited by the Commission on
Education in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE).
Population and Sample
The population for this study was the graduates of the DPT program from the
years 2015-2017. The DPT program admitted 30 students per cohort. It was anticipated
approximately 90 graduates would be included in this study.
Variables
The dependent variable in this study was the scaled score on the NPTE. A score
of ≥ 600 is required to pass the exam. The scores on the PEAT exams were the
independent variables. The PEAT reports students’ total raw score, total scaled score, and
raw and scaled sub-test scores on each of two exams, Form A – Retired Exam and Form
B – Practice Form. The following sub-test categories were included: Examination,
Evaluation, Interventions, Non-Systems, Cardiopulmonary, Musculoskeletal,
Neuromuscular, and Other Systems.
Instrumentation
The National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE) and the Practice Exam &
Assessment Tool (PEAT) are administered by the Federation of State Boards of Physical
20
Therapy (FSBPT). The physical therapist examination is designed to assess basic entry-
level competence after graduation from an accredited program or from an equivalent non-
accredited program. The exam consists of objective, multiple-choice questions covering
the major areas of physical therapy (Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy,
2018).
The PEAT consists of two exams including the NPTE form and a practice form.
The PEAT includes the same format and type of questions as the actual NPTE
(Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy, 2018).
Data
This study utilized DPT program graduates’ data from 2015-2017. The NPTE
data was obtained from FSBPT Graduate Performance Report. This report included the
NPTE scaled score for all graduates from 2015-2017 who chose to report their scores to
the program. The PEAT data was obtained from individual students’ score reports. The
individual student reports included a total raw score, total scaled score, and raw and
scaled subtest scores for both PEAT Form A – Retired Exam and PEAT Form B –
Practice Form. The following sub-test categories were included: Examination,
Evaluation, Interventions, Non-Systems, Cardiopulmonary, Musculoskeletal,
Neuromuscular, and Other Systems.
Data Analysis
The primary purpose of the data analysis was to investigate the degree to which
PEAT scores could predict NPTE scores. Additionally, it was the purpose of the analysis
to determine the relative strength of the relationships among the independent variables for
predicting the dependent variable, success on the NPTE. The analysis included a period
21
of three years of test administration between 2015 and 2017. The sample included 84
DPT students/graduates who completed both exams.
To determine the specifics of the relationships desribed for both the correlation
and the ”importance” each subtest of the PEAT indicated relative to the NPTE, two forms
of linear regression were applied, both a simple and a multiple linear regression for
paired samples. The Simple Linear Regression (SLR) was calculated for the full-scale
scores between the PEAT and the NPTE, and then the Multiple Linear Regression (MLR)
was applied to four subtest scores on the PEAT and compared with the full-scale score of
the NPTE. A comparison was made via the MLR of scores on the four subsections of the
PEAT to the NPTE scores and the resulting standardized Beta scores were used for
ranking the sub-test content areas regarding relative “importance.” The result of this
analysis will better inform students and faculty on required remediation processes.
Determination of Hypothesis 1 via Simple Linear Regression.
Null Hypothesis 1: There will be no statistically significant (p < .05) correlation
between PEAT and NPTE full-scale scores (via SLR).
The SLR is a single-factor regression analysis and will be used to establish any
correlation between the PEAT and NPTE full-scale scores; its linearity, strength, and
statistical significance. The regression equation Y’ = B0 + B1X is to be determined,
where B0 is the y-intercept (constant), and B1 is the slope or rate of change for
(ΔNPTE/ΔPEAT).
Determination of Hypothesis 2 via Simple Linear Regression.
Null Hypothesis 2: There will be no statistically significant (p < .05) correlation
between PEAT Subtest Scores and NPTE full-scale score (via SLR).
22
The SLR will again be used for the determination of Hypothesis 2. It will be
applied four times for each of the Content categories (Knowledge skills for Examination,
Evaluation, Interventions, and Non-systems) to determine their correlation to the NTPE.
Again, the scaled scores of the PEAT subtests will be used for this analysis and
subsequent comparison made among them for “importance” and “strength.” via the
“effect size” of the coefficients relative to one another. Since the units for the scaled
scores are scaled and standardized the same for both assessments (NPTE and PEAT) and
the subtests as well, there is no need to convert the scaled scores to standardized scores
(Johnson, 2000; Disabato, 2016).
Determination of Hypothesis 3 via Multiple Linear Regression.
Null Hypothesis 3: The coefficient scores, Standardized Betas, (β) would not be
statistically significant (p < .05) for t-tests as predictors of rank and “importance,”
(Via MLR).
Assuming that Hypothesis 2 determines the four independent variables
(Examination, Evaluation, Interventions, and Non-systems) to each be significantly
linearly related and via a set of comparisons of the independent variable to one another
determine non-collinearity, Hypothesis 3 will be determined by a test of Multiple Linear
Regression. A test of MLR will result in an equation Y = βo + β1X1 + β2 X2+ β3X3 + β4X4
+ . . . + βnXn; where βi are scaled score values.
Determination of Hypothesis 4 via Chi-Square Test of proportions.
Null Hypothesis 4: There was no significant difference between the proportions of
candidates of the study that passed or failed the PEAT, and went on to pass or fail
the NPTE (via Chi-Square Test of proportions).
23
Summary
It was the purpose of this analysis to determine the degree to which the National
Physical Therapy Exam (NPTE) scores of students could be predicted based upon their
Practice Exam and Assessment Tool (PEAT) scores. The NPTE was developed to
measure the knowledge and abilities required of entry-level physical therapists (PTs) and
physical therapist assistants (PTAs). The PEAT exam consists of questions covering the
major areas of physical therapy and is designed as a readiness test to help students
identify their strengths and weaknesses before taking the NPTE exam.
This study sought to determine how well the PEAT correlates with the NPTE and
did it accurately identify areas where students might need remediation before taking the
licensure exam, the NPTE for DPT students. To address this concern for remediation
purposes, the PEAT results and corresponding test results from the NPTE were examined
statistically by linear regression models of paired samples of students’ responses to both
tests. Both a simple and multilevel linear regression models were used.
The statistical analysis of this study was designed to determine the linearity of the
data, strength of any correlations, and statistically their significance, the regression
equations, the relative strength of the Beta values (the partial coefficients of the
independent variables), and provide a summarized relative scale of the “weight” for the
Beta values as an indication of their “importance” in scoring well on the NPTE licensure
exam. Data was analyzed via SPSS and Excel software and reported in APA format.
24
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Presentation of the Data
This chapter provides for the presentation and analysis of the data necessary to
accomplish the purpose of this study, to investigate the relationship of the scaled scores
on the Practice Exam & Assessment Tool (PEAT), a prescriptive pretest, to the scaled
scores on the National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE).
Purpose of the Analysis
The purpose of this analysis was to determine the degree to which the National
Physical Therapy Exam (NPTE) scores of students can be predicted based upon their
Practice Exam and Assessment Tool (PEAT) scores. The analysis included the period,
three years, of the test administration between 2015 and 2017. Approximately 85
Physical Therapy (PT) candidates that had taken both tests were included in the sample.
The NPTE was developed to measure the knowledge and abilities required of
entry-level physical therapists (PTs) and physical therapist assistants (PTAs). The exam
consists of objective, multiple-choice questions that cover the major areas of physical
therapy. The PT exam includes 250 items, and the PTA exam includes 200 items. The
PEAT exam consists of objective, multiple-choice questions that cover the major areas of
physical therapy. The PEAT is designed to help students identify their strengths and
weaknesses prior to taking the NPTE (FSBPT, 2018). It was further the purpose of this
analysis to validate the claim made by The Federation of State Boards of Physical
25
Therapy that the PEAT design is functional in assisting students to “identify their
strengths and weaknesses” respective of their test readiness for the NPTE. Specifically,
for the testing results of approximately 85 candidates included in this study, this
researcher planned to identify sections of the NPTE that were most “important” to
scoring well on the NPTE. By identifying which categories were most “important”,
students and faculty will have an additional tool from which to identify the areas where,
in the future, more prescriptive remediation could be made on an individual or group
basis.
Treatment of the Data
To determine the specifics of the relationships above for both the regression
correlation and the “importance” each subtest of the PEAT indicated relative to the
NPTE, two formats of linear regression were applied: a Simple Linear Regression and a
Multiple Linear Regression for paired samples. The Simple Linear Regression (SLR)
was calculated for the full-scale scores between the PEAT and the NPTE, and then the
Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) was applied to the four subtest scores on the PEAT
and compared with the full-scale score of the NPTE. A comparison was made via the
MLR of scores on the four subsections of the PEAT to the NPTE scores , then the
resulting standardized predictor coefficients’ scores were used for ranking the sub-test
content areas regarding relative “importance”. The results of this analysis can better
inform students and faculty on required remediation processes.
Appendix B provides the 75 data points out of the 84 candidates tested on both
the PEAT and NPTE over a three-year period from 2015 - 2017. Nine scores were
eliminated from the analysis, because of incomplete data. Appendix B provides full-scale
26
and partial-scale scores for the dependent and independent variables of the study. The
dependent variables of the study were the scaled scores of the NPTE and ultimately the
“importance” of the sub-test scores of the PEAT for their influence on the NPTE scores.
An attempt was made to measure the magnitudes of the regression coefficients (B) as
reliable and valid indicators of the relative “importance” of each subtest score as
predictors of the NPTE score. The independent variables, the predictors, were the scaled
scores on the PEAT and the scaled scores for subtests of the PEAT. There were four
subtests, each addressing the particular content knowledge areas of Examination,
Evaluation, Interventions, and Non-Systems. The scaled scores had been “standardized”
based upon the procedures followed by the Federation of State Boards of Physical
Therapy (FBST). The result of the “standardization” process resulted in both the NPTE
and PEAT and the four subtests of the PEAT were each scaled to same values: 200 - 800
with 600 required for passage (FSBPT, 2018). A score of 601 on the PEAT or any of its
subtests was standardized to the same score of 601 on the NPTE. The fact these test
scores were standardized into scaled scores for both the NPTE and PEAT allowed
statistical procedures (especially linear regression models) to be performed without
further statistical standardization of the data for comparative purposes of the coefficients
or partial coefficients as would have been suggested by the literature for regression
calculations of independent variable coefficients measured in unlike units (Williams,
n.d.).
27
Table 1
Data Contingency Table Indicating Pass Fail Association for PEAT and NPTE
Passed NPTE Failed NPTE Total

