2015 EXIT INTERVIEW SURVEY

Transcription

1 2015 EXIT INTERVIEW SURVEY Summary INTRODUCTION PURPOSE As part of RMUoHP s systematic institutional assessment and continuous improvement process, the purpose of the Exit Interview Survey (EIS) is to assess graduating student perception of the University s alignment with Core Values, Mission, and Vision; academic experiences; overall experiences; and satisfaction. METHODS AND PARTICIPATION The 2015 EIS was conducted via an online survey tool at the conclusion of each of the three academic semesters. All students who applied to graduate were required to complete the survey as part of their graduation requirements; therefore, the response rate for 170 students was 100%. Student demographics are included in Tables 1-5. The survey items reflected questions across all student populations as well as supplementary items for entry-level students and students who completed capstone projects or dissertations. These supplementary items are not included in this report, but were provided directly to the program and academic leadership. The survey included demographics, rating, and open-ended items. REPORTING AND USAGE This report contains the actual data and means for all scaled survey items, general commentary, and a summary of themes related to open-ended items. For appropriate fivepoint Likert scaled items, the University defines score values as follows: scores 3.99 are improvement opportunities (shown in a red font); scores between are acceptable; and scores 4.5 are exceptional (shown in a blue font). Several items, such as anticipated raise or promotion, do not fall into these interpretation guidelines. To address population differences and improve reliability, post-professional student and entry-level student data are presented separately as well. Detailed distributions and means for overall institutional data, post-professional means ( PP ), and entry-level means ( EL ) were each presented as appropriate. Variations in response quantities are attributed to a no basis for judgment option that was excluded from calculations. While this summary report was provided for the consumption of the entire University community, filtered reports by program were also provided to the individual Program Directors when responses were at least an n of three. Data from this report are used as a tool within the functional area and academic program assessment and continuous improvement cycles. RESULTS SUMMARY According to RMUoHP s 2015 graduating students, the University fulfills its Mission and Core Values and is progressing towards Vision fulfillment. Students report satisfaction of academic and overall experiences with the University, especially related to clinical inquiry, learning, goal achievement, faculty, staff, and services. Additionally, 94.71% of the students agreed that the level of rigor provided a challenging or stimulating learning environment appropriate for graduate education. Improvement opportunities for entrylevel students included increasing value, cultivating a sense of community, and enhancing overall satisfaction. As post-professional scores were satisfactory across survey items, improvement opportunities were drawn from the narrative themes, including addressing specific faculty, course, and curriculum suggestions. Overall satisfaction data indicated that 97.65% of the students were, all things considered, satisfied with their RMUoHP experience. 1

2 DEMOGRAPHICS As demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2, the majority of RMUoHP students who completed the survey were White/Caucasian (82.35%) and female (69.41%). The students represented a wide age range (Table 3). Tables 5 and 6 show respondents from 15 degree program emphases, 90% of whom completed their degree program within a threeyear period. Table 1. Race/Ethnicity (n = 170) # Answer n n% 1 American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0% 2 Asian % 3 Black or African American % 4 Hispanic or Latino % 5 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander % 6 White/Caucasian % 7 Two or More Races % Table 2. Sex (n = 170) # Answer n n% 1 Female % 2 Male % Table 3. Age Range (n = 170) # Answer n n% 1 25 to 29 years % 2 30 to 34 years % 3 35 to 39 years % 4 40 to 44 years % 5 45 to 49 years % 6 50 to 54 years % 7 55 to 59 years % 8 60 to 64 years % 9 65 to 69 years % 2

3 Table 4. Responses by Degree Program Emphasis (n = 170) # Answer Options n n% 1 Athletic Training (DSc/PhD) % 2 Health Promotion & Wellness (DSc/PhD) % 3 Health Science - Sports Performance (MS) % 4 Nursing (DSc/PhD) % 5 Nursing Practice (Post-master's DNP) % 6 Orthopaedic & Sports Science (DSc/PhD) % 7 Occupational Therapy (Post-professional OTD) % 8 Occupational Therapy - Administration & Practice Management Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) % 9 Occupational Therapy - Aging Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) % 10 Occupational Therapy - Education Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) % 11 Occupational Therapy - Hand Therapy Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) % 12 Occupational Therapy - Pediatric Science Elective Track (Post-professional OTD) % 13 Physical Therapy (Entry-level DPT) % 14 Physical Therapy (Transitional DPT) % 15 Physical Therapy - Pediatric Science Elective Track (Transitional DPT) % Table 5. Program Start Year (n = 170) # Answer Options n n% % % % % % % % % 3

