No part of this document may be produced in any form without written permission of the American Board for Certification in Orthotics, Prosthetics & Pedorthics, Inc.
Practice Analysis of ABC Certified Assistants in the Disciplines of Orthotics and Prosthetics
PES developed a survey of practice, the Practice Analysis Survey of O&P Assistants, including the
following components:
Introduction, including a description of the purpose of the survey and instructions for
completing the survey
Screening questions, to ensure that the respondents were currently working as an orthotic
and/or prosthetic assistant, and asking them to choose the perspective (orthotic or prosthetic)
from which they would complete the survey
Section 1: Tasks, including 40 tasks delineated in association with five domains of practice
Section 2: Domains, including five domains of practice
Section 3: Knowledge and Skills, including 42 knowledge statements and 20 skills statements
Section 4 (Two Versions): Depending on the perspective respondents chose in the screening
question, either orthotic or prosthetic Practice Areas and Devices, including percent of
assistant work time spent in areas of practice and activities performed in connection with
orthotic and prosthetic devices
Section 5:Qualitative Questions, including open-ended questions regarding anticipated
changes in technology, responsibilities, credentialing and quality of care. In addition, ABC
used the study to explore respondents’ reasons for pursuing the certified assistant credential
and their perceived benefits of certification
Section 6:Background Information, including questions about the respondent’s
educational and professional background, work setting and demographic characteristics
Review of Data
PES analyzed the data, developed a description of practice and developed empirically derived test
specifications.
Survey Response Rate
One hundred ninety-five (195) Certified Assistants, including orthotic, prosthetic and dually
certified assistants (COAs, CPAs and CPOAs) responded to the survey for an overall response rate
of 32%. The response rate was derived by dividing the number of completed surveys by the number
of valid invitations sent, defined as the number of invitations emailed minus those returned as
undeliverable or where the respondent was routed out of the survey due to not being in active
practice. This is a very high response rate for an online survey such as that administered in the
present study, and provides sufficient data to develop profiles of practice and test specifications.