Passed PEAT 45 0 45
Failed PEAT 39 11 39
Total 73 11 84
The descriptive statistics for the data are provided in Table 2. All scores are
provided per FSBPT’s “standardized scaled” format. Note that within the table, the
numbers of scored test items per subtest are provided. Also, it should be noted that the
scaled scores on the subtests have been scaled to the same 800-point scale. All scores on
the PEAT and NPTE are scaled from 200 - 800. A score of 600 is required for passage of
each exam.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for the Sample; NPTE and PEAT Scaled Scores
PEAT PEAT
Descriptive NPTE Form PEAT PEAT Interven- PEAT Non-
Statistics Scaled Scaled Examination Evaluation tions Systems
Values Score Score SS SS SS SS
N 75 75 75 75 75 75
Means 660.93 611.96 639.57 604.73 602.31 614.32
Medians 660 612 622 602 593 607
Mode 616 595 614 602 579 644
Standard
Deviations 56.5 63.2 83.8 71.4 72.7 77.8
Number of
Questions 200 200 53 65 57 25
28
Definition of Terms Pertinent to this Chapter
Importance - a term that reflects the degree to which the “size effect” and degree
of proportion a partial coefficient of the regression equation predicts the variable
respective to the remaining partial coefficients (Jacoby, n.d.).
Size Effect or Effect Size - reference to the magnitude of the standardized partial
coefficients. The larger the coefficient, the stronger the effect (Jacoby, n.d.).
Standardized Betas - the partial coefficients of the regression equation that have
been converted to standard values by division by the standard deviation of the set. The
number of standard deviations by which the value of an observation or data point is
above the mean value of what is being observed or measured.
Un-standardized Betas - the partial coefficients of the regression equation that are
derived based on the set of units from which they originated and have not been
standardized as a statistic.
Betas - the coefficients or partial coefficients of the independent variables of a
regression equation.
Weighted - term used in reference to the standardization of the coefficients or
partial coefficients of the repression equation when referencing their proportionality of
effect within the group.
National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE) – An examination created and
administered by the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy to assess entry-level
competence for physical therapists.
29
Practice Examination & Assessment Tool (PEAT) – Developed by the Federation
of State Boards of Physical Therapy, the PEAT consists of two separate exams, one
retired exam and one practice form. The PEAT is offered as a practice tool for the NPTE.
Strong, Moderate, and Weak Correlations - a correlation coefficient of .10 is
thought to represent a weak or small association; a correlation coefficient of .30 is
considered a moderate correlation; and a correlation coefficient of .70 or larger is
thought to represent a strong or large correlation (Cronk, 2014).
Multi-collinearity - In statistics, (also collinearity) is a phenomenon in which two
or more predictor variables in a multiple regression model are highly correlated, meaning
that one can be linearly predicted from the others with a substantial degree of accuracy. If
independent variables are collinear (VIF > 2.5) one cannot effectively use the collinear
predictors in the same regression analysis (Montgomery, Peck, & Vining, 2001).
Analysis of the Data
The four hypotheses of this study were determined via a combination of Simple
Linear Regressions (SLR), Multiple Linear Regressions (MLR), t-Test, and a Chi-Square
Test of Independence. All statistics were calculated in Excel. Each of the hypotheses
was determined at the .05 significance level. The presentation of the results provides the
research question and hypotheses, followed by the processed output tables and figures for
the calculations and graphs, followed by an interpretation of the statistical findings.
Determination of Research Question and Hypothesis 1
Research Question 1: How did the total scaled scores on the PEAT correlate to
scaled scores on the NPTE and could they be predicted by a valid regression equation?
30
Null Hypothesis 1: There was no statistically significant (p < .05) correlation or
regression prediction equation between PEAT and NPTE full-scale scores (via SLR).
Table 3
Model Summary: Simple Linear Regression Statistics NPTE vs. PEAT Total Scaled
Scores
Simple Linear Regression Statistics

