1

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

“ Every professional is forged on the anvil of education, he is as

competent as the kind of education with which he is fashioned.
That is why quality education for quality professionals has always
been an advocacy of the Professional Regulation Commission.”
(Pobre, 2000 )

The Medical Technology profession may be considered as one of the most

important health care professions. Though medical technologists have limited contact

with patients the information they provide is critical to the appropriateness of care

provided by nurses, family physicians, surgeons, pharmacists and other health

professionals. Each depends, in part, on accurate laboratory data to help plan or

implement treatment and care for the individual patient (Clerc, 1992).

Clinical Laboratory Science or Medical Technology is a profession concerned

with providing information based on the performance of analytes on human body

substances to detect evidence of or prevent disease or impairment and to promote and

monitor good health. The four walls of the laboratory do not bind the profession because

the field is constantly changing in response to new technologies, health care cost-

containment pressures and variations in health care needs; the nature of the work for

medical technologists broadens each year (Clerc, 1992).

Technological and scientific advancements, changing social needs, awakened

social consciousness, changing medical practices, new attitude towards hospitalization

and resulting changes in the responsibilities of the medical technology graduate must
 2

necessarily demand innovations in the preparation of professional medical technologists.

If medical technologists do not make the corresponding changes they might find

themselves unemployed as their services may no longer be relevant.

In the same manner, educational planners for the medical technology profession

must be knowledgeable of these changes that directly and indirectly affect the medical

technologists so that steps can be taken to meet these changes. According to Rogers, the

wise are those who foresee the coming events and seek to shape their institutions to mold

the thinking of the people in accordance with the most constructive change.

To learn the practice of Medical Technology, the student must be provided

opportunities to gain knowledge through study and experiences, to apply knowledge in

the clinical setting and to acquire skills and appreciation needed to practice the

profession. College and clinical education (internship) are designed to prepare each

student to be a competent medical technologist (Semrad, 1975).

The academic world and the school community expect educational institutions of

higher learning to educate students with academic excellence in mind. The government

through its agencies encourages schools of medical technology to maintain or elevate

quality of education. One arm of the government is the Professional Regulation

Commission (PRC) which evaluates academic excellence through board, bar and civil

examinations. A graduate has to pass a corresponding test as a requirement for

professional practice. It also serves as an evaluation on the quality of students graduated

by schools and colleges through one of its department the Educational Statistics Task

Force (ESTF). (ESTF-PRC, 2000).

 3

Colleges and universities today are faced with many problems in the preparation

of students for the board examination and clinical practice. The maintenance of high

standards of academic excellence and the production of graduates competent enough to

practice the profession, are two of the major problems.

The performance of graduates in licensure examinations is associated with many

factors. Many authors agree that no isolated factor can be exclusively identified as the

major and singular factor affecting success in the medical technology licensure

examinations.

Many variables affecting board examination performance have been investigated;

however, no investigator has explored on academic, clinical and seminar ratings. It is in

this light that the researcher ventured to conduct a study on predictive values of

academic, clinical, seminar ratings and the board examination performance. It will

attempt to find out how much variation each of the variables cause on the board

examination performance of the medical technology graduates.

 4

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 depicts the paradigm of the study, which is premised on the assumption

that the academic, clinical and seminar ratings of the Medical Technology graduates

contribute to their board examination performance.

The study attempts to give data on the predictive values of each of the

independent or predictor variables on the dependent variable. It also gives information

on how the combined independent variables relate to the dependent variable and as

separate variables.

The independent or predictor variables include academic, clinical and seminar

ratings. The academic ratings of the Medical Technology graduates would refer to the

general weighted average of the graduates in the different subject areas taken during third

year college. These subjects include Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology-Parasitology,

Hematology, Serology-Immunology, Clinical Microscopy and Histopathology-Medical

Technology Laws and Ethics. The term would also relate to the weighted average of the

board examinees in the different subject areas enumerated.

The effect of academic training in each of the subject areas mentioned, as

reflected by the graduates’ grades, on the board examination rating in the same subject is

also ascertained through this study.

The process box presents the processes used to meet the objective of the study.

First, the data needed in the study was obtained through documentary analysis of records

found at the College of Allied Medical Professions, the Office of the University Registrar

of Angeles University Foundation and at the Records Section of the Professional

Regulation Commission (PRC). To determine the predictive values of each of the

 5

independent variables on the board examination performance of the Medical Technology

graduates, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (Pearson r), linear and

multiple regression analysis using the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

version 9.05 was utilized. Based on the computed values, the researcher interpreted the

printouts of the program and then constructed a regression equation to be used in

predicting the board examination performance of the Medical Technology graduates.

The end result, as presented in the output box, would be a report on the predictive

values of the independent variables on the board examination performance of Medical

Technology graduates.

