Talk:Doctor of Physical Therapy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rzheng12135.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Prescribing authority

Are DPT's able to prescribe medication? I have heard that DPT's are able to prescribe if they are military and also that some states, but not all, allow certain meds but not all to be prescribed by DPT's and in other states DPT's are unable to prescribe any medication, not even reccomend over-the-counter meds. Thanks.

DPT's have no different rights that any other practicing PT. In the military PT's are allowed to prescribe certain medications and order diagnostic imaging...much in the same rights of a Physician Assistant or Nurse Practitioner. Military allows PTs to be considered Physician Extenders. This does not translate to the civilian world. In most states there are laws allowing PT's to have direct access to patients; most of these however are limited by commercial insurance and Medicare. The allowance of prescribing OTC medication is debatable and is dependent on that particular state practice act. StonerDPT 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The DPT degree

The June 22 2007 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education has a great article on the rise of professional doctorates from professional M.S. degrees in the U.S. (focusing on physical and occupational therapy), and concerns related to them. JJL 18:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Although the APTA states their "Visions" or should we say "marketing campaign", that the DPT is superior to the MSPT or even the BSPT. The fact remains that those who have previously completed an accredited physical therapy training program either the BSPT or MSTP hold the exact same license and have the exact same scope of practice as any DPT grad. It may be their "vision" that converting the degree to something with the word "doctor" in it will grant physical therapists more power and autonomy. However, nothing has changed yet; and if any changes do occur, than any new rights and privileges will also be granted to anyone else holding a state license to practice physical therapy (i.e. BSPT and MSTP grads). Jwri7474 (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

License and Scope of Practice

It should be noted that both the license to practice and scope of practice between a BSPT, a MSPT, and a DPT physical therapist is exactly the same. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Your edit summary states: "Please source your claim that an MSPT grad and a DPT grad don't hold equal licenses and scope of practice." I don't see that claim anywhere. I'm not sure what the editor meant, but "equally qualified" doesn't have to mean anything more than basic therapeutic skills, and that happens to be true. That's how I, a PT, understood it. Don't read too much into it. Why edit war over something when both of you are making unsourced statements? -- Fyslee / talk 04:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To say that they are not equally qualified would suggest that the DPT graduate would be able to do things that an MSPT grad would not be able to do (i.e. that they had a different scope of practice or held a license with fewer restrictions). This is untrue. Thanks. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the diff for that statement. -- Fyslee / talk 05:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The diff? You mean site my sources? (Trust me.. I will very shortly). I do think you should equally be telling the other editor to be siting their sources when claiming that MSPT and DPT have different scope of practice and hold different licenses. Thanks.Jwri7474 (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I want to see the diff for your claim that the other editor is stating something to the effect that the degrees "have different scope of practice and hold different licenses." I don't see that matter being addressed at all. You are reading that into a rather neutral wording. I have solved the problem for both of you by removing all the unsourced editorializing. No more edit warring or you're both going to get reported. -- Fyslee / talk 05:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. I will refrain from any further editing without a source. That is fair. However, I will edit this document soon to include the information that I obtain from my source along with a link to my source. Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'm still waiting for the diff. You made a charge against another editor and you need to provide the evidence. -- Fyslee / talk 06:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That is no problem. I don't mind doing that. However, actually they are the one who deleted the word "equally" from the article. So I do think that they made a charge against me stating that they were not equal. So, they also have the responsibility of providing a source for their claim as well. Jwri7474 (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So, I've obtain a source. An email direct from a US state board of PT. They confirmed that the scope of practice and the license held between all PTs in the US regardless of degree held (bachelors, masters, or doctorate) is exactly the same. [1]Jwri7474 (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough. I am not questioning the issue of scope of practice and license at all. You are correct. My contention is that you have made a charge against another editor, when I see no evidence that they have used those words at all. As far as I can tell, those words first appeared when you started using them as a charge. It seems like you have enlarged the issue, thus creating a straw man charge, which you have then leveled at the other editor.

