Clinical reasoning process underlying choice of teaching strategies: A framework to improve occupational therapists' transfer skill interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Clinical reasoning, a critical skill influenced by education and practice context, determines how occupational therapists teach transfer skills. Teaching strategies affect intervention efficacy. Although knowledge about the way teaching strategies are chosen could help improve interventions, few studies have considered this aspect. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the clinical reasoning process of occupational therapists underlying the choice of strategies to teach older adults transfer skills. METHODS: A grounded theory study was carried out with eleven community occupational therapists recruited in six Health and Social Services Centres in Québec, Canada. Data were collected through observations of teaching situations (n = 31), in-depth semi-structured interviews (n = 12) and memos, and were analysed using constant comparative methods. Memos were also used to raise codes to conceptual categories, leading to an integrative framework. Rigour was assured by following scientific criteria for qualitative studies. RESULTS: The integrative framework includes the clinical reasoning process, consisting of eight stages, and its factors of influence. These factors are internal (experiences and elements of personal context) and external (type of transfer, clients' and their environment's characteristics and practice context). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical reasoning process underlying the choice of strategies to teach transfer skills was conceptualised into an integrative framework. Such a framework supports clinicians' reflective practice, highlights the importance of theory and practice of pedagogy in occupational therapists' education, and encourages consideration and better documentation of the possible influence of practice context on teaching interventions. As such, this integrative framework could improve occupational therapists' transfer skill interventions with older adults.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".