The development of expertise in paediatric rehabilitation therapists: The roles of motivation, openness to experience, and types of caseload experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: A transdisciplinary approach was taken to study the nature of variables associated with the development of expertise in 71 paediatric rehabilitation therapists (i.e. physical, occupational, speech, behavioural, and recreational therapists). METHODS: Six groups of practising therapists were identified based on expertise status (novice, intermediate, and expert, as determined by a multifaceted assessment battery), and their level of clinical experience (10 years or less, more than 10 years). Scores for these six therapist groups were examined on three variables generally considered to be associated with the development of expertise--motivation, openness to experience (as defined by the critical-thinking dispositions of truth-seeking, open-mindedness, and cognitive maturity), and features of their clinical caseload experience (i.e. breadth of experience as measured by number of different client age groups worked with, the complexity of clients' needs, and experience in delivering services to adolescents, school-age children, preschoolers, and infants). RESULTS: Low-experience experts ('young stars') had the highest motivation, truth-seeking, and open-mindedness scores of all groups, the highest percentage of clients with complex service needs, and were more likely to work with adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: The major differences between therapists who attain expertise quickly versus those who remain novices after many years of experience appear to be motivation and complexity of work experiences. Implications for supporting the development of expertise in practising therapists are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".