Kathleen Rockefeller

Keiba Shaw

Lance Cherry

Mary Blackinton

Melissa Lazinski

CiteSeerX

Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015 
	   1	  
Where does the time go? A work sampling study of physical therapy faculty time 
use 
 
Kathleen Rockefeller a,  Mary Blackinton a, Lance Cherry a, Melissa Lazinski a, Keiba Shaw a 
 
aHybrid Entry-Level DPT Program, Nova Southeastern University, Tampa, FL, USA 
 
 
1. Introduction 
 
Little information exists about how faculty members in entry-level Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) 
education programs allocate their time among teaching, scholarship, service, and administration. Prior 
research in the area used survey methods to determine faculty perceptions on time usage, relying on 
memory and estimation of time spent in various tasks. We studied faculty in two types of entry-level DPT 
Programs offered at the same university. One program is a Traditional Program (Tr), delivered primarily 
through on-campus face-to-face (F2F) interaction with web enhancement. The other is a Hybrid Program 
(Hy) which blends 3 weeks of online (OL) instruction with 4 days of F2F instruction per month. The university 
is private, not-for-profit (NFP); and has a focus on teaching plus community engagement, outreach and 
partnership. 
 
1.1    Goals  
The goals of this study were to: (1) use iPad technology to collect real-time data in order to estimate how 
faculty spend time in tasks and activities related to teaching, scholarship, service, and administration. and (2) 
compare how faculty time was spent in these two programs. The null hypothesis was that there would be no 
difference between faculty in the two types of programs in terms of the distributions of tasks, activities, 
locations, and tools used. 
 
 
2. Methods 
 
This was a descriptive study using an observational work sampling method to collect data. Work sampling 
methods have long been used in the field of ergonomics. A taxonomy of work as a faculty member in a DPT 
program was created for use as a framework for data collection. Major TASK categories were teaching, 
research, service, administration, and other. Distinct ACTIVITIES were identified for each task such as 
“deliver instruction” or “organize/plan course.” Codes were created for LOCATION of work (classroom, lab, 
home, other) and for TOOLS used (laptop, telephone, pen). Categories were modified with faculty input, and 
face validity established. Based on the taxonomy, a developer designed an application for the iPad that was 
used to collect observations from faculty members using a random signal program. Faculty “logged in” to the 
application while working, and would then receive alert signals at random. At each signal, the faculty would 
use the application to note the categories they were engaging in at the time of the signal.  All subjects were 
trained on the iPad application by the PIs. Four Hy and 4 Tr full-time faculty with no administrative duties 
were recruited to participate in the study. Researchers attempted to match faculty by course load and years 
teaching. 
 
 
3. Results 
 
3.1    Data and Analysis 
Once submitted, data were transmitted over internet connection and stored in database server. The PI 
downloaded data to Excel and backed up. Data were collected over two semesters for a total of 5658 
observations. SPSS was used for analysis. Frequencies of observation (proportions) were calculated for all 
Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015 
	   2	  
categories, along with 95% confidence intervals. Cross-tabulations and chi-square statistics were done to 
compare programs. 
 
3.2    Findings 
 
Faculty in both programs participated in all tasks. Scholarship was more frequent in the Tr program; 
administration in the Hy program. For the task of teaching, faculty in the Hy program reported more time 
spent in activities of course organization and preparing course content. Scholarship activities varied; the Hy 
faculty reported more planning and background review while the Tr faculty reported more writing. Faculty in 
both programs spent a good deal of administrative time in meetings. There was no difference between 
programs with respect to time spent on administrative activities. Time spent in the office was similar for both 
programs, while Hy faculty worked more at home than the Tr faculty. For service, Tr faculty reported more 
time in PT practice. 
 
 
 
4. Conclusions  
 
4.1    Discussion 
Despite distinctly different modes of delivery, faculty in both programs spent similar proportions of time in 
many of the observed categories with some differences. One explanation for the differences might be related 
to the maturity and primary delivery methods for the two programs. The Hy program is a new and developing 
program while the Tr program is a mature program. Initial course development and blended instruction 
requires a great amount of planning. This may explain why Hy faculty spent more time in preparing course 
content and course organization than in scholarship activities compared to the Tr program. The difference in 
faculty practice time can be explained by the on-site clinic for Tr faculty; Hy faculty must practice off-site. 
 
