Giving insights into an ICF training: evaluation of an in-person interactive ICF training in Germany.
Michaela Kirschneck, Sandra Kus, Michaela Coenen
PMID 39082053WHAT IT FOUND
Participants reported the training improved their ICF skills and met expectations.
However, many struggled with the classification's hierarchical structure and specific qualifiers. Therapists should expect to need extra practice or time to master coding and linking methods.
Key findings
01Most participants rated the training as well-organized and relevant to their work, with 82.1% recommending it to others.
02While basic concepts were understood, only about half of the participants correctly answered questions about the hierarchical structure of the ICF and component-specific qualifiers.
03Participants requested more case studies for children, young people, and mental health contexts, and suggested splitting the training into two full days.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The evaluation used a self-developed, self-administered questionnaire without reported validation of its psychometric properties. Data collection was anonymous and parts were assessed separately, preventing direct comparison of individual knowledge gain against specific feedback. The participant group was heterogeneous, including social workers and administrators alongside clinicians, which may dilute the relevance of findings for specific therapy disciplines. There was no control group or comparison to other training methods, so the effectiveness of this specific in-person format cannot be isolated. Response rates for the knowledge test (85.9%) and feedback (79.1%) were not 100%, introducing potential selection bias.
Declared interests
The authors are affiliated with LMU Munich, which developed and delivered the training being evaluated. No external funding sources or commercial conflicts of interest were declared in the text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the high satisfaction ratings as evidence that participants achieved competency in ICF coding. The knowledge test results show significant gaps in understanding the hierarchical structure and qualifiers, meaning participants may feel confident while still lacking the technical skill to apply the ICF accurately in clinical documentation.