Index to Chiropractic Literature

• Lawson D
• Lafave MR
• London C
• Derbyshire P
• Cross K

Purpose: The primary focus of this paper is to report the early steps used by Mount Royal to start the curriculum model process.

Methods: The Mount Royal Chiropractic Curriculum Development Committee (CCDC) developed an on-line survey and focus group questions on the knowledge, skills and abilities required to be a chiropractor. Eight sections were established: chiropractic expert, communicator, collaborator, manager, health advocate, scholar, professional, and educator. The on-line survey solicited feedback through responses to two hundred and four quantitative questions and fifteen qualitative questions were collected in the on-line survey. Respondents were asked to answer the quantitative components related to the question at two different points, when they entered practice, and currently. A 5-point scale was used (4 = extremely well prepared; 3 = Well prepared; 2 = somewhat prepared; 1 = minimally prepared; 0 = not at all prepared/not applicable). Respondents were encouraged to write comments. Qualitative data were collected from four focus groups held in Calgary (two), Edmonton and Red Deer. Participants were randomly selected by city of practice, and 31 of 40 invited chiropractors attended. Focus group participants had graduated from six different chiropractic colleges. Data were categorized into four major areas: knowledge, skills, attitudes, and experiences. Participants had an opportunity to suggest experiences that Mount Royal should ensure all graduates would have prior to graduation such as business knowledge and skills, practical experiences (what, when and how) and group effectiveness skills.

Results: Two hundred and twenty five (225) chiropractors responded to the on-line survey. Mean scores for how respondents felt about the eight categories upon commencement of practice and currently (in brackets) were: chiropractic expert, 2.45 (2.50); communicator 1.71 (1.86); collaborator, 1.37 (1.52); manager, 1.56 (1.70); health advocate, 2.13 (2.04); scholar, 1.75 (1.84); professional, 2.17 (1.94); and educator, no questions asked. Seventy-five pages of qualitative comments were collected in the on-line survey. The information was analyzed to identify themes and supporting information within themes. Participants felt it was important to build practical experiences into the curriculum, early and often.

Discussion: Respondents felt they were reasonably well prepared in the chiropractic expert category, but less prepared for communicator, collaborator, manager, and scholar categories. Respondents felt modestly prepared for the health advocate and professional categories. These themes were reinforced in the qualitative comments. The CCDC has attempted to fill the gaps, or ill-prepared components in the curriculum that were identified by respondents of the survey. There are several significant limitations of this study. There were only 225 respondents to the on-line survey. There was no attempt to randomly choose respondents across the western Canadian provinces and responses may not be representative of entire chiropractic population. Focus group sample size was small and localized.

Conclusion: Mount Royal has utilized internal and external expertise in the drafting of a chiropractic curriculum. Chiropractors from the western provinces have been able to participate in focus groups and on line surveys. Although only a small part of the curriculum development has been completed, both the survey and focus groups have supported the process.

This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher.

• Association of Chiropractic Colleges / conference proceedings