CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

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

education with which he is fashioned.That is why quality education for quality professionals
has alwaysbeen an advocacy of the Professional Regulation Commission.”

(Pobre, 2000 )The Medical Technology profession may be considered as one of the
mostimportant health care professions. Though medical technologists have limited
contactwith 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 concernedwith providing information based on the
performance of analytes on human bodysubstances to detect evidence of or prevent
disease or impairment and to promote andmonitor good health. The four walls of the
laboratory do not bind the profession becausethe 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, awakenedsocial
consciousness, changing medical practices, new attitude towards hospitalizationand
resulting changes in the responsibilities of the medical technology graduate must

necessarily demand innovations in the preparation of professional medical technologists.If

medical technologists do not make the corresponding changes they might findthemselves
unemployed as their services may no longer be relevant.In the same manner, educational
planners for the medical technology professionmust be knowledgeable of these changes
that directly and indirectly affect the medicaltechnologists so that steps can be taken to
meet these changes. According to Rogers, thewise are those who foresee the coming events
and seek to shape their institutions to moldthe thinking of the people in accordance with
the most constructive change.To learn the practice of Medical Technology, the student must
be providedopportunities to gain knowledge through study and experiences, to apply
knowledge inthe clinical setting and to acquire skills and appreciation needed to practice
the profession. College and clinical education (internship) are designed to prepare
eachstudent 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 governmentthrough its agencies
encourages schools of medical technology to maintain or elevatequality of education. One
arm of the government is the Professional RegulationCommission (PRC) which evaluates
academic excellence through board, bar and civilexaminations. 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).

Colleges and universities today are faced with many problems in the preparationof
students for the board examination and clinical practice. The maintenance of highstandards
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 manyfactors. Many authors agree that no isolated factor
can be exclusively identified as themajor and singular factor affecting success in the
medical technology licensureexaminations.Many variables affecting board examination
performance have been investigated;however, no investigator has explored on academic,
clinical and seminar ratings. It is inthis light that the researcher ventured to conduct a
study on predictive values of academic, clinical, seminar ratings and the board examination
performance. It willattempt to find out how much variation each of the variables cause on
the boardexamination performance of the medical technology graduates.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 depicts the paradigm of the study, which is premised on the assumptionthat the
academic, clinical and seminar ratings of the Medical Technology graduatescontribute to
their board examination performance.The study attempts to give data on the predictive
values of each of theindependent or predictor variables on the dependent variable. It also
gives informationon how the combined independent variables relate to the dependent
variable and asseparate variables.The independent or predictor variables include
academic, clinical and seminar ratings. The academic ratings of the Medical Technology
graduates would refer to thegeneral weighted average of the graduates in the different
subject areas taken during thirdyear college. These subjects include Clinical Chemistry,
Microbiology-Parasitology,Hematology, Serology-Immunology, Clinical Microscopy and
Histopathology-MedicalTechnology 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, asreflected by the
graduates’ grades, on the board examination rating in the same subject isalso 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
recordsfound at the College of Allied Medical Professions, the Office of the University
Registrar of Angeles University Foundation and at the Records Section of the
ProfessionalRegulation Commission (PRC). To determine the predictive values of each of
the independent variables on the board examination performance of the Medical
Technologygraduates, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient
(Pearson r), linear andmultiple 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 p r i n t o u t s o f t h e
p r o g r a m a n d t h e n c o n s t r u c t e d a r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n t o b e u s e d i n predi
cting the board examination performance of the Medical Technology graduates.The end
result, as presented in the output box, would be a report on the predictivevalues of the
independent variables on the board examination performance of
MedicalTechnology graduates

Statement of the Problem

The study attempted to determine the predictive values of academic, clinical andseminar
ratings on the board examination performance of Medical Technology graduates.It was
specifically designed to answer the following
questions:1 . H o w m a y t h e M e d i c a l T e c h n o l o g y g r a d u a t e s b e d e
s c r i b e d i n t e r m s o f t h e 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 inthe following areas:

2.1Clinical Chemistry
2.2Microbiology-Parasitology
2.3Hematology
2.4Serology-Blood Banking
2.5Clinical Microscopy
2.6Histopathology-Medical Technology Laws and Ethics?
3.How may the board examination performance of the Medical
T e c h n o l o g y g r a d u a t e s be described in the following areas:

3.1 Clinical Chemistry

3.2Microbiology-Parasitology
3.3Hematology
3.4Serology-Blood Banking
3.5Clinical Microscopy
3.6Histopathology-Medical Technology Laws and Ethics?

