Measuring moral judgement in physical therapy students from different cultures: a dilemma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this cross‐cultural study was to compare the level of moral judgement between two groups of students over the period of their professional physical therapy educational programmes as measured by the Defining Issues Test (DIT). Students from two entry‐level physical therapy programmes volunteered to participate. The DIT was completed at entry and exit of their respective programmes. DIT mean scores were compared using ancova controlling for age and grade point average. Thirty‐eight female, second baccalaureate degree students of diverse religious backgrounds, living in a Western culture and 13 female, first baccalaureate degree students of Islamic religious backgrounds living in an Arabic culture participated. At both entry and exit of their programmes, students from the Western group scored significantly higher on the DIT than the Arabic group (average: 51.1 and 29.9 respectively, P < 0.001). An initial score difference was anticipated given the different levels of education between the groups. Over the period of their studies, the DIT scores of the Western group increased significantly while the scores of the Arabic group remained constant. The DIT appears to not measure moral judgement uniformly across cultures. The moral dilemmas are based in Western values and offer limited insight into Arabic, Muslim moral judgement. With increasingly diverse student populations, physical therapy programmes may need to re‐examine the nature of moral judgement and adapt their curricula.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.005 |
| 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".