R (Correlation Strength) 0.686
R Square 0.470
Adjusted R Square 0.463
Standard Error 41.379
Observations 75
a
Predictors (Constant), PEAT Score
Table 4
ANOVA: NPTE vs. PEAT Total Scaled Scores
Significance
df SS MS F F
Regression 1 110824.4287 110824.4 64.72652 p < .001
Residual 73 124990.238 1712.195
Total 74 235814.6667
a
Predictors (Constant), PEAT Score
b
Dependent Variable: NPTE Score
Table 5
Coefficients of the Simple Linear Regression Equation: NPTE vs. PEAT Total Scaled
Scores
Standard
Coefficients Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%
Intercept 286.1802 46.8249 6.1117 p < .001 192.85 379.50
PEAT Total
(200) 0.6123 0.07611 8.0452 p < .001 0.4606 0.7640
b
31
Figure 1
Regression Line Plot for NPTE vs. PEAT Total Scaled Scores
NPTE
Result: NPTE vs. PEAT
Hypothesis 1 was rejected. There was a statistically significant correlation
determined between PEAT and NPTE full-scale scores and a valid regression equation
predicting the results between the two variables. A simple linear regression was
calculated to predict candidates’ NPTE score based on their PEAT score. A significant
regression equation was determined (F(1, 73) = 64.73, p < .001). Physical therapy
candidates’ predicted (NPTE scores) = 286.16 + 0.612 (PEAT score) when both were
measured as scaled scores. Candidates’ average NPTE score increase for each unit of
increase in the PEAT was 0.612 units. The relationship was determined to have a
moderate to strong correlation at R = .686, with an R2 value of .470 explaining 47.0
percent of the variance in the dependent variable (NPTE score) was due to the
independent variable (PEAT score). The variable coefficient t-statistic of 8.04 had a
32
significance value of p < .0001, that indicated the significance of the (B) coefficient’s
magnitude of 0.612. The standard error of the estimate (SE) from table 3 was 41.379.
This result indicated that for a calculation result from the regression equation, the answer
had a 95 percent probability of falling between + or - 82.8 points from the predicted value
or an approximate +/- 12.5% average deviation.
Research Question 2: How did each subtest of the PEAT correlate to the total
scaled score on the NPTE and were valid regression equations determinable for each
predictor that could provide information as to the relative “importance” of each?
Null Hypothesis 2: There were no statistically significant (p < .05) correlations
or regression prediction equations determined between individual PEAT subtest scores
and the NPTE full-scale score between (via SLR).
The resolution of this hypothesis required four simple linear regression
calculations; one for each of the “Content” predictor coefficients of the study;
Examination, Evaluation, Interventions, and Non-Systems.
A Discussion of “Importance”
By interpreting the statistical results, one may able to understand how changes in
the independent variables are related to shifts in the dependent variable. So, “how may
one determine which independent variable is the most important?” The term
“importance” in this study is a term researchers have applied to the regression
coefficients for either a SLR or MLR to describe their “Effect Size” or “importance” on
the dependent variable. It is a measure of how much the predictor variables influence the
dependent variable and how they might rank among one-another when compared.
33
One must not associate regular (non-standardized) regression coefficients with the
“importance” of independent variables. The regular regression coefficients describe a
relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable. However, the
coefficient value represents the mean change of the dependent variable given a one-unit
shift in an independent variable. Since the independent variables can have dramatically
different types of units, which make comparing the coefficients meaningless, one cannot
compare the regular regression coefficients, because they use different scales. For
example, the meaning of a one-unit change differs considerably when the variables
measure time, pressure, and temperature. However, standardized or scaled coefficients all
use the same scale, which means they can be compared. If the data itself is standardized
to a specific scale, then the coefficients will be standardized as well. Additionally, to
determine the coefficient (predictor variable) of most “importance”, identify the
independent variable that had the largest absolute value for its standardized coefficient
(Johnson, 2000; Disabato, 2016). This process was used to determine “importance” and
ranking of predictor variables of this study.
Each of the four categories were examined and reported independently and then
combined to provide a relative assessment of the importance of the predictor variables.
Category: Examination
34
Table 6
Model Summary: Simple Linear Regression Statistics NPTE vs. Examination Scaled
Scores

R Square 0.4296
Observations 75
a
Predictors (Constant), PEAT Examination Score
Table 7
ANOVA: NPTE vs. Examination Scaled Scores
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 101329.1088 101329.1 55.00237 p < .001
Residual 73 134485.5579 1842.268
Total 74 235814.6667
a
Predictors (Constant), PEAT Examination Score
b
Table 8
Coefficients of the Simple Linear Regression Equation: NPTE vs. Examination Scores
Standard
Intercept 378.3781 38.4199 9.8484 p < .001 301.80 454.94
Examinatio
n (53) 0.4417871 0.0595 7.4163 p < .001 0.3230 0.5605
b
35
Figure 2
Regression Line Plot for NPTE vs. PEAT Examination Scaled Scores
Result: Examination
Hypothesis 2 was rejected for the “Examination” category. There was a
statistically significant correlation and regression equation determined between
Examination and NPTE scaled scores. A simple linear regression was calculated to
predict candidates’ NPTE score based on their PEAT Examination score. A significant
regression equation was determined (F(1, 73) = 55.02, p < .001). Physical Therapy
candidates’ predicted (NPTE scores) = 378.38 + 0.4418 (PEAT Exam. score) when both
were measured as scaled scores. Candidates’ average NPTE score increase for each unit
of increase in the PEAT Examination score was 0.4418 units. The relationship was
determined to have been “moderately” correlated at R = .656, with an R2 value of .430
explaining 43.0 percent of the variance in the dependent variable (NPTE score) was due
to the independent variable (PEAT Exam. score). The variable coefficient t-statistic of
7.42 had a significance value of p < .0001, that indicated the significance of the (B)
36
coefficient’s magnitude of 0.4412. The standard error of the estimate (SE) from table 6
was 42.921. This result indicated that for a calculation result from the regression
equation, the answer had a 95% chance of falling between + or - 85.8 points from the
predicted value or a +/- 14.3% average deviation.
Category: Evaluation
Table 9
Model Summary: Simple Linear Regression Statistics NPTE vs. Evaluation Scaled
Scores