INPUT
Academic Ratings of
Medical Technology
graduates in: Clinical
Chemistry, Microbiology-
Parasitology, Hematology,
Serology-Blood Banking,
Clinical Microscopy,
Histopathology- MT Laws
and Ethics
Clinical and Seminar
Ratings of graduates
Board Examination
Ratings of Medical
Technology Graduates
Figure 1. Paradigm of the study
6
PROCESS OUTPUT
1. Documentary Analysis Report on the
Predictive Values of
2. Statistical Analysis
a. Linear Regression Academic, Clinical and
b. Multiple
Regression Seminar Ratings on the
3. Interpretation Board Examination
Performance of Medical
Technology Graduates
 7

Statement of the Problem

The study attempted to determine the predictive values of academic, clinical and

seminar ratings on the board examination performance of Medical Technology graduates.

It was specifically designed to answer the following questions:

1. How may the Medical Technology graduates be described in terms of the

following:

1.1 Academic Ratings

1.2 Clinical Ratings

1.3 Seminar Ratings

1.4 Board Examination Performance?

2. How may the academic ratings of the Medical Technology graduates be described in

the following areas:

2.1 Clinical Chemistry

2.2 Microbiology-Parasitology

2.3 Hematology

2.4 Serology-Blood Banking

2.5 Clinical Microscopy

2.6 Histopathology-Medical Technology Laws and Ethics?

3. How may the board examination performance of the Medical Technology graduates

be described in the following areas:

3.1 Clinical Chemistry

3.2 Microbiology-Parasitology

3.3 Hematology
 8

3.4 Serology-Blood Banking

3.5 Clinical Microscopy

3.6 Histopathology-Medical Technology Laws and Ethics?

4. Do the following variables have predictive values on the board examination

performance of the Medical Technology graduates:

4.1 Academic Ratings

4.2 Clinical Ratings

4.3 Seminar Ratings?

5. Do the academic ratings of the Medical Technology graduates in the following

subject areas have predictive values on the board examination performance in the

corresponding subject areas:

5.1 Clinical Chemistry

5.2 Microbiology-Parasitology

5.3 Hematology

5.4 Serology-Blood Banking

5.5 Clinical Microscopy

5.6 Histopathology-Medical Technology Laws and Ethics?

6. How may the results of this study improve Medical Technology education?
 9

Null Hypothesis

1.The following variables have no predictive values on the board examination

performance of the Medical Technology graduates:

a. Academic Ratings

b. Clinical Ratings

c. Seminar Ratings

2.The academic ratings of the Medical Technology graduates in the following subject

areas have no predictive value on the board examination performance in the

corresponding subject areas:

a. Clinical Chemistry

b. Microbiology-Parasitology

c. Hematology

d. Serology-Blood Banking

e e. Clinical Microscopy

f f. Histopathology-Medical Technology Laws and Ethics

Assumptions

The researcher in this study considered the following set of generalizations:

1. The content of the licensure examination has been made part of the

curriculum.

2. The graduates of the course Bachelor of Science in Medical Technology

were able to successfully meet the demands of the course.

 10

3. The board of examiners for Medical Technology prepared the licensure

examination questions following accepted and valid set of guidelines.

4. All the board examinations administered were at the same level of

difficulty.

5. The board of examiners for Medical Technology set the passing score for

each of the board examination participated in by the graduates using the same set

of guidelines.

Significance of the Study

The national government agency charged with the regulation and supervision of

professions like Medical Technology is the Professional Regulation Commission. The

latter dictates that before anyone may practice the profession, he/she must have passed a

licensure examination given by the Board of Medical Technology, a regulatory board

under it.

In this regard, obtaining the degree BSMT does not automatically qualify anyone

to practice the profession. As dictated by R.A. 5527, no one without a valid license will

be allowed to work as Medical Technologist; hence, the objective “ to help in the

promotion of optimal health and function through application of scientific principles to

effectively meet the existing and emerging health care needs” may not become a reality

(Rabor, 1998).

The result of this study would suggest means to improve the board examination

performance of the school through the reduction in the number of failures in every

examination. Only through the identification of the factors or forces that contribute to the
 11

emergence of such an event can one have ultimate control. Rogers wrote “ The wise are

those who foresee the coming events and seek to shape their institutions to mold the

thinking of the people in accordance with the most constructive change.”

The primary objective of this investigation is to provide valuable information to

the instructors, professors, deans and administrators for further improvement of pre-board

examination preparations. All would be possible through close monitoring of academic

predictors, which are the subject of this research.

The study will give the true predictive values of the variables in question.

Previous studies undertaken did not perform true predictive analysis; instead, the

predictive value of the relationship and not of the individual ratings or scores was

achieved and presented.

If variables like academic performance and seminar grades are significantly

related to the dependent variable and were found to be predictors of the latter, more

attention will be allotted to these subject areas and consultations will have to be made to

improve existing practices in the said areas.

