Development of a Tool to Measure Clinical Competence in Occupational Therapy: A Pilot Study?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical competence is generally defined as a combination of knowledge, skill and professional behaviour. It is typically assessed using written tests, direct observation, chart audit, client satisfaction surveys and supervisor ratings. This paper describes the development and evaluation of a chart-stimulated recall (CSR) measure that combines the methods of chart audit and clinician interview to assess the clinical competence of practicing occupational therapists. The CSR tool was developed using the Canadian Guidelines for Client-Centred Practice and taps global domains of competence: use of theory, assessment, program planning, intervention, discharge planning, follow-up, program evaluation, clinical reasoning and professional behaviours. This pilot study involved two independent raters/interviewers who assessed twelve occupational therapy clinicians on two occasions using a random sample of client cases/records on each occasion Results indicate that the CSR tool is not only reliable and valid, but also sufficiently generic to be used in a variety of practice settings as a global measure of on-the-job performance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".