This is the first in a series of blogs related to methodology for selecting ultrasound students.\u00a0 In general, as they used to say before the old television program of Dragnet,\u00a0\u201cthe names have been changed to protect the innocent.\u201d<\/p>\n
At the annual SDMS 2008 conference at the Foxwood Casino in Connecticut, I was standing in my Pegasus booth discussing with three ultrasound educators the difficulty they had in selecting students for their ultrasound college programs.\u00a0 To a large degree, their lamentations were related to a perception that students of recent years just did not seem to have the same work ethics, study habits, persistence, or abilities (now you see why no names will be given) as students from the years gone by (the years when we all walked to school, in snowstorms, with no shoes, carrying 350 pounds of books that we paid for by not eating for 6 weeks, up hill, both ways).\u00a0 As I asked the small group a few probing questions about current admission practices, a consensus was reached that student selection was a real issue for which a solution was truly needed.\u00a0 And, although the discussion was focused on how to select ultrasound students, I got the distinct impression that this conversation could have taken place concerning myriad other disciplines with the same conclusion.\u00a0 So I asked if the group would be interested in helping me get some research started.\u00a0 The answer was a resounding yes.<\/p>\n
So now you understand the impetus for what has become a three to four year longitudinal study, consisting of three phases.\u00a0 As I write, we are nearing the end of phase 2.\u00a0 For the benefit of those who were not at the annual SDMS conference in Nashville in October of 2009 when I presented the results of phase 1, or who cannot remember those results since, like me, you have eaten and slept since then, I will begin back at phase 1 of the study.<\/p>\n
The goal of the first phase was to gather information about how ultrasound programs were currently selecting students, to identify trends, and to see if any correlations could be determined between selection practices and student success.\u00a0 The information was collected via a survey.\u00a0 In this first write up, we will discuss the background information as relates to the survey.<\/p>\n
The paper based survey was sent out using US mail to 284 programs (yes \u2013 actual US post just a few years ago).\u00a0 Based on returned mail, we estimated that at least 25 surveys did not reach their intended recipient.\u00a0 We received 75 completed Surveys, representing 28.96% – or about half the number necessary to get a 95% confidence interval.\u00a0 The survey asked questions about program duration, number of students selected, drop out rates, admission policies, beliefs as to what characteristics are required to be good in ultrasound, etc.\u00a0\u00a0Click here<\/a>\u00a0if you would like to see the actual survey used.<\/p>\n In the next installment, I will discuss the underlying approach used in the analysis of the survey data.\u00a0 Once this is understood, we will be in good shape to discuss the actual results.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Research on How to Best Select Students for Ultrasound Programs (Part 1) This is the first in a series of blogs related to methodology for selecting ultrasound students.\u00a0 In general, as they used to say before the old television program … Continue reading