What Clinical Instructors Want: Perspectives on a New Assessment Tool for Students in the Clinical Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many Canadian physical therapy education programs use the 1997 version of the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT-CPI) to evaluate students in their clinical placements. Recent evidence that clinical instructors (CIs) are unsatisfied with the PT-CPI, however, suggests a need to develop a new assessment tool. The purpose of this study was to gather Canadian CIs' perspectives on rating scales, preferred training methods, and format for future tool development. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study involved five focus groups from across Canada. English-speaking CIs who had supervised at least one Canadian student in clinical practice were eligible for the study. RESULTS: Participants identified concerns with the PT-CPI and indicated a preference for (1) more objective rating scales with clearly defined anchors, (2) both in-person and online training methods for CIs, and (3) a tool that could be completed and reviewed on paper or online. CONCLUSIONS: CIs affirmed the need to develop a new assessment tool. RESULTS of the study will be used to inform the development of a new assessment tool to better evaluate Canadian physical therapy students' performance in the clinical setting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".