R Square 0.4381
Observations 75
a
Predictors (Constant), PEAT Evaluation Score
Table 10
ANOVA: NPTE vs. Evaluation Scaled Scores
Regression 1 103322.4405 103322.4 56.9282 p < .001
Residual 73 132492.2261 1814.962
Total 74 235814.6667
a
Predictors (Constant), PEAT Evaluation Score
b
Table 11
Coefficients of the Simple Linear Regression Equation: NPTE vs. Evaluation Scores
Standard
Intercept 344.382 42.2420 8.1526 p < .001 260.1946 428.5710
Evaluation
(65) 0.5234 0.0694 7.545 p < .001 0.3851 0.6617
b
37
Figure 3
Regression Line Plot for NPTE vs. PEAT Evaluation Scaled Scores
Result: Evaluation
Hypothesis 2 was rejected for the “Evaluation” category. There was a statistically
significant correlation and regression equation determined between Evaluation and NPTE
scaled scores. A simple linear regression was calculated to predict candidates’ NPTE
score based on their PEAT Evaluation score. A significant regression equation was
determined (F(1, 73) = 56.93, p < .001). Physical Therapy candidates’ predicted (NPTE
scores) = 344.38 + 0.5235 (PEAT Evaluation score) when both were measured as scaled
scores. Candidates’ average NPTE score increase for each unit of increase in the PEAT
Evaluation score was 0.453 units. The relationship was determined to have been
“moderately” correlated at R =.438, with an R2 value of .430 explaining 43.8 percent of
the variance in the dependent variable (NPTE score) was due to the independent variable
38
(PEAT Eval. score). The variable coefficient t-statistic of 7.55 had a significance value of
p < .0001, that indicated the significance of the (B) coefficient’s magnitude of 0.453. The
standard error of the estimate (SE) from table 9 was 42.602. This result indicated that for
a calculation result from the regression equation, the answer had a 95% chance of falling
between + or - 85.2 points from the predicted value or an approximate +/- 14.2% average
deviation.
Category: Interventions
Table 12
Model Summary: Simple Linear Regression Statistics NPTE vs. Interventions Scaled
Scores

R Square 0.2460
Observations 75
a
Predictors (Constant), PEAT Interventions Score
Table 13
ANOVA: NPTE vs. Interventions Scaled Scores
Regression 1 58019.62211 58019.62 23.82199 p < .001
Residual 73 177795.0446 2435.549
Total 74 235814.6667
a
Predictors (Constant), PEAT Interventions Score
b
39
Table 14
Coefficients of the Simple Linear Regression Equation: NPTE vs. Interventions Scores
Standard
Intercept 428.985 47.8634 8.9628 p < .001 333.594 524.376
Intervention
s 0.3850 0.0789 4.8818 p < .001 0.22784 0.5423
b.
Figure 4
Regression Line Plot for NPTE vs. PEAT Interventions Scaled Scores
Result: Interventions
Hypothesis 2 was rejected for the “Interventions” category. There was a
statistically significant correlation and regression equation determined between
Interventions and NPTE scaled scores. A simple linear regression was calculated to
predict candidates’ NPTE score based on their PEAT Interventions score. A significant
40
candidates’ predicted (NPTE scores) = 428.99 + 0.3851 (PEAT Interventions score) when
both were measured as scaled scores. Candidates’ average NPTE score increase for each
unit of increase in the PEAT Interventions score was 0.385 units. The relationship was
determined to have been “moderately” correlated at R =.438, with an R2 value of .246
to the independent variable (PEAT Exam. score). The variable coefficient t-statistic of
4.88 had a significance value of p < .0001, that indicated the significance of the (B)
was 49.35. This result indicated that for a calculation result from the regression equation,
the answer had a 95% chance of falling between + or - 98.7 points from the predicted
value or an approximate +/- 16.4% average deviation.
Category: Non-Systems
Table 15
Model Summary: Simple Linear Regression Statistics NPTE vs. Non-Systems Scaled
Scores

R Square 0.1590
Observations 75
a
Predictors (Constant), PEAT Non-Systems Score
41
Table 16
ANOVA: NPTE vs. Non-Systems Scaled Scores
Regression 1 37507.09614 37507.1 13.80693 p < .001
Residual 73 198307.5705 2716.542
Total 74 235814.6667
a
Predictors (Constant), PEAT Non-Systems Score
b.
Table 17
Coefficients of the Simple Linear Regression Equation: NPTE vs. Non-Systems Scores
Standard
Intercept 483.171 48.2168 10.020 p < .001 387.0759 579.2679
Non-
Systems 0.2893 0.07787 3.7157 p < .001 0.1342 0.4446
b
Figure 5
Regression Line Plot for NPTE vs. PEAT Non-Systems Scaled Scores
42
Result: Non-Systems
Hypothesis 2 was rejected for the “Non-Systems” category. There was a
statistically significant correlation and regression equation determined between Non-
Systems and NPTE scaled scores. A simple linear regression was calculated to predict
candidates’ NPTE score based on their PEAT Non-Systems score. A significant
candidates’ predicted (NPTE scores) = 438.17+ 0.1591 (PEAT Non-Systems score) when
both were measured as scaled scores. Candidates’ average NPTE score increase for each
unit of increase in the PEAT Non-Systems score was 0.289 units. The relationship was
determined to have been “moderately” correlated at R =.3988, with an R2 value of .159
to the independent variable (PEAT Non-Sys. score). The variable coefficient t-statistic of
3.72 had a significance value of p =.0004, that indicated the significance of the (B)
was 52.12. This result indicated that for a calculation result from the regression equation,
the answer had a 95% chance of falling between + or - 104.2 points from the predicted
value or an approximate +/- 17.3% average deviation.
Result: Overall Summary Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 was rejected for each of the four “Content” area categories. There
were statistically significant (p < .05) correlations and regression equations determined
between the four PEAT subtest scores and NPTE full-scale score. Each subtest of the
PEAT was significantly correlated to the total scaled score on the NPTE.
43
Table 18
Rank Order Listing of Beta Coefficients from each “Content” Area for Regression
Equations
Rank Order *“Importanc

Beta
of e” Beta t-score
Rank R R% R2 R2 % Coeffici
“Importance Coefficient p-value
ent (B)
” %
Full ─ 0.6855 NA 0.4700 NA 0.6124 NA < .001
Evaluation 1 0.6619 29.92% 0.4382 34.42% 0.5235 31.92% < .001
Examination 2 0.6555 29.63% 0.4297 33.75% 0.4418 26.94% < .001
Interventions 3 0.4960 22.42% 0.2460 19.32% 0.3851 23.48% < .001
Non-Systems 4 0.3988 18.03% 0.1591 12.50% 0.2894 17.65% < .001
TOTALS ─ 2.2122 100.0% 1.2730 100.0% 1.6398 100.0% NA
*The relative importance of each predictor coefficient
The “effect size” or magnitude for the coefficients of the variable in the regression
equations provided a measure of the “strength,” as to how the dependent variable
responded to each of the independent variables. The “effect size” and “strength” are
terms describing the magnitude and thus the “importance” of each coefficient. When
these coefficients were ranked as to their relative importance based upon the
proportionality (percentage) with which they were represented compared of the whole,
was referred to as a relative measure of their “importance.” Table 18 describes the
“importance” of each Beta coefficient in both rank order and as a relative percentage.
The PEAT test results of the “Evaluation” section of the PEAT exam, by these measures,
were determined to be the most important group of questions on the exam. The questions
for the “Non-Systems” section of the PEAT were determined to be the least important.
This ranking holds for each of the parameters of the table: R, R2, Beta Magnitude, and
Beta percent.
Preparation for Determination of Hypothesis 3
44
Before a multiple regression can be run to determine the “importance” of its
Partial Coefficients” or Beta Coefficients, the “collinearity” of these same sets of data
must be determined. Collinearity exists when there is a significant (> 2.5) correlation for
the R2 value as determined by the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), (Montgomery et al.,
2001). The VIF measures how much the variance of the estimated regression
coefficients was possibly inflated as compared to when the predictor variables were not
linearly related. The VIF was used to explain how much the amount of multicollinearity
(correlation between predictors) existed in a regression analysis (Johnson, 2000;
Disabato, 2016).
The square root of the VIF indicates how much larger the standard error is,
compared with what it would be if that variable were uncorrelated with the other X
variables in the equation. For example, if the VIF for a variable were 9.0, its standard
error would be three times as large as it would be if its VIF were 1.0 In such a case, the
coefficient would have to be 3 times as large to be statistically significant. To calculate
the VIF, the formula is: VIF = 1 ÷ (1 - R2); R2 is the Coefficient of Determination.
Table 19 provides the results for the Collinearity determination for the six
combinations of the independent variables. The critical value applied in this study for
non-collinearity was 2.5. If the VIF was determined to be 2.5 or greater, then the
associated pair of variables would have been considered collinear. If two paired sets of
data were to have been determined as collinear, a strategy to discard one of the variables
or combine it with its collinear variable would have been employed.
45
Table 19
Determination of Collinearity for Independent Variable of the Study
Line-Set Variable Y Variable X R-Square VIF Collinear

