A mixed-methods research approach to the review of competency standards for orthotist/prosthetists in Australia

Ash, Susan, O'Connor, Jacqui, Anderson, Sarah, Ridgewell, Emily, & Clarke, Leigh (2015) A mixed-methods research approach to the review of competency standards for orthotist/prosthetists in Australia. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(2), pp. 93-103.

View at publisher


Aim: The requirement for an allied health workforce is expanding as the global burden of disease increases internationally. To safely meet the demand for an expanded workforce of orthotist/prosthetists in Australia, competency based standards, which are up-to-date and evidence-based, are required. The aims of this study were to determine the minimum level for entry into the orthotic/prosthetic profession; to develop entry level competency standards for the profession; and to validate the developed entry-level competency standards within the profession nationally, using an evidence-based approach.

Methods: A mixed-methods research design was applied, using a three-step sequential exploratory design, where step 1 involved collecting and analyzing qualitative data from two focus groups; step 2 involved exploratory instrument development and testing, developing the draft competency standards; and step 3 involved quantitative data collection and analysis – a Delphi survey. In stage 1 (steps 1 and 2), the two focus groups – an expert and a recent graduate group of Australian orthotist/prosthetists – were led by an experienced facilitator, to identify gaps in the current competency standards and then to outline a key purpose, and work roles and tasks for the profession. The resulting domains and activities of the first draft of the competency standards were synthesized using thematic analysis. In stage 2 (step 3), the draft-competency standards were circulated to a purposive sample of the membership of the Australian Orthotic Prosthetic Association, using three rounds of Delphi survey. A project reference group of orthotist/prosthetists reviewed the results of both stages.

Results: In stage 1, the expert (n = 10) and the new graduate (n = 8) groups separately identified work roles and tasks, which formed the initial draft of the competency standards. Further drafts were refined and performance criteria added by the project reference group, resulting in the final draft-competency standards. In stage 2, the final draft-competency standards were circulated to 56 members (n = 44 final round) of the Association, who agreed on the key purpose, 6 domains, 18 activities, and 68 performance criteria of the final competency standards.

Conclusion: This study outlines a rigorous and evidence-based mixed-methods approach for developing and endorsing professional competency standards, which is representative of the views of the profession of orthotist/prosthetists.

Impact and interest:

1 citations in Scopus
Search Google Scholar™
1 citations in Web of Science®

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Full-text downloads:

13 since deposited on 18 Jan 2016
13 in the past twelve months

Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.

ID Code: 91967
Item Type: Journal Article
Refereed: Yes
Keywords: competence, orthotist, prosthetist, Delphi, qualitative
DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000038
ISSN: 1744-1609
Subjects: Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES (110000) > OTHER MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES (119900) > Medical and Health Sciences not elsewhere classified (119999)
Divisions: Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Health
Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Current > Schools > School of Exercise & Nutrition Sciences
Copyright Owner: Copyright 2015 The Joanna Briggs Institute
Copyright Statement: This is a non-final version of an article published in final form in International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare:
June 2015 - Volume 13 - Issue 2 - p 93–103
doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000038
Deposited On: 18 Jan 2016 05:34
Last Modified: 08 Oct 2016 15:29

Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX

Repository Staff Only: item control page