4.Do the following variables have predictive values on th

e b o a r d e x a m i n a t i o n performance of the Medical Technology graduates:

4.1Academic Ratings
4.2Clinical Ratings
4.3Seminar Ratings?

5.Do the academic ratings of the Medical Technology

g r a d u a t e s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g subject areas have predictive values on the
board examination performance in thecorresponding subject areas:
5.1Clinical Chemistry
5.2Microbiology-Parasitology
5.3Hematology
5.4Serology-Blood Banking
5.5Clinical Microscopy
5.6Histopathology-Medical Technology Laws and Ethics?

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

Null Hypothesis

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

i n a t i o n performance of the Medical Technology graduates:a. Academic Ratings b. Clinical
Ratingsc. Seminar Ratings2.The academic ratings of the Medical Technology graduates in
the following
subjecta r e a s h a v e n o p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e o n t h e b o a r d e x a m i n a t i o n p
e r f o r m a n c e i n t h e corresponding subject areas:a. Clinical Chemistry b. Microbiology-
Parasitologyc. Hematologyd. Serology-
Blood Bankinge e . C l i n i c a l M i c r o s c o p y ff. H
istopathology-Medical Technology Laws and Ethics
Assumptions

The researcher in this study considered the following set of generalizations:1 . T h e

content of the licensure examination has been
m a d e p a r t o f t h e curriculum.2 . T h e g r a d u a t e s o f t h e c o u r s e
B a c h e l o r o f S c i e n c e i n M e d i c a l T e c h n o l o g y were able to successfully
meet the demands of the course.

3.The board of examiners for Medical Technology

p r e p a r e d t h e l i c e n s u r e examination questions following accepted and valid set
of guidelines.4 . A l l t h e
board examinations administered were at the sa
m e l e v e l o f difficulty.5 . T h e b o a r d o f e x a m i n e r s f o r M e d i c a l
T e c h n o l o g y s e t t h e p a s s i n g s c o r e f o r each of the board examination
participated in by the graduates using the same setof 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. Thelatter dictates that before anyone may practice the
profession, he/she must have passed alicensure examination given by the Board of
Medical Technology, a regulatory boardunder it.In this regard, obtaining the degree
BSMT does not automatically qualify anyoneto practice the profession. As dictated by R.A.
5527, no one without a valid license will b e a l l o w e d t o w o r k a s M e d i c a l
T e c h n o l o g i s t ; h e n c e , t h e o b j e c t i v e “ t o h e l p i n t h e promotion of optimal
health and function through application of scientific principles toeffectively
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 p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e s c h o o l t h r o u g h t h e r e d u c t i o n i n
t h e n u m b e r o f f a i l u r e s i n e v e r y examination. Only through the identification of the
factors or forces that contribute to the emergence of such an event can one have ultimate
control. Rogers wrote “ The wise arethose who foresee the coming events and seek
to shape their institutions to mold thethinking of the people in accordance with the
most constructive change.”The primary objective of this investigation is to provide valuable
information tothe instructors, professors, deans and administrators for further
improvement of pre-boardexamination preparations. All would be possible through
close monitoring of academic predictors, which are the subject of this
research.T h e s t u d y w i l l g i v e t h e t r u e p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e s o f t h e
variables in question.Previous studies undertaken did not perform tru
e predictive analysis; instead, the predictive value of the
r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d n o t o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l r a t i n g s o r s c o r e s w a s achieved and
presented.I f v a r i a b l e s l i k e a c a d e m i c p e r f o r m a n c e a n d s e m i n a r g r a d e s a r e
significantlyrelated to the dependent variable and were found to be
p r e d i c t o r s o f t h e l a t t e r , m o r e attention will be allotted to these subject areas and
consultations will have to be made toimprove existing practices in the said areas.The study
would also be used as basis for apportioning lecture and coaching hoursduring 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. Itshould be noted that 185 hours is allotted to coaching and lecture activities of the
yearlyin-house review for Medical Technology.The research will also form basis for
recommending and/or advising students totake the licensure
examination. Indirect evaluation and assessment of course contentsand teaching
strategies will be made possible.
Pre-board examination activities will also be modified to improve further
thelicensure examination. Mock board examinations in subject areas where
graduates arefound to be weak at will be given more emphasis.Research studies will also
spring from this investigation. If clinical performanceis correlated and has a predictive
value, a further study would be conducted on whichaffiliation center produces
better graduates using the board examination ratings as basis.Lastly, the results of the
study may lead to modifications in teaching-
learnings i t u a t i o n s , p r o j e c t s a n d a c t i v i t i e s i m p l e m e n t e d t o c o n t r i b u t e t o
t h e i m p r o v e m e n t o f 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