4 CORE VALUES, UNIVERSITY MISSION, & UNIVERSITY VISION Students were asked to rate their level of agreement to statements regarding the University s Core Values, Mission, and Vision (Table 6). Mean scores for all items and across all populations were in the acceptable and exceptional ranges, with the overall means for each item falling within the exceptional range. All populations rated the University Mission and Vision fulfillment as exceptional. Table 6. Core Values, Mission Statement, and Vision Statement Question Neither n Mean PP Mean EL Mean nor A. The University advocates clinical inquiry that challenges practice standards, expands evidence-based practice, increases clinical research, develops healthcare change agents, and encourages experiential learning. B. The University provides a student -centered environment through relevant and participatory courses (n = 126) and a supportive University community. C. The University demonstrates integrity in its interactions with all its constituents. D. The University cultivates diversity through academic freedom, varied educational experiences, and broad recruitment of students and faculty. E. The University fosters skills essential to leadership roles in healthcare, academia, research and the community. F. The University operates with respect for the natural environment. G. The University promotes service to community, healthcare, and education. H. The University fulfills its mission to educate current and future healthcare professionals for outcomes-oriented, evidence-based practice. I. The University is progressing towards vision fulfillment to advance the quality, delivery, and efficacy of healthcare (n = 126) 4.63 (n = 120) (n = 103) 4.78 (n = 119) (n = 40) (n = 40) 4.39 (n = 33) (n = 40) 4.59 (n = 39) 4

5 ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES Participants responded to a series of statements regarding their academic experience (Table 7), clinical inquiry and learning (Table 8), and academic rigor (Table 9). For Table 7, overall means are in the exceptional range, with seven of 10 items in the exceptional range across all populations. For Table 8, eight of nine mean scores across all populations are in the exceptional range, while all remaining overall means and population-based means were either acceptable or exceptional ranges. This excludes item G for entry-level students, for whom this type of scholarly activity is not a required outcome of entry-level programs, although occasionally occurs in collaboration with faculty. In Table 9, over 94% of students noted the level of rigor provided a challenging and stimulating learning environment appropriate for graduate education. Table 7. Academic Experiences Question A. The academic model was effectively structured for learning. B. My program curriculum was relevant to my academic and professional goals. C. Through engagement in my learning experience, my Program Director(s) created a supportive learning environment. D. I received adequate advising regarding my career-related questions (e.g., via Program Director, Faculty, Career Services). E. Through engagement in my learning experience, my faculty created a supportive learning environment. F. My faculty used contemporary teaching methods that enhanced my learning experience. G. I have formed meaningful formal and informal mentorship and advisement relationships across my academic experience. H. My faculty demonstrated current knowledge of best clinical practice. I. Upon completing my studies, I have achieved the program outcomes as specified in my program curriculum. J. Upon completing my studies, I have achieved the goals I had when I started the program. Neither nor n Mean PP Mean EL Mean (n = 110) (n = 126)

6 Table 8. Clinical Inquiry and Learning Question Neither nor n Mean PP Mean EL Mean A. I am competent at locating literature B. I am competent at critically evaluating literature C. I am competent in my ability to synthesize evidence-based principles into realistic practice settings. D. My participation in experiential learning activities (e.g., clinical experiences, practicum, thesis, capstone, dissertation) enhanced my clinical inquiry proficiency. E. The knowledge I gained from my degree program improved my skills as an evidence-based clinician, educator, or researcher. F. I developed knowledge and skills to challenge current practice standards and serve as a catalyst for healthcare change. G. Through my educational experience at RMUoHP, I have completed scholarly activities (e.g., publishing, presenting, grant writing, journal editing) contributing to healthcare advancement within my field of influence. H. Through my educational experience at RMUoHP, I have completed scholarly activities contributing to my clinical inquiry proficiency. I. At RMUoHP, I participated in learning opportunities that enhanced or reinforced values essential to healthcare success and personal growth (e.g., service, leadership, integrity) (n = 125) Table 9. Academic Rigor # Answer % (n) PP % (n) EL % (n) In general, the program had inconsistent or low levels of rigor, leaving me feeling disengaged or bored in many courses. 2.35% (4) 2.34% (3) 2.38% (1) 2 In general, the level of rigor provided a challenging and stimulating learning environment appropriate for graduate 94.71% (161) education % (121) 95.24% (40) 3 In general, my learning process was stifled or I was often overwhelmed because the program is overly rigorous. 2.94% (5) 3.13% (4) 2.38% (1) Total % (170) % (128) % (42)

