Interrater Reliability and Feasibility of the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric for Use in Physical Therapy Simulation

March 3, 2026 updated by: Edmund Ickert, Youngstown State University

Reliability and Feasibility of the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric Adapted for Physical Therapy (LCJR-PT) to Evaluate Clinical Judgment During Standardized Simulation Experiences in Doctor of Physical Therapy Students

This study examines whether physical therapy faculty can reliably and feasibly use the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric adapted for physical therapy (LCJR-PT) to score students' clinical judgment during a recorded simulation experience. Multiple trained faculty raters will independently score the same student videos, and the level of agreement between raters will be measured. Faculty will also report how long scoring takes and their perceptions of the rubric's usefulness.

Study Overview

Status

Recruiting

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Clinical judgment is a core competency for physical therapists required by the Commission on Accreditation of Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE), yet no validated, reliable tool specifically tested in physical therapy student populations currently exists for simulation-based assessment. The Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR), originally developed for nursing, implementing Tanner's clinical judgment model across four domains: noticing, interpreting, responding, and reflecting. This study adapts the LCJR for physical therapy (LCJR-PT) and examines its interrater reliability and feasibility when used to assess DPT students during a standardized acute care simulation.

First and second year DPT students at Youngstown State University will complete a scripted 30-35 minute acute care simulation followed by a brief reflection. Sessions will be video-recorded. Three to five trained faculty raters will independently score each recording using the LCJR-PT. Raters will undergo standardized training including rubric anchor review, practice scoring, and calibration discussion. Primary outcomes are intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for total and domain scores. Secondary outcomes include average rater scoring time per student and faculty perceptions of usability and feasibility assessed via questionnaire.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Estimated)

40

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact Backup

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Ohio
      • Youngstown, Ohio, United States, 44555
        • Recruiting
        • Youngstown State University
        • Contact:
        • Contact:
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Edmund Ickert, PhD
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Rebecca Riblet, DPT
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Laura Calcagni, DNP

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

First- and second-year Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students and full-time DPT faculty at Youngstown State University

Description

Inclusion Criteria (Students):

  • Enrolled as a 1st or 2nd year DPT student at YSU
  • Provided informed consent

Inclusion Criteria (Faculty Raters):

  • Full-time faculty member teaching in the YSU DPT program
  • Provided informed consent

Exclusion Criteria (Students):

  • Did not provide informed consent

Exclusion Criteria (Faculty):

- Did not provide informed consent

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Intervention / Treatment
Doctor of Physical Therapy Student Simulation Group
Doctor of Physical Therapy Students who will undergo a 35 minute simulation session that will be video recorded.
Other: Video Recorded Acute Care Simulation
Participants complete a routine, curriculum-based standardized acute care simulation (30-35 minutes including reflection).
Faculty Raters
A group of faculty in the Doctor of Physical Therapy program who will assess student simulation recordings using the LCJR-PT tool.
Other: Faculty Rating of Acute Care Simulation Video Using the LCJR-PT
Faculty members will assess and rate each student acute care simulation video using the LCJR-PT tool.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for LCJR-PT total and domain scores
Time Frame: Through study completion, an average of 6 months
Two-way random effects ICC model to assess interrater reliability of total scores and individual domain scores (noticing, interpreting, responding, reflecting) across 3-5 faculty raters.
Through study completion, an average of 6 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Rater Scoring Time
Time Frame: Through study completion, an average of 6 months
Average time (minutes) required for each faculty rater to score a single student video.
Through study completion, an average of 6 months
Faculty Usability and Feasibility Perception
Time Frame: Through study completion, an average of 6 months
Questionnaire including adapted System Usability Scale (SUS) items and feasibility statements
Through study completion, an average of 6 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Youngstown State University

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Estimated)

March 9, 2026

Primary Completion (Estimated)

December 1, 2026

Study Completion (Estimated)

December 1, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

February 26, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 3, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

March 4, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 4, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 3, 2026

Last Verified

March 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 2026-56

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

IPD Plan Description

No individual participant data are planned to be shared. Aggregate results will be reported in publications/presentations.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Simulation-based Learning

Clinical Trials on Video Recorded Acute Care Simulation

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Bangladesh

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Subscribe