article · South African Journal of Physiotherapy
Background: Variations in external examination processes across South African universities may challenge the validity of physiotherapy assessments. Our study explores external examiners’ understanding of moderation and academic standards. Objectives: This study aimed to describe the examination processes and external examiners’ perceptions of academic standards in South African physiotherapy programmes. Method: A descriptive cross-sectional survey using a self-administered questionnaire sent to all eight universities that offer a physiotherapy degree in South Africa. The total population size was 103. Results: Practices include appointing the same external examiner for up to 2 years (n = 4), using the same examiner for reassessments (n = 3), and assigning examiners across all modules regardless of expertise (n = 2). Five institutions allocate clinical blocks specifically, and four expose students to all clinical areas. External examiners assess all third- and fourth-year students at five institutions and receive procedural orientation via written guidelines (n = 5). Feedback is typically shared orally (n = 5) or in a university-formatted written report (n = 3). A 10% mark difference is acceptable at two institutions; others lack clear criteria. Internal and external marks carry equal weight, and two universities apply sub minima for clinical safety and effectiveness. Moderation samples span high to low scoring scripts (n = 4). Contingency plans for examiner cancellations are in place at all institutions. Indicators of good performance include evidence-based practice (88%), alignment with departmental outcomes (71%), and meeting examiners’ assessment expectations (50%). Conclusion: Clarification of the external examiner’s role is needed in the absence of formal guidelines from governing bodies. Clinical implications: Findings can guide consistent competency standards and also support the Health Professions Council in evaluating physiotherapy training institutions.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.4102/sajp.v82i2.2305
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.