Standardized Patients versus Volunteer Patients for Physical Therapy Students' Interviewing Practice: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the use of standardized patients (SPs) and volunteer patients (VPs) for physical therapy students' interviewing practice in terms of students' perception and overall costs. METHODS: Students in the Master of Physical Therapy programme (n=80) at a Canadian university were divided into 20 groups of 4 and were randomly assigned to interview either an SP (10 groups) or a VP (10 groups). Students completed a survey about their perception of the usefulness of the activity and the ease and depth of information extraction. Survey responses as well as costs of the interview exercise were compared between SP and VP groups. RESULTS: No statistically significant between-groups difference was found for the majority of survey items. The cost of using an SP was $148, versus $50 for a VP. CONCLUSIONS: Students' perceptions of the usefulness of the activity in helping them to develop their interview skills and of the ease and depth of extracting information were similar for both SPs and VPs. Because the cost of using an SP is about three times that of using a VP, using VPs seem to be a more cost-effective option.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".