7 For 2015, a survey item was added to determine the quantity of time students spend on their respective weekly activities. According to their input, entry-level students spend approximately hours per week completing degree-related activities and post-professional students spend approximately hours per week completing degree-related activities. In addition to the distribution below, other themes that take up a larger portion of time for both entry-level and post-professional students included family time/parenting and chores/home improvement. Table 10. Average Time Spent in Weekly Activities During Degree Enrollment # Question Approximate House per Week Engaged in Activity (n = 170) 1 Studying or Completing Activities Related to Coursework (Outside of Class) 2 Attending Scheduled Classes or Labs (Including Online Activities) Approximate House per Week Engaged in Activity (PP n = 128) Approximate House per Week Engaged in Activity (EL n = 42) Working Volunteering Participating in Social Media Watching TV or Movies Reading (Non-Degree Related) Participating in Athletic Activities or Exercise Sleeping Communicating with Friends/Family (e.g., phone, chatting, texting, ) 11 Other

8 OVERALL EXPERIENCE AND SATISFACTION Students were provided the opportunity to rate experiences with personnel, services, and overall experience (Tables 11-19). Overall mean scores for personnel and services (Tables 11-12) were exceptional in all but one category, which category (Learning Resource Center Services) mean is still in the acceptable range. Mean scores were generally higher for the post-professional population, but all appropriate scores for entry-level students were still within the acceptable or exceptional ranges. In an open-ended item, students were asked to respond with and additional feedback regarding personnel or services at RMUoHP. These primarily positive comments, found in Table 13, were categorized into themes when there were at least 10% like comments. Table 11. University Personnel Satisfaction Question A. Admissions Personnel: Director, Admissions Advisors, Assistants, Recruitment Personnel Services: Advisement, Processing B. Student Services Personnel: Director, Assistants Services: Advising, Accommodations, Student Council, Career Support, Community Assistance C. Learning Resource Center Personnel: Librarians, Assistants Services: Online and Physical Collections, Interlibrary Loans, Literature Searching Training D. Instructional Technology Personnel: Director, Technical Specialist Services: WebStudy Support, Technical Training and Support E. Records and Registration Personnel: Registrar, Assistant Registrar Services: Course Registration, Academic Progress, Transfers, Transcripts, Grade Reports F. Institutional Review Board Personnel: Chair, Manager; Services: IRB Application Processing, Advisement, Tutorial Support G. Finance and Financial Aid Personnel: Vice President, Staff Accountants, Financial Aid Officer, Financial Aid Advisor Services: Federal Financial Aid, VA Benefits, Other Financial Assistance, Tuition and Fees Processing, Financial Records H. Technical Support Personnel: Technical Support Staff Services: Wireless Access Support, Basic Hardware and Software Support Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied n Mean PP Mean EL Mean (n = 123) (n = 97) (n = 124) (n = 113) (n = 119) (n = 85) (n = 97) (n = 77) 4.51 (n = 39) 4.25 (n = 40) 4.18 (n = 33) 4.00 (n = 34) 4.26 (n = 38) N/A (n = 28) 8

9 Table 12. Services and Programs Adequacy to Support Educational Goal Achievement and/or Enhance Student Experience Question Neither nor A. Admissions Personnel: Director, Admissions Advisors, Assistants, Recruitment Personnel Services: Advisement, Processing B. Student Services Personnel: Director, Assistants Services: Advising, Accommodations, Student Council, Career Support, Community Assistance C. Learning Resource Center Personnel: Librarians, Assistants Services: Online and Physical Collections, Interlibrary Loans, Literature Searching Training D. Instructional Technology Personnel: Director, Technical Specialist Services: WebStudy Support, Technical Training and Support E. Records and Registration Personnel: Registrar, Assistant Registrar Services: Course Registration, Academic Progress, Transfers, Transcripts, Grade Reports F. Institutional Review Board Personnel: Chair, Manager; Services: IRB Application Processing, Advisement, Tutorial Support G. Finance and Financial Aid Personnel: Vice President, Staff Accountants, Financial Aid Officer, Financial Aid Advisor Services: Federal Financial Aid, VA Benefits, Other Financial Assistance, Tuition and Fees Processing, Financial Records H. Technical Support Personnel: Technical Support Staff Services: Wireless Access Support, Basic Hardware and Software Support n Mean PP Mean EL Mean (n = 119) (n = 97) (n = 123) (n = 115) (n = 119) (n = 82) (n = 97) (n = 79) 4.34 (n = 38) 4.13 (n = 39) 4.14 (n = 37) 4.00 (n = 37) 4.31 N/A (n = 33) 9

