Introduction. A Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) program used Restorative Practices (RP) to address an incidence of widespread academic dishonesty. This study sought to understand the perceptions and experiences of DPT program graduates and faculty involved in the RP process and identify aspects of RP that could and should be moved forward in DPT education. Review of the Literature. Applications of RP can be found in a variety of health care and educational environments, including academic medicine, to address behavior, manage conflict, promote antiracism, and support community building. Academic integrity violations can be addressed with RP; however, no examples are published in the physical therapy literature. Subjects. Seven graduates of the DPT program and 9 full-time program faculty members were recruited from 90 graduates and 27 faculty members who participated in the RP process. Methods. A qualitative constructivist orientation was adopted. Each participant engaged in a virtual semistructured interview, which was then transcribed. A constant-comparative analysis was used to code and identify themes and subthemes in an iterative manner. Results. Three themes, with each having 3 to 4 subthemes, were identified in participants' responses: 1) inputs to circle: RP familiarity, growth over punishment, not about me, and precircle thinking; 2) being in circle: emotional responses, relationships in learning community, and characteristics of circle; and 3) outputs of circle: impact for the future, programmatic growth, not traditional approach, and participation increases appreciation. These themes and subthemes reflected the emotional and relational elements that fostered accountability and reflection for behavioral change. Discussion and Conclusion. The use of RP to address an academic integrity violation in a DPT program was the application of a non-punitive, relational, and developmental approach. Circling provided a relational “container” for dealing with challenging emotions, taking accountability, and humanizing the other. RP, including circling, may be an effective method for conflict management, professional behavior development, and promoting relationships in DPT programs.
Background and Purpose. Intentional support for new faculty development (NFD) within physical therapy education programs (PTEPs) is essential to help clinicians transition successfully into academic roles, reduce burnout, and strengthen educator capacity. Although structured NFD benefits all new faculty, this position paper emphasizes clinician-to-educator transitions given the profession's reliance on clinicians whose primary professional socialization occurs in clinical environments. Physical therapy education programs face faculty shortages, rising burnout, and rapid clinician-to-educator transitions, often compounded by limited institutional resources. When NFD is informal or inconsistent, these pressures intensify. This paper argues that PTEPs must deliberately prioritize and invest in NFD as a critical strategy to support successful transitions, faculty retention, and sustainable program performance. Position and Rationale. We assert that structured NFD is not optional enrichment but is integral to educational quality, accreditation integrity, faculty retention, and long-term program sustainability. Evidence across health professions demonstrates that new faculty frequently experience identity disruption, emotional strain, and pedagogical knowledge gaps, emphasizing the need for systematic development. Effective NFD enhances teaching effectiveness, scholarly engagement, professional identity formation, and retention. As increasing numbers of clinicians enter academia, reliance on ad hoc preparation is no longer viable. Physical therapy education program supported and prioritized NFD is, therefore, imperative. Discussion and Conclusion. Physical therapy education programs must recognize comprehensive NFD as a core responsibility and strategic investment. Ensuring access to foundational and physical therapy specific pedagogical development strengthens faculty effectiveness, retention, program quality, and accreditation readiness. This paper offers actionable recommendations for supporting meaningful participation in NFD and advancing excellence in physical therapy education.
INTRODUCTION:It is essential that students perform optimally on multiple-choice examinations such as the National Physical Therapy Examination, which is comprised entirely of multiple-choice questions. Students are frequently advised to avoid changing initial answers on multiple-choice examinations. This belief is reinforced by faculty and student misconceptions. This study investigated the frequency and impact of answer changes among physical therapy students completing anatomy examinations on a computer-based platform. REVIEW OF LITERATURE:Prior studies show that answer changing is generally beneficial. However, most studies were conducted decades ago, and only a few were found that were conducted in health care education. Almost all previously published studies used paper examinations and were limited to 3 main answer-changing patterns, whereas computer-based testing can more accurately identify patterns in how students change their answers. SUBJECTS:Subjects include 174 first-year hybrid Doctor of Physical Therapy students. METHODS:In this retrospective cohort study, participants completed 4 computer-based multiple-choice examinations. Exam snapshot data from ExamSoft were imported into MATLAB, which categorized items into 1 of 7 answer-changing patterns. Examination scores were calculated with and without answer changes. Analyses included descriptive statistics, a generalized linear mixed model, a linear mixed-effects model, Pearson correlations, and a partial correlation. RESULTS:Across 30,133 answered items, 11.3% involved an answer change, with an average of 94.07% of students changing answers. The most common change was from incorrect to correct, representing 52.41% of changed items, whereas only 12.8% of changes were from correct to incorrect. Examination scores allowing answer changes were, on average, 5% higher than scores based on initial responses. Lower-performing students changed more answers, showing greater total benefit, while higher-performing students benefited more per question. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:Students frequently changed answers on computer-based examinations, and answer changing generally improved performance. Although some students experienced detrimental changes, beneficial changes occurred far more often. Findings suggest that discouraging answer changing may disadvantage students, and educators should promote informed reconsideration of responses during multiple-choice testing.