1 Examination Evaluation 0.46368 1.865 No
2 Examination Interventions 0.43993 1.785 No
3 Examination Non-Systems 0.23329 1.304 No
4 Evaluation Interventions 0.43993 1.785 No
5 Evaluation Non-Systems 0.24352 1.322 No
6 Interventions Non-Systems 0.23329 1.304 No
From Table 19, it may be determined that none of the six combinations of
variables were collinear. After meeting this (collinearity) requirement and the
requirement that the data was linear, the next step was to calculate the multiple linear
regression for the NPTE vs. PEAT Subtest score categories so the R2 values may be
determined and thus the collinearity.
Research Question 3: What is the rank order and relative “weight” of the
multiple linear regression outcomes for the Beta (partial coefficients) of the regression
equation, thus defining their relative importance to the prediction of the NPTE scores for
students based on the PEAT?
Null Hypothesis 3: The partial coefficient values, for the multiple linear
regression equation would not be statistically significant (p < .05) for t-tests as predictors
of rank and “importance” (Via MLR).
46
Table 20
Model Summary: MLR Regression Statistics NPTE vs. Categorical Scaled Scores
MLR Regression Statistics

Multiple R (Correlation Strength) 0.719123
R Square 0.517138
Observations 75
a.
Predictors (Constant), PEAT Exam., Eval., Inter., and Non-Sys. Scores
Table 21
ANOVA: MLR NPTE vs Categorical Scaled Scores
Regression 4 121948.7 30487.17 18.74222 p < .001
Residual 70 113866.0 1626.657
Total 74 235814.7
a
Predictors (Constant), PEAT Exam., Eval., Inter., and Non-Sys. Scores
b
Table 22
MLR Coefficients of the Regression Equations with t-Score Significance: NPTE vs.
Categorical Scaled Scores
Standard Lower Upper

Coefficients Error t Stat P-value 95% 95%
Intercept 298.097 46.713 6.3814 p < .001 204.93 391.26
Examination 0.2523 0.0799 3.1568 p < .001 0.0928 0.4116
Evaluation 0.3094 0.1014 3.0510 p < .001 0.1071 0.5117
Interventions **-0.0007 0.0909 -0.0076 *0.993896 -0.1821 0.1807
Non-Systems 0.0241 0.0721 0.3345 *0.739002 -0.1197 0.1680
b.
*Not statistically significant
** Negative value
47
Figure 6
Graph and Data Output for Calculation of Sample Size and Resulting Alpha Level.
*Calculation via “G*Power” software.
A power analysis (Figure 6) test for sample size-effect, f2 = 0.265, of 75 responses
for four categorical partial coefficients, determined the sample size for the regression
ANOVA, was a probability of alpha will be 0.0500144; i.e. p (α) = 0.0500 when rounded
(Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007).
Result: Hypothesis 3 via MLR
Hypothesis 3 was rejected (with qualification). The hypothesis was not rejected
for all four of the partial coefficients of the regression equation. However, the hypothesis
was rejected for two of the coefficients; the Examination and Evaluation partial
48
coefficients. It was determined the partial coefficients for Interventions and Non-systems
were not statistically significant, because their probabilities for alpha were greater than
.05 (see Table 22 for details).
Single sample t-tests were performed in conjunction with the output of the MLR
from Excel. The results indicated two of the four partial coefficients of the regression
equation from the sample of 75 responses demonstrated statistical significance. For the
category “Examination” the partial coefficient of 0.2523 was found significant (t(74) =
3.1568, p < .05) and for the partial coefficient, 0.3094 of the category “Evaluation,” was
also determined significant, (t(74) = 3.0510, p < .05). However, for the categories “Non-
System” and “Interventions,” the partial coefficients 0.0241 for Non-Systems was not
significant (t(74) = 0.3345, p > .05) and also for the partial coefficient of - 0.0007 of
“Interventions” (t(74) = -0076, p > .05) was not significant.
Table 23
Equations
Coefficient %
Weight Weight Standard
Rank Rank Coefficient Error t Stat P-value
Intercept NA NA 298.0974 46.71 6.3814 1.64E-08
Evaluation 1 52.8% 0.309424 0.1014 3.0510 0.00322
Examination 2 43.0% 0.252225 0.0799 3.1568 0.00235
Non-Systems 3 4.1% 0.024126 0.0721 0.3345 0.73900
Interventions 4 0.1% -0.0007 0.0909 -0.0077 0.99390
The relative ranking of the partial coefficients of this MLR as to their importance
was confirmed by the earlier reported SLR analysis results found in a preceding Table 18,
Equations. The MLR findings indicated the partial coefficient for the knowledge area
49
“Evaluation” to rank highest and “Interventions” to rank the lowest. However, the
relative importance, as determined by the MLR coefficients was found to be much higher
for Evaluation (52.8%) and Examination (43.0%) than the same to categories of the
SLR’s displayed in Table 18.
It should be noted that the MLR equation was found to be highly significant for
all four of these variables in concert, even though individually two of the partial
coefficients, by themselves, were determined non-significant.
NPTE Score = 298.1 + 0.309(PEAT Eval.) + 0.252(PEAT Exam.) + 0.024(PEAT
Non-sys.) - 0.0007(PEAT Inter.)
Determination of Research Question and Hypothesis 4.
Research Question 4: For candidates included in the sample that passed or failed
the PEAT, what percentage of those candidates went on to pass or fail the NPTE?
Null Hypothesis 4: There was no significant difference between the frequency
proportions of candidates of the study that passed or failed the PEAT, and went on to pass
or fail the NPTE (Via Chi-Square Test of Proportions).
Table 24
Contingency Table for the Pearson Chi-Square Test of Independence
Pass NPTE Expected Fail NPTE Expected Totals

