Translation of professionalism in physical therapy questionnaire for Portuguese of Portugal: Core values
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Physiotherapists play a key role in today’s healthcare and are recognised as the professionals in charge of rehabilitation, prevention and risk reduction [1 Jensen GM, Hack LM, Nordstrom T, et al. National study of excellence and innovation in physical therapist education: part 2 – a call to reform. Physical Therapy. 2017;97(9):875–888.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]]. Professionalism is interconnected and inherent with the profession; physiotherapists have the duty to act in an ethically correct way and for this must be governed by certain ethical principles [2 Bialocerkowski A, Johnson A, Allan T, et al. Development of physiotherapy inherent requirement statements – an Australian experience. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(54):1–13.[PubMed] , [Google Scholar]]. The evaluation of professionalism is difficult to achieve because of various qualities that should be present, and also because it is needed to use several measurement methods, particularly in complex real world contexts [3 Hodges BD, Ginsburg S, Cruess R, et al. Assessment of professionalism: recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach. 2011;33(5):354–363.[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]]. The linguistic adaptation of an instrument is carried out using the Delphi Method, which brings a group of experts where a series of rounds is conducted until consensus of the translation is reached [4 Green AR. The Delphi technique in educational research. SAGE Open. 2014;4(2):215824401452977–215824401452978.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]]. The aim of the study is the translation of the instrument Professionalism in Physical Therapy: Core Values, of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), with the intention to be used by physiotherapists in Portugal.Materials and methods The translation/back-translation was made by the Delphi Method with three rounds which were performed until de adaptation of the instrument to the Portuguese culture was achieved. A group of five experts, all with master and PhD academic degree, all with more than 25 years as Physiotherapist and Portuguese as their first language were selected.Results In order to reach consensus on the translation of the instrument, 3 rounds were carried out using the Delphi method, thus allowing linguistic equivalence to be obtained. In the 1st round of the process regarding the physical therapist's part, a 92 questions questionnaire was sent to the experts. In the 2nd round 42 questions were held and in the 3rd and final round, 5 questions were translated. Regarding the patient's part of the questionnaire, in the 1st round 18 questions were sent and in the 2nd round the number decreased to 9 questions. Consensus was achieved at 2nd round. The level of minimum agreement in each item was set to 80%, ensuring good translation and adaptation for Portuguese culture.Discussion and conclusions The aim of the study was achieved, and the linguistic translation was completed. As next step, it is needed to conduct validation of the instrument for Portuguese culture by performing a pre-test. The results of this content validation by experts will be useful to improve the standard of care, teaching and research in physiotherapy, based on a standardised instrument which allow to measure Portuguese Physiotherapists professionalism, and perform international benchmark as well.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».