Perception gaps in anatomical competence: a multi-stakeholder assessment of physical therapy graduate preparedness and clinical capability

PurposeHuman anatomy remains foundational to clinical practice, yet reduced instructional hours raise concerns about graduate competence and preparedness for patient care. Although trainees often report confidence, supervisors may perceive deficiencies, creating a gap between self-assessment and external evaluation. This study examined stakeholder perspectives on anatomical competence within physical therapy education to identify areas of discordance in perceived capability. MethodsA cross-sectional web-based survey collected responses from 165 stakeholders associated with an entry-level Doctor of Physical Therapy program featuring a 16-week dissection curriculum. Participants rated four domains of anatomical competence using a 5-point ordinal scale. Group differences were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test appropriate for ordinal data. This methodology ensured robust assessment of stakeholder perceptions and comparative analysis. ResultsMedian ratings of preparedness and capability were 4 of 5 (quite prepared). Significant discordance emerged in three domains: recent graduates rated their foundational knowledge and ability to explain complex concepts to lay audiences higher than faculty or clinical instructors, whereas faculty expressed lower confidence in graduates ability to explain patient symptoms using anatomical principles. No significant differences were observed in the ability to describe structures by location, suggesting shared perceptions of basic anatomical understanding despite variation in applied reasoning. ConclusionsStakeholders generally viewed graduates as well prepared, yet disagreement persisted regarding clinical application of anatomical knowledge. Faculty skepticism about symptom explanation indicates that mastery of anatomy alone does not guarantee clinical reasoning. Curricular strategies emphasizing vertical integration and explicit connections between anatomical science and patient-centered reasoning may help bridge perception gaps and enhance professional competence.