4.2    Limitations 
Differences in the number of observations among categories may limit the accuracy of some of the estimates. 
Categories were not always mutually exclusive. Lack of access to WiFi was a problem in a number of 
locations and impacted data collection. Findings might not be generalizable to other universities. A 
confounding factor may be the relative maturity of the programs. 
 
4.3    Conclusions and Future Research 
This was the first study to use iPad technology to collect work sampling data on DPT faculty tasks and 
activities. Accurate estimates of faculty time usage could assist in resource allocation, setting of faculty goals, 
and better understanding of the nature of hybrid vs. traditional instruction. It would be beneficial to replicate 
this study in other settings to better understand the nature of faculty work and to prepare faculty and 
administrators for realistic expectations in work activities 
 
Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015 
	   3	  
 
 
Figure 1. Total frequencies of major tasks 
 
Acknowledgements 
Funding: Funded by the Health Professions Division Educational Research Grant (2012) and approved by 
the Institutional Review Board at Nova Southeastern University. 
Creation / project management iPad application: Global Reach Internet Productions: I. Zachariades &  N. 
Jellings. 
 
 
References  
Buchholz, B., V. Paquet, L., Punnett, L., D. Lee, and S. Moir. (1996). “PATH: A work sampling approach to ergonomic 
job analysis for construction and other non-repetitive work.” Applied Ergonomics, 27(3), 177-187. 
Colbeck, C. (2002). “Integration: Evaluating faculty work as a Whole.” New Directions for Institutional Research, 114, 43-
52. 
Erickson, M. (2003). “Examining the presence of computer-assisted instruction in physical therapy education.” Journal of 
Allied Health, 33(4), 255-266. 
Finkler, S. (1993). “A comparison of work-sampling and time-and-motion techniques for studies in health services 
research.” HSR: Health Services Research, 28(5), 577-597. 
Finlay, K. (2006). “In-training evaluation using hand-held computerized clinical work sampling strategies in radiology 
residency.” JACR, 57(4), 232-237. 
Hyland M., G. Pinto-Zipp, V. Olson V., and S. Lichtman. (2010). “A comparative analysis of computer-assisted instruction 
and traditional lecture instruction for administration and management topics in physical therapy education. “Journal of 
College Teaching and Learning, 7(7), 1-13. 
Jimenez, J., N. Romero, and D. Keyson. (2011). “Capturing patients’ daily life experiences after total hip replacement.” 
5th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare and Workshops. 
Karhu, O., P. Hansl, and I. Kuorinka. (1997) Correcting working postures in industry: A practical method for analysis.” 
Applied Ergonomics 8(4): 199-201. 
Lenz, T., R. Jones, and M. Monaghan. (2005). “Faculty workload comparison between a campus-based and internet-
based patient assessment course.” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 69(4):495-499. 
Page, C., and I. Ross. (2004). “Instructional strategies utilized by physical therapist clinical instructors: An exploratory 
study.” Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 18(1):43-49. 
Pagliarulo, M., and A. Lynn. (2002). “Needs assessment of faculty in professional-level physical therapist education 
programs: Implications for development.” Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 16(2), 16-23. 
Paquet, V., L. Punnett, and B. Buchholz. 2001. “Validity of fixed-interval observations for postural assessment in 
construction work.” Applied Ergonomics 32(3):215-224. 
Robinson, M. (2010). “Work sampling: Methodological advances and new applications.” Human Factors and Ergonomics 
in Manufacturing & Service Industries. 20(1), 42-60. 
Turgeon, A., and M. Thompson. (2004). “Comparison of faculty workload in resident and distance environments: the 
case of a turfgrass management course.” Journal of Natural Resources Life Science Education, 33, 102-105. 
Van der Beek, A., L. Van Gaalen, and M. Frings-Dresen. (1992) “Working postures and activities of lorry drivers: A 
reliability study of on-site observation and recording on a pocket computer.” Applied Ergonomics 23(5): 331-336. 


Where does the time go? A work sampling study of physical therapy faculty time use

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=5C732470A51D90DEF3BA8CDAAB096204?doi=10.1.1.1075.5038&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Where does the time go? A work sampling study of physical therapy faculty time use

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CiteSeerX