Trainees’ Perceptions of Practitioner Competence During Patient Transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Technical and communicative skills are both important features for one's perception of practitioner competence. PURPOSE: This research examines how trainees' perceptions of practitioner competence change as they view health care practitioners who vary in their technical and communicative skill proficiencies. METHODS: Occupational therapy students watched standardized encounters of a practitioner performing a patient transfer in combinations of low and high technical and communicative proficiency and then reported their perceptions of practitioner competence. RESULTS: The reports indicate that technical and communicative skills have independently identifiable impacts on the perceptions of practitioner competency, but technical proficiency has a special impact on the students' perceptions of practitioner communicative competence. CONCLUSIONS: The results are discussed with respect to the way in which students may evaluate their own competence on the basis of either technical or communicative skill. The issue of how this may lead trainees to dedicate their independent learning efforts to an incomplete set of features needed for the development of practitioner competency is raised.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".