10 Table 13. Additional Feedback for the Program Director or University Regarding Personnel or Services PP n = 58 PP Theme EL n = 9 EL Theme 19 Specific Staff Commendation 3 Culture of Student-Centeredness 18 Overall Positive Experience 2 Negative Experience with Personnel 16 Positive Academic Experience 2 Positive Academic Experience 14 Culture of Student-Centeredness 2 Any Problems Have Been Resolved 10 Program Director Commendation 10 Library & Resource Center Recommendation 8 Positive Experience with Cohort 6 Specific Faculty Commendation 6 Overall Quality Faculty 5 Will or Has Recommended the University to Others 5 Specific Faculty Complaint Table 14 includes mean scores related to a variety of situations related to the overall RMUoHP experience. Again, overall mean scores were in the acceptable or exceptional ranges and post-professional student scores were consistently higher than entry-level scores. Two such entry-level scores fell into the improvement opportunity range: good value and sense of belonging. As noted in the introduction, item G does not fall within the standard guidelines and no thresholds have been established; this item is primarily for informational purposes. Table 14. Overall Experience Question 10 Neither nor n Mean PP Mean EL Mean A. The RMUoHP campus included quality technology to support the student-centered learning environment (n = 121) B. The RMUoHP campus included quality facilities to support the student-centered learning environment. (n = 124) C. My academic program was a good value; it provided quality education at a competitive price. (n = 125) D. I felt safe when I was on campus (n = 125) E. The RMUoHP campus included quality equipment to support the student-centered learning environment. (n = 111) F. My educational experience at RMUoHP has had a positive impact on my career. (n = 125) G. I have received, or anticipate receiving, a raise, promotion, or new job because of my education at (n = 120) RMUoHP. H. Through interactions with University constituents, I have felt a sense of belonging to the RMUoHP community (n = 125) (n = 36) 3.88

11 In a simple yes or no question (Table 15), students were asked about their overall satisfaction with RMUoHP. The response was overwhelmingly yes at 97.65%. The extent to which students are satisfied with their degree program and RMUoHP experience is demonstrated in Tables The overall and post-professional means for degree program satisfaction and overall University experience satisfaction were in the exceptional range (Tables 16-17). However, the mean for entry-level students overall University experience satisfaction was an improvement opportunity at 3.93 (Table 17). Table 15. Responses to All things considered, are you satisfied with your RMUoHP experience? Answer n (n = 170) n% PP n PP n% EL n Yes % % % No % % % Table 16. Satisfaction with Academic Experience at RMUoHP # Answer n (n = 170) PP n 1 Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied Mean Table 17. Satisfaction with Overall University Experience # Answer n (n = 170) PP n 1 Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied Mean EL n% EL n EL n 11

12 RMUoHP also measured the likelihood of RMUoHP students in referring the University to a friend, family member, or colleague for his or her education. The Net Promoter Score (NPS), which measures loyalty and may be used to promote growth, is calculated by adding the percentage of nine and 10 scores (promoters) and then subtracting the percentage of zero-through-six scores (detractors). Although the NPS is primarily utilized in non-academic organizations, it still represents meaningful information regarding University growth and is measured across University constituents. According to NetPromoter.com, Companies with the most efficient growth engines operate at NPS efficiency ratings of 50 to 80%. But the average firm sputters along at an NPS efficiency of only 5 to 10%. In other words, Promoters barely outnumber Detractors. The overall net promoter score for the 2015 Exit Interview Survey was 56.47% (Table 18), which was driven by the post-professional score of 76.56%. Both the overall and post-professional scores increased over 2014, but the entry-level scores decreased. The overall scores indicate that, in general, exiting students were likely to refer the University to others. However, a noted disparity existed across student populations. Table 18. Net Promoter Score (NPS) How likely is it that you would recommend RMUoHP to a friend, family member, or colleague for n (n = 170) PP n EL n his or her education? 0 Not Likely to Recommend 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 2 (1.18%) 1 (0.78%) 1 (2.38%) 4 4 (2.35%) 1 (0.78%) 3 (7.14%) 5 7 (4.12%) 2 (1.56%) 5 (11.90%) 6 9 (5.29%) 4 (3.13%) 5 (11.90%) 7 8 (4.71%) 1 (0.78%) 7 (16.67%) 8 22 (12.94%) 13 (10.16%) 9 (21.43%) 9 34 (20%) 25 (19.53%) 9 (21.43%) 10 Absolutely Will Recommend 84 (49.41%) 81 (63.28%) 3 (7.14%) Mean 8.76 (56.47% NPS) 9.27 (76.56% NPS) 7.19 (-4.75% NPS) Graduating students were asked to indicate whether they were employed full-time at the time of graduation, to which 96.09% of post-professional students and 66.67% of entry-level students responded yes (Table 19). Overall, 88.82% of students were employed full-time at the time of graduation. Table 19. Full-time Employment upon Graduation # Answer n (n = 170) % PP n PP n% EL n EL n% 1 Yes % % % 2 No % % % 12