The study would also be used as basis for apportioning lecture and coaching hours

during in-house reviews. Subjects where most of the graduates got low grades in, if

proven to be significantly related would be given extra coaching and lecture hours. It

should be noted that 185 hours is allotted to coaching and lecture activities of the yearly

in-house review for Medical Technology.

The research will also form basis for recommending and/or advising students to

take the licensure examination. Indirect evaluation and assessment of course contents

and teaching strategies will be made possible.

 12

Pre-board examination activities will also be modified to improve further the

licensure examination. Mock board examinations in subject areas where graduates are

found to be weak at will be given more emphasis.

Research studies will also spring from this investigation. If clinical performance

is correlated and has a predictive value, a further study would be conducted on which

affiliation center produces better graduates using the board examination ratings as basis.

Lastly, the results of the study may lead to modifications in teaching-learning

situations, projects and activities implemented to contribute to the improvement of

Medical Technology education and the upliftment of the profession.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study was undertaken to establish the predictive values of the independent

variables, on the board examination performance of Medical Technology graduates of

1995 to 2000. The independent variables include the academic, clinical and seminar

ratings.

The academic ratings are represented by the grades of the graduates in clinical

subjects given during their third year in college. The subjects include Clinical Chemistry,

Microbiology & Parasitology, Hematology, Serology & Blood Banking, Clinical

Microscopy and Histopathology & Medical Technology Laws & Ethics. Microbiology

and Parasitology grades were combined such that the former would be 70% of the

combined grade and Parasitology 30%. The combined grade in Serology and Blood

Banking was represented by 50% of each. For Histopathology and MTLE, 85% was the

weight of Histopathology and the remainder for MTLE. The academic ratings of the
 13

graduates in these subject areas were correlated to the board examination performance of

the same subjects in the corresponding subject areas and their individual predictive values

determined.

The average of the academic ratings was computed based on their weights. All

subjects were given 20% weight while Clinical Microscopy and Histopathology-MTLE

both had a weight of 10%, for the sum to constitute a 100%. The general weighted

average in the clinical subjects was used during the multiple regression analysis.

The combined relationships of academic, clinical and seminar ratings were

computed using the multiple regression analysis. The variable with the greatest effect

was identified and a regression equation was formulated to predict the board examination

rating of the graduates as affected by the variables under study.

The seminar ratings were represented by the average of the grades of the

graduates in Seminar I and II. The clinical ratings represented the internship grades of

the graduates given during their fourth year. Variables like mock board examination

results, affiliation centers and admission ratings were not included in this study.

The target population for the study consists of the Medical Technology graduates

of Angeles University Foundation who graduated from 1995 – 2000. The subjects in this

study are all Medical Technology graduates who have taken the licensure examination

once and on the same year as their graduation, regardless of whether they passed or not.

Graduates from April 1994 were not included since their academic ratings are not

expressed in percentage but in the point system.

 14

Respondents included 169 Medical Technology graduates of 1995 to 2000.

Graduates who were once irregular students and those who took the board examination

more than once were not included in this study.

Definition of Terms

To provide a common frame of reference, the following terms are defined

according to how they are used in the study.

Academic Ratings. In this study, it refers to the general weighted average of the

graduates in the clinical subjects during third year college.

Affiliation Centers. Refers to the hospitals from which the Medical Technology

graduates were trained in actual laboratory determinations. (Medical Technology

Internship Manual, 2001)

Bachelor of Science in Medical Technology. The four-year course program whose

main goal is to contribute objective and accurate laboratory data that will aid in

the diagnosis of various disease processes. As a paramedical profession, it

includes the following areas: Hematology, Blood Banking, Immunology and

Serology, Clinical Chemistry, Bacteriology, Parasitology, Clinical Microscopy

and Histopathology. These are designed to develop students’ capabilities in

performing laboratory tests designed to help the medical practitioner establish or

confirm clinical diagnosis, or aid in making a differential diagnosis that will

ultimately influence the management of the patient (CAMP Bulletin, 2000).

Blood Banking. This subject area deals with the study of fundamental of blood group

specific antibodies and antigens, mechanics of blood typing and crossmatching,

 15

Coomb’s test, detection of antibodies and measurement of titers, as well as the

proper way of reading and reporting results. (CAMP Bulletin, 2000)

Board Examination. This term may be synonymously used with the term licensure

examination and refers to the examination given by the Board of Medical

Technology of the Professional Regulation Commission, which is designed to

measure the examinee’s academic and clinical expertise about Medical

Technology. (Rabor, 1998)

Board Examination Performance. The general rating in the examination given by the

Board of Medical Technology for the practice of Medical Technology, expressed

in percentage. Computed by multiplying the scores by the percentage allotment

in each subject, the summation of which will result in the board examination

rating. This term will also relate to the ratings of the examinee in each of the

following subject areas: Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology-Parasitology,

Hematology, Serology-Blood Banking, Clinical Microscopy and Histopathology-

Medical Technology Laws & Ethics.