Pass PEAT 45 39.11 0 5.89 45
Fail PEAT 28 33.89 11 5.11 39
Totals 73 73 11 11 84
*Pearson Chi-Square appropriate; cells expected value ≥ 5
50
Table 25
Results Table for the Pearson Chi-Square Test of Independence
Chi-Square
Phi Yates Pearson
0.42 12.23 14.6
p 0.00047 0.000133
Fischer Exact Probability Two-Tailed 0.00009
A chi-square test for independence using Fischer’s Exact Test was calculated
comparing the frequency of students passing the PEAT compared to the passage and
failure rate on the NPTE. A significant interaction was found (χ2(1) = 14.6, p < .001).
Students passing the PEAT were highly likely to pass the NPTE and students that failed
the PEAT had a high probability of going on to pass the NPTE (60.7%). The phi
coefficient, much like the Pearson, and denoted by φ is a measure of association this
measure is similar to the Pearson correlation coefficient in its interpretation. The
association φ = 0.42 is considered a moderate association range (0.3 to 0.7).
Results: Hypothesis 4 - Frequency Proportions and Importance
Hypothesis 4 was rejected. There was a significant difference between the
frequency proportions of candidates of the study who passed or failed the PEAT, and
went on to pass or fail the NPTE.
Students passing the PEAT had a high probability of passing the NPTE, and
60.7% of students failing the PEAT were likely to pass the NPTE. Of the 84 students in
the sample, 45 out of 84 (53.6%) passed the PEAT, 39 out of 84 (46.4%) failed the
PEAT, 78 out of 84 (92.9% passed the NPTE, and 11 out of the 84 (13.1%) failed the
NPTE. Of the 78 that passed the NPTE, only 45 had passed the PEAT (45/78 = 57.7%)
and the other 33 that passed the NPTE (33/78 = 42.3%.) did not pass the PEAT.
51
Therefore, a higher percentage of candidates passed the NPTE after they failed the
PEAT. In addition, of the 11 that failed the NPTE, none (0) had passed the PEAT.
Summary of Major Findings
The results of this study demonstrate moderate positive correlation
between PEAT results and success on the NPTE. Many of the independent variables were
statistically significant in predicting success on the NPTE. In addition, students passing
the PEAT were highly likely to pass the NPTE.
When each of the independent variables (IV), Evaluation, Examination,
Interventions, and Non-Systems were individually tested with a single-factor linear
regression (SLR) for correlation and predictive value, they were each determined to be
significant for predicting success on the NPTE. Considering that each subtest score was
determined via standardized scores, this allowed them to be compared and ranked relative
to one another. When these coefficients were ranked as to their relative importance based
upon the proportionality with which they were represented compared to the whole, it was
determined that Evaluation was ranked highest, followed closely by Examination, then
Interventions and finally Non-systems with the lowest value of importance.
All four of the independent variables were found to be highly significant for
predictive value when considered together in the MLR, even though individually two of
the subtest variables, by themselves, were determined non-significant. The predictive
equation was determined as:
Non-sys.) - 0.0007(PEAT Inter.) This equation can be used to predict future performance
on the NPTE based on PEAT scores.
52
It was determined that for candidates included in the study sample that passed or
failed the PEAT, significant percentages of those candidates went on to pass NPTE. Not
only did students that passed the PEAT go on to pass the NPTE, but a significantly high
number of those students who failed the PEAT were found to have gone on to pass the
NPTE as well. Students passing the PEAT had a high probability of passing the NPTE,
and 60.7% of students failing the PEAT were likely to pass the NPTE.
53
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Introduction
Examination (NPTE). A review of the literature revealed a lack of research comparing
the PEAT with the NPTE.
The NPTE was developed to measure the knowledge and abilities required of
entry-level physical therapists (PTs) and physical therapist assistants (PTAs). The PEAT
consists of questions covering the major areas of physical therapy and was designed as a
readiness test to help students identify their strengths and weaknesses prior to taking the
NPTE.
This study sought to determine how well the PEAT correlated and accurately
identified areas where students might need remediation before taking the physical therapy
license examination, the NPTE.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of the scores on the
PEAT to the scaled scores on the NPTE. The following research questions were
addressed in this investigation:
54
outcomes for the Beta (partial coefficients) of the regression equation thus defining their
Summary of Findings
The results of this study demonstrate correlation between PEAT results and
success on the NPTE. Many of the independent variables were statistically significant in
predicting success on the NPTE.
Research Question 1
The total scaled scores on the PEAT demonstrated a moderate to strong
correlation (R = .686) with scaled scores on the NPTE. The correlation coefficient (R) is
a measure of the strength of the straight line or linear relationship between two variables.
The correlation coefficient takes on values ranging between +1 and -1. The magnitude of
the correlation coefficient indicates the strength of the relationship between the two
variables. The closer the value is to 1, the stronger the relationship. A correlation
coefficient of .30 – 0.69 is considered moderate and a correlation coefficient of .70 or
larger is thought to represent a strong or large correlation (Cronk, 2014).
Research Question 2
55
Each subtest of the PEAT was significantly correlated to the total scaled score on
the NPTE. Four subtests were included from the PEAT: Examination, Evaluation,
Interventions and Non-Systems. In the Examination category, the PEAT score had a
moderate to strong correlation (R = .656) with the scaled score on the NPTE. For the
Evaluation category, the PEAT score moderately correlated (R = .438) with the total
scaled score on the NPTE. In the Intervention category, the PEAT score moderately
correlated (R = .438) with the total score on the NPTE, and for the Non-Systems
category, the PEAT score demonstrated a moderate correlation (R = .399) with the total
NPTE score.
Each of the four subtests demonstrated a relationship with the total scaled score
on the NPTE. The Examination subtest was found to have the strongest relationship to
the scaled score on the NPTE, but each of the other three subtests also exhibited a
relationship with the NPTE, thus indicating that all categories are important to consider
when preparing for the NPTE.
Research Question 3
The weight rank order of the four subtests (partial coefficients) was Evaluation
(52.8%), Examination (43.0%), Non-Systems (4.1%), followed by Interventions (0.1%).
Two of the partial coefficients, Evaluation and Examination, were statistically significant
at p<.05, while Non-Systems and Interventions were not statistically significant.
When each of the independent variables (IV), Evaluation, Examination, Interventions,
and Non-Systems were individually tested with a single-factor linear regression (SLR)
for correlation and predictive value, they were each determined to be significant for
predicting success on the NPTE. Considering that each subtest score was determined via
56
