Discussion
This study examines the effect of self-assessment on the student’s achievement during the mid-term of PT clinical training and the level of agreement between students’ self-assessment and CE’s assessment at the end of the training. No significant difference was noted in CE’s final APP score between groups; both groups showed a significant improvement in their outcomes (∆S). The level of agreement between CE’s assessment and the student’s self-assessment at the end of the training was not significantly different between groups. In addition, students who tended to rate themselves with a higher score than the CE achieved significantly lower scores in the CE’s assessment than other students. These students were generally in an earlier stage of academic and clinical education. Of them, students in the IG changed their perception, assessed themselves the same as the CE or even less, and achieved better scores at the end of the training. No effect of CE’s characteristics on students’ scores and the level of agreement was found.The primary hypothesis of this study was that a mid-term self-assessment process through PT clinical training would significantly improve students’ final scores and accuracy compared to the CG. This hypothesis was based on previous studies where student achievement changes were seen following self-assessment procedures [What might explain the difference between this study and previous studies’ outcomes? First, in previous studies, the focus was mainly on students’ technical performance [A second possible explanation may be associated with the amount of experience needed for performing an effective self-assessment. In Abiad (2018) study, students were trained to perform self-assessments for an entire year, significantly improving their self-assessment accuracy. A review by Boud & Falchikov (1989) concluded that graduate students, and students who have been in academic studies for a relatively long period, more than three years, had a more accurate self-assessment when compared to junior students. In this study, senior students who had previous experience with the APP, fourth-year students, or students that underwent at least one clinical training were more accurate in their self-assessment than junior students, third-year students or those with only one clinical training. Information was gathered concerning students’ academic experience in PT, not about other academic experiences in other fields.A possible methodological explanation for the fact that no difference was found between groups in the final scores is a “ceiling effect”. Both groups present high median scores in the mid-term assessments; according to these grades, the improvement range- up to 80- is limited. In addition, both groups received high scores at the end of the training (median score 73/80).Students in the IG who overestimated their abilities at the mid-term demonstrated a significant improvement as assessed by the CE at the end of the training. In addition, they rated themselves lower than the CE at the end of the training. This change can be attributed to integrating the self-assessment process in the mid-term assessment meeting.As indicated in a previous review [The main strength of this study is that randomization took place only after the completion of student evaluations by the CE in the mid-term. Another strength of this study is the fact that it was conducted under clinical settings.