Here is the disputed phrase, which is unsourced editorializing that is not allowed here. Let's try to resolve this matter. I have underlined the point of dispute between the two of you:

• "However, those who have graduated with either the BSPT (Bachelor of Physical Therapy) or the MSPT (Master of Physical Therapy) degrees are still considered equally qualified to practice physical therapy."

I deleted the whole sentence to solve the matter. Your restoration of the phrase without consensus is very disappointing. That's edit warring and I will report you if you restore it again.

If you want to make the point you have been making in your charge against the other editor, you need to use different wording, and back it up with a source. An email isn't considered a RS here. Here is a proposed wording, which must NOT be introduced until you have the documentation (which should be easy to find):

• "However, those who have graduated with either the BSPT (Bachelor of Physical Therapy) or the MSPT (Master of Physical Therapy) degrees have the same scope of practice and license, regardless of degree held, and are in practice considered equally qualified to perform physical therapy services."

You still haven't provided a diff of the other editor's edit which mentions that issue using those words. Maybe that editor used those words in their edit, or maybe their edit summary. The diff will reveal that. Please provide it. -- Fyslee / talk 14:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You only said provide your source. I did that. I stated before that I would restore the information once I had a verifiable source for my claim. You didn't mention this was a problem then. Also, an email directly from someone in charge from a US state board of Physical Therapy who regulates the profession is a first hand source. If the info is not worded clearly enough on their website, then I needed to clarify it via email. I don't understand why this source is unacceptable. It is a much better source than a quote from some 3rd party website. Also, I first placed the information on the article. The other editor deleted the word "equally". Thus wouldn't they be making a charge against me and not the other way around. Obviously he/she disagrees and feels they are not equally qualified to practice physical therapy.

Maybe I'm confused.. Diff? Apparently I'm not sure what you mean by this. I tried to clarify this in my earlier post and I was under the impression that you confirmed that by "diff" you meant a "verifiable source". I provided you with a statement from the Kentucky Board of PT... If this is not what you're after.. then can you please explain further what you mean by "diff". Sorry for the confusion. Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of a diff: [2]. JJL (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that.. sorry. Yeah, the diff was that the word "equally" was being subtracted from the sentence.

Lastly, I can request statments from every other US state board of PT on the matter, but I'm willing to bet that they will all state the exact same thing. So if the boards, you, and everyone else are all in agreement that they are equally qualified physical theraists with the same scope of practice.. then what is wrong with replacing the statement on the article? Jwri7474 (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you are confused about the meaning of "diff" here at Wikipedia. A "diff" is a special type of link that documents an exact spot in the edit history. It shows the content before and after an edit. JJL has provided an example of a "diff". At Wikipedia it isn't an abbreviation of the normal meaning of "difference", as you use it here: "the diff was that the word "equally" was being subtracted from the sentence." If chosen properly, a good diff such as this one does show that exact difference you are referring to. Now I may confuse you...."diff" does mean "difference",... but here at Wikipedia it has a special meaning and refers to a URL link showing an exact difference between edits. Yes, this is esoteric Wikipedia terminology. Don't worry. You'll learn this all with time. You can read more about diffs here.

Thank you for that.  :) I apologies for the confusion. Jwri7474 (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• You wrote above: "You only said provide your source." No, I asked you to provide a diff. Here is a diff that shows the first time I made such a request: [3] Here at Wikipedia, diffs are used all the time as documentation for many things, since they point to the original edit and never change.
• As to proper sourcing, you need third party sources, not emails, unless they are published in third party sources. You need to read WP:V & WP:RS very carefully. It should be possible to find what you're looking for on the APTA website. Unless you can find it on some V & RS, then your proposed wording would be a violation of two rules here: WP:SYNTH & WP:OR. No matter if it is true (and I believe it is), it must not be included in the article without such sourcing. That's the way Wikipedia works. Unsourced content that is disputed can be removed at any time:
• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." - Source: Verifiability

-- Fyslee / talk 04:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with this is that it is the APTA which created the DPT and is who’s mission it is for the public to view it as a superior qualification (biased). It is the State boards of PT who actually provide the license to practice PT in the United States and they are a more reliable source I feel. Jwri7474 (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well both would be reliable sources for their own POV, and especially if there is a difference, they should both be used. Go for it and find those sources. -- Fyslee / talk 06:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Title Doctor and Overuse of APTA Source Material