standardized scores, this allowed them to be compared and ranked relative to one another.
When these coefficients were ranked as to their relative importance based upon the
proportionality with which they were represented compared to the whole, it was
determined that Evaluation was ranked highest, followed closely by Examination, then
Interventions and finally Non-systems with the lowest value of importance.
All four of the independent variables were found to be highly significant for predictive
value when considered together in the MLR, even though individually two of the subtest
variables, by themselves, were determined non-significant. The predictive equation was
determined as:
Non-sys.) - 0.0007(PEAT Inter.). This equation can be used to predict future performance
on the NPTE based on PEAT scores.
Research Question 4
All candidates with a passing score on the PEAT went on to pass the NPTE. Of
the students with a failing score (< 600) on the PEAT, 60.7% went on the pass the NPTE.
Discussion
This study sought to determine if the performance on the PEAT was a predictor of
first-time pass rate on the NPTE. It was expected that PEAT scores would have a positive
correlation to the NPTE scores. The results indicated a moderate to strong correlation
between overall PEAT scores as well as subtest scores with the NPTE. In addition,
students that passed the PEAT were highly likely to pass the NPTE on the first attempt.
Not only did students that passed the PEAT go on to pass the NPTE, but a significantly
57
high number of those students who failed the PEAT (60.7%) were found to have gone on
to pass the NPTE on the first attempt as well.
The multiple regression formula was found to be highly significant with the
overall PEAT score and the four subtest scores in predicting performance on the NPTE.
In the equation, Evaluation and Examination carried the most weight with respect to the
prediction of the NPTE scaled score. This formula can be used to predict overall NPTE
scores based on PEAT scores as well as to demonstrate the areas of needed remediation.
If a candidate’s predicted score is low, the candidate can be advised in areas of needed
remediation.
Limitations
The primary limitation of this study was related to the proposed sample. The
proposed sample was one of convenience and included a population of students/graduates
of one public university in the southeastern United States. The results may be limited to
this population and not generalizable to other programs.
An additional limitation to the scope of this study: Only scaled scores on the
PEAT and NPTE compiled by the program faculty in one institution were considered in
this investigation.
Conclusions
Results of the PEAT were subdivided by content scores in Examination,
Evaluation, Interventions, and Non-Systems and total score. The strongest correlations
between PEAT and NPTE were with the overall PEAT score and Examination; however,
the Evaluation subtest was the most predictive in the multiple regression formula.
58
The results obtained from this study will be useful in better preparing future
graduates for successful performance on the NPTE. Students who do not pass the PEAT,
will be remediated, particularly in the areas of Evaluation and Examination, in order to be
adequately prepared for the NPTE.
Recommendations for Future Practice and Research
As new cohorts of students matriculate through the program and as PEAT and
NPTE exams are revised and updated, it will be important for the formulas to be
evaluated and updated for predictive use. This study was specific to the DPT program at
one university, but it does provide a formula that could be tested and implemented by
other DPT programs also using the PEAT and NPTE. This could be beneficial for all
programs seeking to identify students at risk for failing the NPTE.
59
APPENDIX A
Arkansas State University Institutional Review Board Approval
60
61
62
APPENDIX B
NPTE and PEAT Scaled Scores for Content 2015 -2017
63
NPTE and PEAT Scaled Scores for Content 2015 -2017
PEAT
NPTE PEAT PEAT PEAT Non-
2015-2017 PEAT Total Interven-
Total SS Examination Evaluation Systems SS
Student SS (200) tions SS
(200) SS (53) SS (65) (25)
(57)
1 616 621 598 588 673 644
2 601 554 525 602 579 467
3 585 595 598 575 623 575
4 608 562 567 602 539 518
5 670 578 614 550 579 575
6 630 543 567 526 514 607
7 688 671 800 665 623 575
8 731 612 668 588 552 738
9 584 490 567 402 539 467
11 648 660 567 665 757 686
13 563 507 473 504 502 607
14 605 514 525 483 566 467
15 756 693 734 704 673 644
16 670 660 649 683 673 607
17 567 582 553 538 655 607
18 616 578 668 602 490 575
19 623 570 631 550 566 518
20 616 650 734 616 623 644
21 650 603 649 616 579 546
22 642 626 614 704 566 644
23 594 586 598 562 579 644
24 657 570 582 538 593 575
25 632 595 582 602 593 607
26 644 595 614 575 579 644
27 630 612 649 616 566 644
28 635 607 688 588 593 546
29 679 578 582 602 552 575
30 631 762 791 751 757 738
31 663 603 614 647 579 546
32 716 650 649 683 593 738
33 706 630 710 647 552 644
34 751 687 791 683 655 607
35 697 616 598 575 655 686
36 688 712 800 647 691 738
37 555 514 511 504 514 546
38 675 626 614 665 608 607
64
39 688 582 614 562 593 546
40 679 635 710 683 552 607
41 531 437 447 382 430 575
42 751 676 668 726 711 546
43 639 586 631 631 566 467
45 663 590 567 602 579 644
46 675 570 688 550 539 492
47 751 693 688 704 691 686
48 711 603 631 550 639 607
49 688 754 800 683 800 686
50 587 574 525 602 579 607
51 736 687 791 683 639 644
52 711 536 582 550 502 492
54 542 500 511 493 478 546
56 716 640 668 602 639 686
57 741 676 614 701 711 686
58 660 594 606 588 559 681
60 652 571 622 542 571 549
61 613 617 749 565 595 578
62 677 650 671 665 608 681
63 708 586 606 588 536 681
64 685 663 671 638 690 644
66 656 568 606 576 524 578
67 672 629 654 651 583 644
68 694 613 654 651 583 520
69 602 663 671 600 723 681
71 708 667 796 625 595 776
72 723 690 728 680 675 681
73 708 645 637 651 647 644
75 785 742 796 711 759 681
76 672 564 591 553 608 438
77 652 633 654 651 583 681
78 647 579 622 520 595 610
79 739 715 772 680 675 800
80 609 515 534 509 479 578
81 616 518 534 520 490 549
82 624 621 622 576 647 681
83 652 613 591 612 595 724
84 785 690 772 651 675 681
*Scaled scores are standardized scores via the FSBPT’s test authority.
65
REFERENCES
Aldridge, R.L., Keith, B., Sloas, S., & Mott-Murphree, A. (2010). Relationship of the
Nelson Denny Reading Test to scores on the national physical therapy licensure
examination. Journal of Allied Health, 39(2), 72-75.
Cohen, J., & Patricia, C. (1983). Applied multiple regression: Correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences. (p. 7). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-
89859-268-2
Cook, C., Engelhard, C., Landry, M.D., & McCallum, C. (2015). Modifiable variables in
physical therapy education programs associated with first-time and three-year
national physical therapy examination pass rates in the United States. Journal of
Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 12(44). doi:
10.3352/jeehp.2015.12.44
Crawley, R., Greene, R., Brown-White, P., Simpson, S., & Karavatas, S. (2015). The
relationship between study preparation and first attempt pass rate on the national
physical therapy examination. Journal of the National Society of Allied Health,
Fall 2015, 45-52.
Cronck, B. (2014). How to use IBM SPSS statistics; A step-by-step guide to analysis and
interpretatation. 8thedition. Pyrczak Publishing. Glendale CA.
Desmarais, L., Woble-Valenski, M.A., & Oestmann, E. (2011). Factors influencing

