Research productivity of Doctor of Physical Therapy faculty promoted in the Western United States

• Published in: Scientometrics 2019-05, Vol.119 (2), p.707-719
• Main Authors: Sonne, James W. H., Dawson, Nicole T., Smith, Gerald V.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Author productivity; Computer Science; Curricula; Funding; Hirsch index; Impact factors; Information Storage and Retrieval; Library Science; Normal distribution; Physical therapy; Productivity; Promotion; Regression analysis; Statistical analysis
• ISSN: 0138-9130; 1588-2861
• DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03042-x

Little information exists on the research productivity of successfully promoted tenure-track Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) faculty. Publicly available curriculum vitae (CV) were collected from tenure-track DPT faculty who were promoted in the western United States between 2000 and 2016 in order to identify research productivity of promoted DPT faculty through publication count, journal impact factor, funding, citations, and other metrics. Forty-two subjects from 16 of the 56 CAPTE accredited DPT programs in the west were included. The faculty included in the study exhibited a median publication count of 3, ranging from 0 to 18; median of average citation count of 25.5, ranging from 0 to 752; median of average journal impact factor of 2.603, ranging from 0 to 8.330; median external funding received of $0.00, ranging from $0.00 to $3,270,000; and median author h-index of 2, ranging from 0 to 13. The median number of years before promotion was 6, ranging from 4 to 21 years. Prior to promotion 57% (24 of 46) did not receive external funding and 21% (9 of 46) had a 0 h-index. Linear regression analysis indicates a poor fit with no significant correlation overall between years before promotion and the studied metrics ( p  = 0.480). Carnegie classification of the institution did not significantly correlate overall with faculty research productivity ( p  = 0.307). CVs were non-uniformly distributed across institutions, and faculty unsuccessful in promotion were not identifiable using this method. The broad range and non-normal distribution of research productivity metrics indicates other factors are considered for successful promotion.