Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 30;11:99–106. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S231946

Table 2.

Student Perceptions of the Statements Related to Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Course

Statement Year Students Matriculated into Medical School
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
A) Academic Workload/Demands on Student Time Mean (SEM) 4.31 (0.08) 3.60 (0.08)*, *** 3.89 (0.05)††† 4.08 (0.05)### 4.28 (0.07) 4.46 (0.06)
N (%) 52 (100%) 45 (83%) 79 (96%) 86 (83%) 65 (63%) 82 (78%)
B) Incorporation of Clinically Relevant Material Mean (SEM) 4.47 (0.09) 3.95 (0.09)**, *** 4.35 (0.06) 4.42 (0.05) 4.31 (0.07)* 4.57 (0.06)
N (%) 52 (100%) 44 (81%) 78 (95%) 86 (83%) 65 (63%) 82 (78%)
C) Fairness of Summative Assessments in Course Mean (SEM) 4.42 (0.08) 3.89 (0.08)*, *** 4.04 (0.05)††,††† 4.17 (0.05) 4.33 (0.07) 4.37 (0.05)
N (%) 52 (100%) 45 (83%) 79 (96%) 86 (83%) 64 (62%) 81 (77%)
D) Helpfulness in Preparing You for USMLE® exams Mean (SEM) 3.55 (0.07) *** 2.58 (0.08)††,††† 3.14 (0.04) 3.03 (0.04) 2.94 (0.07) 3.71 (0.06)###
N (%) 46 (88%) 40 (74%) 72 (88%) 73 (71%) 47 (46%) 62 (59%)
E) Appropriateness of Teaching Methods Mean (SEM) 4.23 (0.08) 3.41 (0.07)*** 4.06 (0.05)††,††† 4.33 (0.05) 4.11 (0.06)## 4.41 (0.05)
N (%) 52 (100%) 46 (85%) 79 (96%) 86 (83%) 64 (62%) 82 (78%)
F) General Module Organization Mean (SEM) 4.23 (0.08) 3.13 (0.07) *** 3.66 (0.04)††† 4.14 (0.05)# 4.03 (0.06)### 4.38 (0.05)
N (%) 52 (100%) 45 (83%) 79 (96%) 86 (83%) 65 (63%) 82 (78%)
G) Overall Module Quality Mean (SEM) 4.37 (0.08) 3.57 (0.07)*** 3.97 (0.05)††† 4.13 (0.05) 4.11 (0.06) 4.46 (0.06)###
N (%) 52 (100%) 46 (85%) 78 (95%) 86 (83%) 65 (63%) 82 (78%)

Notes: Results are reported as the mean of the Likert scale responses (Mean) and standard error of the mean (SEM). Likert Scale descriptors with associated point values: Very Dissatisfied = 1, Dissatisfied = 2, Neutral – Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied = 3, Satisfied = 4, Very Satisfied = 5. N= number of students responding to statement. % = percent of students responding to statement. A) ***p<0.001 2013 vs 2012, 2015, 2016, and 2017. *p<0.05 2013 vs 2014. †††p<0.001 2014 vs 2012, 2016 and 2017. ###p<0.001 2015 vs 2017. B) ***p<0.001 2013 vs 2012, 2015, and 2017. **p<0.01 2013 vs 2014 and 2016. *p<0.05 2016 vs 2017. C) *p<0.05 2013 vs 2015. ***p<0.001 2013 vs 2012, 2016, and 2017. ††p<0.01 2014 vs 2016. †††p<0.001 2014 vs 2017. D) ***p<0.001 2012 vs 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. †††p<0.001 2013 vs 2014, 2015, and 2017. ††p<0.01 2013 vs 2016. ###p<0.001 2017 vs 2014, 2015 and 2016. E) ***p<0.001 2013 vs all other years. ††p<0.01 2014 vs 2015. †††p<0.001 2014 vs 2017. ##p<0.01 2016 vs 2017. F) ***p<0.001 2013 vs all other years. †††p<0.001 2014 vs all other years. #p<0.05 2015 vs 2017. ###p<0.001 2016 vs 2017. G) ***p<0.001 2013 vs all other years. †††p<0.001 2014 vs 2012 and 2017. ###p<0.001 2017 vs 2015 and 2016.