Workplace model for physical therapists and occupational therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to test a model linking physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) practitioners' perceptions of resonant leadership, structural empowerment and psychological empowerment to their experiences of spirit at work (SAW), job satisfaction and organizational commitment within the Canadian workplace. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The authors tested the model using LISREL 8.80 and survey data from 101 OTs and 169 PTs, randomly selected by the Alberta professional licensing associations. Content analysis of responses to the open-ended comments section provided additional depth and insight. FINDINGS: Analysis of results culminated in minor modifications to the original theoretical model, creating separate PT and OT models. Both models revealed a good fit with the observed data. Several SAW concepts accounted for moderate to large amounts of variance in both PT and OT models, indicating that SAW is a comprehensive workplace outcome. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Theory was derived from business and nursing research literature due to limited rehabilitation research literature. Discussion of OT results must consider the small sample size. This study is initial exploratory research. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Each discipline-specific model provides professionals, health care leaders and policy makers with a rich body of information upon which to base beneficial workplace decisions. SAW will guide leaders in the holistic development and enrichment of the work environment. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This research contributes to the substantive knowledge of the OT and PT disciplines, particularly in the areas of leadership, workplace structural organization and indicators of healthy work environments such as SAW, empowerment, job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".