Recent edits seem to be adding large amounts of text from APTA web pages and also removing opinions from outside the profession. This leads to a dull and unbalanced article. The claim that physical therapists have as much as 14 years of training surely needs to be sourced. The use of 'doctor' here is certainly contentious and that should be addressed--casually describing DPTs as 'doctors' is POV. JJL (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a doctor of physical therapy and I have been through 10 1/2 years of education. I have also worked with other Physical therapists who have been in school as long as I have or longer (up to 14 years). You are clearly uneducated on this subject and are interested in an agenda rather than the current state of the profession. As a doctor I resent you attempt to define our profession. Your anti-physical therapy bigotry has no place in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equanimous1 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on contributions, not contributors. Personal attacks are not tolerated here. ElKevbo (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You may have had that much education, but the standard is 3-4 years of college as a prereq. and 3-3.5 years in the DPT program, which may be in a combined program of 6-7 calendar years' duration. A postgraduate residency is not being in school--it's additional training that often appears in a (non-academic) medical setting. How can a person be in school for physical therapy for 14 years? I'm relying on the articles from The Chronicle and the NY Times that I cited, and similar material. There is clearly criticism of the degree and that can't be censored from Wikipedia. JJL (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Information you have presented is false and misleading. A bachelors degree was required prior to the start of my DPT program (4 years) and then the programs are at minimum 3 calendar years and at most 4 calendar years. Somehow you have derived a total of 6-7 calendar years of duration for this. Your math is wrong and the duration should be 7-8 calendar years with a minimum of 8 academic years. Post graduate residency and or fellowship is very much being in school. I had weekly tests that were both oral and written. I had regular labs that I had to participate in. I had presentations that I had to give on current evidence, and daily work to complete which would not be required if I was not in a residency. It is one of the hardest times that you will ever work. Again the contributions made are false and in an attempt to cast a negative light on the degree. You should leave the editing of this article to people who have it and have taught in these settings. I have done both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.195.64 (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In this encyclopedia, the only valid information we can use to edit articles is that supported by reliable sources. Personal experience means very little if it's not supported by valid, reliable sources. This is particularly true if you are trying to contradict or remove information that is already supported by reliable sources as we're always going to go with the New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education over the word of an anonymous Wikipedia editor. ElKevbo (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

My information has been cited by reliable sources and it was removed anyway. I originally wrote the article and it was changed and deleted. The quote from the NY times article is also misquoted. The quote states "Six to eight years of collegiate and graduate education generally earn pharmacists, physical therapists and nurses the right to call themselves doctors". The quote was addressing multiple professions and not just the profession of physical therapy. For a more accurate description of physical therapy education you can see the references that I have provided which give exact statistics on the specific profession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equanimous1 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your latest edits but I did so mostly on grounds of style and not because I have an egregious problem with the content. Specifically, the new material:

1. Needs to be integrated into the article, not just tossed into it. This is particularly noticeable because carelessly adding the new material results in two separate sections addressing the same topic.

2. Should be shortened and summarized. It seems very wordy to me and a bit repetitive in places.

3. Should draw from diverse sources. It seems a bit...incestuous in its selection of biased sources.

The first and second issues should be relatively easy to address. The third is probably much more difficult and in fact may be impossible or even unreasonable so I could understand if it couldn't ever be addressed to my complete satisfaction. ElKevbo (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

My content continues to be unfairly censored despite the fact that I have numerous sources from the peer reviewed medical literature. It has been deleted numerous times without legitimate cause. There is obviously an agenda here to spin the DPT in a negative light. I think that editors from the APTA should be given this article and allowed to edit it. I am amazed at the anti-physical therapy bigotry here and I would like for it to be cleaned up and fairly represented. (Equanimous1 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC))

Are you sure an "author response" is really peer-reviewed? A "fact sheet"? You can't just use APTA sources--that's unbalanced. JJL (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added 8 peer reviewed sources to this article which is 8 more than it had to begin with. The fact sheet was published in a peer reviewed journal although I cited the fact sheet itself rather than the journal it was published in. (Equanimous1 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC))

Use of The Title Doctor

This section contributes to the haphazard and inconsistent style of Wikipedia articles on doctoral degrees. There is no corresponding sections in other areas of study and practice. In Wikipedia articles ranging from Doctor of Pharmacy to Doctor of Fine Arts there is no section on Use of Title Doctor.