Clinical Chemistry. Subject area, which deals with the analysis of various chemical

metabolites in the blood and includes also the study of clinical enzymes,

electrolytes, endocrine glands, hormones and the most common toxins. This

subject is offered as Clinical Chemistry 1 and 2. (CAMP Bulletin, 2000)

Clinical Chemistry Ratings. For the purpose of this study, the term refers to the subject

area in the board examination, which consists of questions in Clinical Chemistry

and constitutes 20% of the board examination ratings of the graduates.

 16

Clinical Microscopy. The subject area deals with the macroscopic, chemical and

microscopic study of the different non-blood fluids and their by-products such as

urine, feces, sputum, gastric and duodenal contents, cerebrospinal fluid, synovial

fluid, transudates, exudates, sweat, seminal fluid, vaginal and amniotic fluid.

(CAMP Bulletin, 2000)

Clinical Microscopy Ratings. For the purpose of this study, the term refers to the subject

area in the board examination, which consists of questions in Clinical Microscopy

and constitutes 10% of the board examination ratings of the graduates.

Clinical Ratings. In this study it would refer to the knowledge or skills acquired in the

clinical area or community attained through observation and scores in written

examination expressed in percentage. It is computed as the average grade

obtained from 12 months internship training as rated by the staff of each

affiliation centers and the clinical instructors for Medical Technology.

Hematology. This subject area deals with the fundamentals of blood as a tissue,

including its physical characteristics. (CAMP Bulletin, 2000)

Hematology Ratings. For the purpose of this study, the term refers to the subject area in

the board examination, which consists of questions in Hematology and constitutes

20% of the board examination ratings of the graduates.

Histopathology. Alternately used with Histopathologic techniques or Histopath. It is a

subject area which involves the different procedures performed in the processing

of tissue sections from either biopsy or autopsy, and staining techniques employed

and the proper procedures in performing them.

 17

Histopathology-Medical Technology Laws & Ethics Ratings. For purpose of this study,

the term refers to the subject area in the board examination, which consists of

questions in Histopathology and Medical Technology Laws and Ethics. The

average is computed by multiplying the grade in Histopathology with 0.85 and

0.15 for MTLE. (Rabor, 1998)

Medical Technology. Also known as Clinical Laboratory Science, it is a profession

concerned with providing information based on the performance of analytical

tests on human body substances to detect evidence of or prevent disease or

impairment and to promote and monitor good health (Clerc, 1992).

Medical Technology Laws and Ethics (MTLE). This subject area includes the study of

the history of the Medical Technology profession both local and abroad, and other

professional organizations for Medical Technologists. It also studies deeply the

Medical Technology Law of 1969 and other related laws. (Rabor, 1998)

Microbiology. The subject includes study of microbes: bacteria (Bacteriology), virus

(Virology), and fungi (Mycology). (CAMP Bulletin, 2000)

Microbiology-Parasitology Ratings. In this study, it would refer to the subject area given

in the board examination, which includes questions in Microbiology and

Parasitology. The average grade is computed by multiplying the grades by 0.7

and 0.3 respectively.

Mock-Board Examination. An examination given to both Medical Technology and

Physical Therapy graduates after the in-house review and a month before the

actual board examination. The purpose of the test is to measure their readiness

before the scheduled licensure examination.

 18

Parasitology. The subject area emphasizes the study of the biology and ecology of

parasites affecting man. It also includes the study of the morphology, life cycle,

physiology, and pathogenesis of the parasites affecting man. (CAMP Bulletin,

2000)

Performance. The execution of an action; an act or process of carrying out something.

Predictive Value. Operationally defined as how well the academic, clinical and seminar

ratings can forecast board examination performance. It also referred to how much

of the variation in dependent variable, board examination performance, is caused

by the academic, clinical and seminar ratings.

Seminar ratings. In this study it would represent the average grade to course Seminar I

and II given during fourth year college. Each seminar grade is computed based

from the average monthly revalida grade (50%), research study (30%), behavior

(5%) and attendance (15%). (Medical Technology Internship manual, AY 2000

– 2001)

Serology and Immunology. This subject area deals with the study of antigen and

antibody reactions as applied to the human body in both normal and in disease

conditions. (CAMP Bulletin, 2000)

Serology-Blood Banking Ratings. This subject area in the licensure examination

represents the rating of the graduates Serology and Blood Banking. It consists of

fifty questions in Serology and the same number of questions in Blood Banking

and is computed by adding the values or grades in each subject then the sum

divided by two. (Rabor, 1998)