physical therapist assistant licensure examination success. Journal of Physical
Therapy Education, 25(2), 36-41.
Disabato, D. D. (2016, April 08). On effect sizes in multiple regression. Retrieved July 9,
2018, from http://www.daviddisabato.com/blog/2016/4/8/on-effect-sizes-in-
multiple-regression
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G. & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy. (2018). Practice Exam & Assessment
Tool (PEAT). Retrieved from
http://www.fsbpt.org/ExamCandidates/NationalExam(NPTE).aspx)
Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy. (2012). 2013 Content Outline.
Fell, N., Mabey, R., Mohr, T., & Ingram, D. (2015).The preprofessional degree: Is it a
predictor of success in physical therapy education programs? Journal of Physical
Hollman, J.H., Ridflesch, A.B., Youdas, J.W., Krause, D.A., Hellyer, N.J., & Kinlaw, D.
(2008). Retrospective analysis of the behavioral interview and other preadmission
66
variables to predict licensure examination outcomes in physical therapy. Journal
of Allied Health, 37(2), 97-104.
Jacoby, W. G. (n.d.). Regression III; Advanced methods. Department of Political

Science, Michigan State. Retrieved July 18, 2018, from
http://polisci.msu.edu/jacoby/icpsr/regress3/lectures/week2/8.RelImport.pdf
Johnson, Jeff. (2000) A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor
variables in multiple regression, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35(1), 1-19.
doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1
Kosmahl, E.M. (2005). Factors related to physical therapist license examination scores.
Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 19(2), 52-56.
Luedtke-Hoffmann, K., Dillon, L., Utsey, C., & Tomaka, J. (2012). Is there a relationship
between performance during physical therapist clinical education and scores on
the national physical therapy examination (NPTE)? Journal of Physical Therapy
Education, 26(2), 41-49.
Maring, J. & Costello, E. (2009). Education program and student characteristics

associated with pass rates on the national physical therapy examination for
physical therapist assistants. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 23(1), 3-11.
Maring, J., Costello, E., Ulfers, M., & Zuber, E. (2013). Curriculum, faculty and cohort
variables predicting physical therapist assistant program graduate success on the
national physical therapy examination. Journal of Physical Therapy Education,
27(2), 33-40.
Mohr, T., Ingram, D., Hayes, S., & Du, Z. (2005). Educational program characteristics
and pass rates on the national physical therapy examination. Journal of Physical
Montgomery, D.C., Peck, E.A. &Vining, G.G. (2001). Introduction to linear regression
analysis. 3rd Ed. (pp. 672). New York: Wiley and Sons. ISBN-13: 978-
0471315650
Riddle, D.L., Utzman, R.R., Jewell, D.V., Pearson, S., & Kong, X. (2009). Academic
difficulty and program-level variables predict performance on the national
physical therapy examination for licensure: A population-based cohort study.
Physical Therapy, 89(11), 1182-1191.
Sloas, S.B, Keith, B. & Whitehead, M.T. (2013) Use of a pretest strategy for physical
therapist assistant programs to predict success rate on the national physical
therapy exam. Journal of Allied Health, 42(2), 79-83.
Statistics Solutions. (2015). Regression table. Retrieved July 8, 2018, from

http://www.statisticssolutions.com/regression-table/
67
Vendrely, A.M. (2007). An investigation of the relationships among academic
performance, clinical performance, critical thinking, and success on the physical
therapy licensure examination. Journal of Allied Health, 36(2), 108-123.
Williams, R. (n.d.). Standardized Coefficients. Published by the University of Notre

Dame as a Class handout. Retrieved July 18, 2018, from
https://www3.nd.edu/~rwilliam/stats1/x92.pdf
68

Predictors of Success On The National Physical Therapy Licensure Examination

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Predictors of Success On The National Physical Therapy Licensure Examination

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PREDICTORS OF SUCCESS ON THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL THERAPY

A Dissertation presented to the faculty of Arkansas State University

ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY

Dr. Joseph Nichols, Dissertation Advisor

PREDICTORS OF SUCCESS ON THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL THERAPY

Examination (NPTE). A correlation analysis examined the relationship of the exam

Henley for their guidance and support throughout this journey.

4. ANOVA: NPTE vs. PEAT Total Scaled Scores ..........................................................31

7. ANOVA: NPTE vs. Examination Scaled Scores .........................................................35

8. Coefficients of the Simple Linear Regression Equation: NPTE vs. Examination

10. ANOVA: NPTE vs. Evaluation Scaled Scores ............................................................37

13. ANOVA: NPTE vs. Interventions Scaled Scores ........................................................39

16. ANOVA: NPTE vs. Non-Systems Scaled Scores........................................................42

19. Determination of Collinearity for Independent Variable of the Study ........................46

21. ANOVA: MLR NPTE vs. Categorical Scaled Scores .................................................47

Background for the Study

Physical Therapist education programs convey an entry-level doctoral degree and

require accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education

order to receive a license to practice as a physical therapist. Physical therapy graduates

and are unable to practice as a physical therapist.

The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (FSBPT) develops,

jurisdiction to jurisdiction” (FSBPT, 2018).

The NPTE passing score is a reflection of the level of performance necessary to

NPTE are written by physical therapists representing a variety of practice settings

eligible to appear on the scored portion of future versions of the NPTE.

categories: 1. Physical Therapy Examination (26.5%); 2. Foundations for Evaluation,

Differential Diagnosis, and Prognosis (32.5%); 3. Interventions (28.5%); and 4. Non-

System Domains (12.5%). The “Non-System Domains” includes questions related to

equipment and devices, therapeutic modalities, safety and protection, professional

(Examination, Evaluation, and Interventions), the questions were divided according to

body systems: 1. Cardiovascular/Pulmonary & Lymphatic Systems (16.5%),

Musculoskeletal System (30.5%), Neuromuscular & Nervous Systems (25.0%), and

metabolic and endocrine (3.5%), gastrointestinal (1.5%), genitourinary (2.0%), and

system interactions (3.5%) (FSBPT, 2012).

presented in a format similar to the NPTE (FSBPT, 2018).

The exam provides immediate results to candidates, including a detailed breakdown by

Physical therapy program graduates must successfully complete the NPTE in

investigated various cognitive and non-cognitive variables regarding their ability to

the PEAT and the NPTE.

The Purpose of the Study

plans to improve first time pass rates on the NPTE.

The following research questions were addressed in this investigation:

NPTE and could they be predicted by a valid regression equation?

provide information as to the relative “importance” of each?

percentage of those candidates went on to pass or fail the NPTE?

Correlation and regression analysis allows one to formulate a mathematical relationship

in their text on regression analyses, suggest statistical regression and correlation

sciences” (p. 7).

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

proposed sample was one of convenience and included a population of students/graduates

this population and not generalizable to other programs.

The following were limits to the scope of this study:

one institution were considered in this investigation.

time period compared with previous years.

National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE) – An examination created and

administered by the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy to assess entry-level

competence for physical therapists.

Practice Examination & Assessment Tool (PEAT) – Developed by the Federation

on the National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE) for first-time candidates of

revealed a plethora of studies of various factors that influenced or predicted success on

physical therapy education.

The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (FSBPT) develops,

jurisdiction to jurisdiction” (FSBPT, 2018).