13 OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS To provide additional clarity to quantitative results, students were asked to comment on three open-ended items related to general satisfaction (Tables 20-25). In the first item, students were asked to provide a reason for their response regarding likelihood of recommending RMUoHP to a friend, family member, or colleague for his or her education (NPS). The second item inquired regarding any additional University or degree program improvement opportunities and the final item asked for and additional University or degree program strengths. Similar ideas that appeared in at least 10% of the responses (by survey item) were considered themes. Many comments included multiple ideas and each of these ideas was counted individually. While this report addresses only the themes, individual responses were provided to the appropriate Program Director for consideration in the assessment and continuous improvement process. Tables reflect the themes of entry-level students and post-professional student themes are reflected in Tables For entry-level students, of 10 themes related to recommending others to RMUoHP (Table 20), half were positive and half were improvement opportunities, all of which overlap with the additional improvement opportunities and additional strengths in Tables 21 and 22. Consistent improvement opportunities shared by these students were related to specific courses and costs. Entry-level students acknowledge the University has already made many positive changes and, among nine strength themes, recognize the quality faculty and culture of student-centeredness. In Table 23, there are 10 referral-related themes for post-professional students, all of which are positive and support similar quantitative satisfaction scores. Additional improvement opportunities (Table 24) were related to specific faculty and courses, faculty communication, or curriculum suggestions. Post-professional students perceived six additional themes for University or Degree Program strengths, which addressed the quality of the people, programs, and culture at RMUoHP (Table 25). Table 20. EL Comment Themes Regarding RMUoHP Referral Score Rational (N = 33) n Theme 12 Commitment to Continuous Improvement 9 Overall Positive Experience 7 Specific Faculty Commendation 7 Tuition Model Challenges 6 Program/University Still Evolving 5 Costs Too High 4 Faculty Need Additional Development 4 Quality Faculty 3 Overall Positive Academic Experience 3 Specific Course Complaint Table 22. EL Comment Themes Regarding Additional University or Degree Program Strengths (N = 29) n Theme 15 Quality Faculty 10 Culture of Student-Centeredness 9 Specific Course Commendation 8 Quality Clinical Model 6 Quality Facilities 5 Quality Staff 5 Quality Curriculum 4 Responsiveness to Feedback and Concerns 3 Quality Advisement Table 21. EL Comment Themes Regarding Additional University or Degree Program Improvement Opportunities (N = 34) n Theme 15 Curriculum Suggestion 7 Already Made Many Positive Changes 5 Schedule Complaint 5 More Attention to Student Feedback 5 Specific Faculty Complaint 4 Specific Course Complaint 3 Cost Complaint Table 23. PP Comment Themes Regarding RMUoHP Referral Score Rational (N = 97) n Theme 40 Quality Academic Experience 30 Overall Positive Experience 29 Application to Practice 27 Already Have/Would Recommend 27 Quality Faculty 14 Quality Non-Traditional Model 12 Quality Students 11 Quality Program Director(s) 10 Good Value 9 High Standards/Rigor 13

14 Table 24. PP Comment Themes Regarding Additional University or Degree Improvement Opportunities (N = 78) n Theme 26 Curriculum Suggestion 18 Specific Course Complaint 17 Increase Faculty Communication 15 Increase Faculty Responsiveness 11 Specific Faculty Complaint Table 25. PP Comment Themes Regarding Additional University or Degree Program Strengths (N = 84) n Theme 71 Quality Program Director and Faculty 42 Quality Academic Experience 18 Culture of Student Centeredness 18 Quality Staff 14 Quality Students 12 Responsiveness to Students 14