Use of simulated patients for a student learning experience on managing difficult patient behaviour in speech-language pathology contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A student learning experience about managing difficult patients in speech-language pathology is described. In 2006, 40 students participated in a daylong learning experience. The first part of the experience consisted of presentations and discussions of different scenarios of interpersonal difficulty. The theoretical introduction was followed by an active learning experience with simulated patients. A similar experience without the simulated patients was conducted for 45 students in 2010. Both years of students rated the experience with an overall grade and gave qualitative feedback. There was no significant difference between the overall grades given by the students in 2006 and 2010. The qualitative feedback indicated that the students valued the experience and that they felt it added to their learning and professional development. The students in 2006 also provided detailed feedback on the simulation activities. Students endorsed the experience and recommended that the learning experience be repeated for future students. However, the students in 2006 also commented that they had felt inadequately prepared for interacting with the simulated patients. A learning experience with simulated patients can add to students' learning. The inclusion of simulated patients can provide a different, but not automatically better, learning experience.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".