independentvariables, 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 clinicalsubjects given during their third year in
college. The subjects include
ClinicalChemistry,M i c r o b i o l o g y & P a r a s i t o l o g y , H e m a t o l o g y , S e r o l o g y & B l
o o d B a n k i n g , C l i n i c a l Microscopy and Histopathology & Medical Technology
Laws & Ethics. Microbiologya n d P a r a s i t o l o g y g r a d e s w e r e c o m b i n e d s u c h
t h a t t h e f o r m e r w o u l d b e 7 0 % o f t h e combined grade and Parasitology
30%. The combined grade in Serology and BloodBanking was represented
by 50% of each. For Histopathology and MTLE, 85% was theweight of
Histopathology and the remainder for MTLE. The academic ratings of
thegraduates in these subject areas were correlated to the board examination performance
of the same subjects in the corresponding subject areas and their individual predictive
valuesdetermined.The average of the academic ratings was computed based on
their weights. Allsubjects were given 20% weight while Clinical Microscopy
and Histopathology-MTLE b o t h h a d a w e i g h t o f 1 0 % , f o r t h e s u m
t o c o n s t i t u t e a 1 0 0 % . T h e g e n e r a l w e i g h t e d average in the clinical subjects was
used during the multiple regression
analysis.T h e c o m b i n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f a c a d e m i c , c l i n i c a l a n d s e m i n a r r a
t i n g s w e r e computed using the multiple regression analysis. The variable with
the greatest effectwas identified and a regression equation was formulated to predict
the board examinationrating of the graduates as affected by the variables under
study.T h e s e m i n a r r a t i n g s w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e a v e r a g e o f t h e
 g r a d e s o f t h e 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 examinationresults, affiliation centers and admission ratings were not
included in this study.The target population for the study consists of the Medical
Technology graduatesof Angeles University Foundation who graduated from 1995 –
2000. The subjects in thisstudy are all Medical Technology graduates who have
taken the licensure examinationonce and on the same year as their
graduation, regardless of whether they passed or not.G r a d u a t e s
from April 1994 were not included since their academic ratings are
n o t expressed in percentage but in the point system.

Respondents included 169 Medical Technology graduates of 1995 to 20

0 0 . Graduates who were once irregular students and those who took the board
examinationmore than once were not included in this study.

Definition of Terms

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

d e f i n e d according to how they are used in the study.

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

a v e r a g e o f t h e graduates in the clinical subjects during third year college.
Affiliation Centers. Refers to the hospitals from which the Medical
T e c h n o l o g y graduates were trained in actual laboratory determinations. (Medical
TechnologyInternship Manual, 2001)
Bachelor of Science in Medical Technology. The four-year course program whosemain
goal is to contribute objective and accurate laboratory data that will aid int h e
diagnosis of various disease processes. As a paramedical profession,
i t includes the following areas: Hematology, Blood Banking, Immunology
andSerology, Clinical Chemistry, Bacteriology, Parasitology, Clinical Microscopy
and Histopathology. These are designed to develop
s t u d e n t s ’ c a p a b i l i t i e s i n performing laboratory tests designed to help the medical
practitioner establish
or c o n f i r m c l i n i c a l d i a g n o s i s , o r a i d i n m a k i n g a d i f f e r e n t i a l d i a g n o s i s t
h a t w i l l ultimately influence the management of the patient (CAMP Bulletin, 2000).

