MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical reasoning process underlying choice of teaching strategies: A framework to improve occupational therapists' transfer skill interventions

2012· article· en· W2042067530 on OpenAlex
Annie Carrier, Mélanie Levasseur, Denis Bédard, Johanne Desrosiers

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersMinisterstvo Školství, Mládeže a Tělovýchovy
KeywordsOccupational therapyContext (archaeology)Psychological interventionGrounded theoryRigourPsychologyDocumentationMedical educationProcess (computing)Qualitative researchConceptual frameworkApplied psychologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.434
GPT teacher head0.629
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it