Background and Purpose. The volume of all limbs can be determined by water displacement methods or calculations derived from girth measurements. The purpose of this study was to determine the concurrent validity of calculated volume and water displacement volume measurements. Subjects. Both upper extremities of 14 women with lymphedema were measured. Methods. Volumetric measurements were taken with a volumeter, and circumferential measurements were taken with a tape measure. Calculated volume was determined by summing segment volumes derived from the truncated cone formula. Pearson product moment correlations, paired t tests, and linear regression tests were used to assess relative association and absolute differences between calculated and actual volumes. Results. The correlation coefficient for calculated volume versus upper extremity minus fingers (UE-F) water displacement volume was .99. Paired t tests showed differences between calculated volume and UE-F water displacement volume (t=−3.88, mean difference=−95.62 mL), and the linear regression slope was 0.83 with an intercept of 255.28 mL. Discussion and Conclusion. Calculated volume measurements were highly associated with measurements based on water displacement; therefore, clinicians should feel confident in using either calculated volume or water displacement volume. The differences, however, indicated that the measures were not interchangeable. Thus, clinicians should not mix or substitute measurement methods with a single patient or in a single study.
More sessions were spent on prefunctional than on functional activities, and musculoskeletal intervention strategies were most common. Future research studies are warranted to determine the most effective intervention for this client population.
Clinical education experiences (CEEs) serve an essential role in physical therapist (PT) and occupational therapist (OT) student development. The Ascent to Competence Scale (ACS) measures valuable attributes of belongingness, competence, and welcoming associated with CEE placement. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between PT and OT students' belongingness and perceived competence during CEE using the ACS. A survey consisting of 35 questions from the ACS measuring students' feelings of belongingness and perceived competence in the clinic was administered to PT and OT students from 7 Midwest universities. Respondents rated statements using a 5-point Likert-type scale ("never true" to "always true"). Ascent to Competence items were aggregated to develop belongingness and perceived competence constructs. One hundred nineteen (67.2% PT, 32.8% OT) of 509 (23.4% response) eligible students completed the survey. Results of a linear regression analysis showed belongingness in the clinical environment significantly predicted perceived competence measures, F(1, 117) = 182.389; P = r 2 = .609, y(comp) = .721(Xbel) + 1.249. Cumulative weeks in CEE and practice environment did not contribute to the predictive model. The analysis lends further support to the role that belongingness plays in advancing perceived competence during the CEE. The results suggest that supportive clinical education environments can positively impact student learning by promoting a sense of belongingness among student therapists.
While today's PTs report that they encounter ethical situations at a frequency similar to PTs in 1980, these same PTs report these ethical challenges as minimally difficult when compared to PTs responding to the 1980 survey. It is proposed that a move toward autonomous practice, the elevation of the entry level professional degree, and changing health care policy and environments have been influential in shaping these changes over time.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.