This section currently discusses the merits of the degree compared to other professions and degree requirements. (1) The merits of the degree in relation to the topic of "credential creep" and degree requirements has nothing to do with whether or not the holder of the degree should be called doctor or use the title of doctor. (2) Wikipedia articles are to avoid biased disceptation. Partisanship on credential creep and degree standards relative to other professions is matter of controversy and the professional contentions should be argued in appropriate forums instead of using Wikipedia to advance one bias or another. That the unresolved prejudices on the issue have citations does not make them factual encyclopedic information.

For these reasons I have removed the following text until a consensus on an unbiased approach consistent with articles on other doctorates e,g. pharmacy can be agreed upon:

The DPT degree has been described as an example of "credential creep" or degree inflation in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Citing concerns that the DPT, and similar professional doctorates in areas such as occupational therapy, do not meet the standards of traditional doctorate degrees, the journal states: "The six-and-a-half-year doctor of physical therapy, or DPT, is rapidly replacing a six-year master's degree ... The American Physical Therapy Association ... has not set separate requirements for doctoral programs. To be accredited they need only meet the same requirements as master's programs."[24]

Critics question whether the rigor of the physical therapy curriculum and the current scope of practice warrant the conferral of a professional degree similar to that characteristic of medicine, dentistry, or veterinary medicine.[25] Proponents counter that the existing curricula are "victims of 'curricular inflation'."[26] As Rothstein[27] and Moffat[28] noted, the previous master's and even baccalaureate curricula rival that of most other doctoral programs, and these curricula often require more than the typical 72 credits mandated for a doctoral degree.[29] The 2000 Fact Sheet from APTA reported that the mean number of credits required for the professional phase of the typical baccalaureate program was 83.0 credits and that the typical master's degree program required 95.5 credits.[30] As of 2009 the typical number of prerequisite credits was 114.2 and the total number of professional credits was 116.5 for a total of 230.7 credit hours.[31] This is well in excess of the typical 72 professional credits mandated for a doctoral degree. Additional credit hours may be earned in residency and fellowship as well. Threlkeld et al[32] suggest that the scope of existing physical therapy curricula already matches that of a professional doctorate, further submitting that students of a well-defined DPT program will have earned the right to be recognized with the doctoral title.[33 Tomandzeke (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This material is well-sourced and relevant to this particular topic. The fact that other similar articles don't have a similar section is irrelevant. If you can find reliable sources that discuss other degrees then feel free to add similar material to the appropriate articles. (In fact, the Doctor of Education article already has some similar material, particularly in its discussion of the EdD.)

Further, that the cited sources have a distinct point of view does not mean that this article itself or its editors have an inappropriate point of view. Significant sources document controversy about this subject therefore it's incumbent upon us to document that controversy; we have done so appropriately. ElKevbo (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So be it but the section heading needs work. Under the heading Use of the title Doctor one would expect the section to state nothing further than how the degree holder is to to be addressed and how the degree holder can use the title of doctor in written documents. Perhaps someone could compose a better heading than Use of the title Doctor since the issue of credential creep and the discussion of educational requirements to justify the level of the degree do not seem to fit neatly under that heading. If it is incumbent upon us to document that controversy, perhaps a heading somehow worded to include the concept of controversy over the comparative validity of the degree and educational standards for the degree would better reflect the content of the section.Tomandzeke (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Would a simple title like "Controversy" or "Criticism" be sufficient or do you think it should be more descriptive? ElKevbo (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the straightforward simplicity of the suggestion "Controversy" Should it be plural? Tomandzeke (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)