PTJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


PHYS THER
Vol. 71, No. 3, March 1991, pp. 190-202

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by May, B.
Right arrow Articles by Dennis, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by May, B.
Right arrow Articles by Dennis, J.

Article

Expert decision making in physical therapy--a survey of practitioners

BJ May and JK Dennis

Department of Physical Therapy, School of Allied Health Sciences, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta 30912-0800.

Four hundred American and 384 Australian physical therapists, nominated by their peers as expert clinicians, were studied to evaluate whether a particular cognitive style was prevalent among expert clinicians, to identify preferred sources of information for clinical decision making, and to determine the similarities and differences between American and Australian therapists. Results were based on usable survey responses from 348 American and 290 Australian therapists. Eighty-eight percent of the American therapists and 82% of the Australian therapists identified themselves as working primarily in general practice, orthopedics, or neurology. The physical therapy assessment and interviews with the patient were the preferred sources of information in both countries. The physician's referral and communications with other health care personnel were reported to be of limited value as sources of information by most respondents. Overall, both groups responded most positively to the receptive style of data gathering and the systematic style of information processing. Therapists working primarily with neurologically impaired patients responded most positively to the preceptive style of data gathering and the intuitive style of information processing. Therapists working primarily with patients with orthopedic disorders responded most positively to the systematic style of information processing.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ptjournalHome page
I. Edwards, M. Jones, J. Carr, A. Braunack-Mayer, and G. M Jensen
Clinical Reasoning Strategies in Physical Therapy
Physical Therapy, April 1, 2004; 84(4): 312 - 330.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ptjournalHome page
E. J. Hendriks, J. J Kerssens, J. Dekker, R. M Nelson, R. A. Oostendorp, and J. van der Zee
One-Time Physical Therapist Consultation in Primary Health Care
Physical Therapy, October 1, 2003; 83(10): 918 - 931.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ptjournalHome page
D. J Bartlett and R. J Palisano
Physical Therapists' Perceptions of Factors Influencing the Acquisition of Motor Abilities of Children With Cerebral Palsy: Implications for Clinical Reasoning
Physical Therapy, March 1, 2002; 82(3): 237 - 248.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ptjournalHome page
G. M Jensen, J. Gwyer, K. F Shepard, and L. M Hack
Expert Practice in Physical Therapy
Physical Therapy, January 1, 2000; 80(1): 28 - 43.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by the American Physical Therapy Association.