Blood Banking. This subject area deals with the study of fundamental of blood
groupspecific antibodies and antigens, mechanics of blood typing and
crossmatching

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
licensuree x a m i n a t i o n a n d r e f e r s t o t h e e x a m i n a t i o n g i v e n b y t h e
B o a r d o f M e d i c a l Technology of the Professional Regulation Commission,
which is designed
tom e a s u r e t h e e x a m i n e e ’ s a c a d e m i c a n d c l i n i c a l e x p e r t i s e a b o u t
M e d i c a l Technology. (Rabor, 1998)
Board Examination Performance. The general rating in the examination given
by theBoard of Medical Technology for the practice of Medical Technology, expressedin
percentage. Computed by multiplying the scores by the percentage allotmenti n
each subject, the summation of which will result in the board
e x a m i n a t i o n rating. This term will also relate to the ratings of the examinee in
each of thef o l l o w i n g s u b j e c t a r e a s : C l i n i c a l C h e m i s t r y , M i c r o b i o l o g y -
P a r a s i t o l o g y , Hematology, Serology-Blood Banking, Clinical Microscopy and
Histopathology-Medical Technology Laws & Ethics.
Clinical Chemistry. Subject area, which deals with the analysis of various
chemicalm e t a b o l i t e s i n t h e b l o o d a n d i n c l u d e s a l s o t h e s t u d y o f c
l i n i c a l e n z y m e s , electrolytes, endocrine glands, hormones and the most
common toxins. Thissubject 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 subjectarea
in the board examination, which consists of questions in Clinical Chemistryand constitutes
20% of the board examination ratings of the graduates.

Clinical Microscopy. The subject area deals with the macroscopic,

c h e m i c a l a n d microscopic study of the different non-blood fluids and their by-products
such asurine, feces, sputum, gastric and duodenal contents, cerebrospinal fluid,
synovialfluid, transudates, exudates, sweat, seminal fluid, vaginal and amniotic fl
uid.(CAMP Bulletin, 2000)

Clinical Microscopy Ratings. For the purpose of this study, the term refers to the
subjectarea in the board examination, which consists of questions in Clinical
Microscopyand 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 theclinical area or community attained through observation and scores in
writtene x a m i n a t i o n e x p r e s s e d i n p e r c e n t a g e . I t i s c o m p u t e d a s t h e
average
gradeo b t a i n e d f r o m 1 2 m o n t h s i n t e r n s h i p t r a i n i n g a s r a t e d b y t
h e s t a f f o f e a c h affiliation centers and the clinical instructors for Medical Technology.

Hematology. This subject area deals with the fundamentals of blood

a s a t i s s u e , including its physical characteristics. (CAMP Bulletin, 2000)

Hematology Ratings. For the purpose of this study, the term refers to the subject area inthe
board examination, which consists of questions in Hematology and constitutes20% of the
board examination ratings of the graduates.Histopathology. Alternately used with
Histopathologic techniques or Histopath. It is asubject area which involves the different
procedures performed in the processingof tissue sections from either biopsy or autopsy,
and staining techniques employedand the proper procedures in performing them.

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. Theaverage is computed by multiplying the grade in Histopathology
with 0.85 and0.15 for MTLE. (Rabor, 1998)
Medical Technology. Also known as Clinical Laboratory Science, it is
a professionconcerned with providing information based on the performance of
analyticalt e s t s o n h u m a n b o d y s u b s t a n c e s t o d e t e c t e v i d e n c e o f o r
p r e v e n t d i s e a s e o r 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 theMedical 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 giveni n t h e b o a r d e x a m i n a t i o n , w h i c h i n c l u d e s q u e s t i o n s i n M
i c r o b i o l o g y a n d Parasitology. The average grade is computed by multiplying
the grades by 0.7and 0.3 respectively.
Mock-Board Examination. An examination given to both Medical Technology
andPhysical Therapy graduates after the in-house review and a month before
theactual board examination. The purpose of the test is to measure their
readiness before the scheduled licensure examination.

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
muchof 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 Iand
II given during fourth year college. Each seminar grade is computed basedfrom
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
o f a n t i g e n a n d antibody reactions as applied to the human body in both
normal and in diseaseconditions. (CAMP Bulletin, 2000)S e r o l o g y -
Blood Banking Ratings. This subject area in the
l i c e n s u r e e x a m i n a t i o n 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 Bankinga n d i s c o m p u t e d b y a d d i n g t h e
v a l u e s o r g r a d e s i n e a c h s u b j e c t t h e n t h e s u m divided by two. (Rabor, 1998)