Development of a Questionnaire to Examine Confidence of Occupational Therapy Students during Fieldwork Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the development of an instrument designed to examine the level of confidence of occupational therapy students during their fieldwork experiences. Confidence in this context refers to Bandura's concept of self-efficacy in Social Cognitive Theory. As this subject has received little formal study, no appropriate tool was found to measure confidence in students. The purpose of this study was to design a measure to provide students with an opportunity to self-assess their levels of confidence both within a placement and throughout their entire fieldwork experiences. The instrument was constructed in three phases: I - Instrument Development; II - Instrument Testing; 111 - Instrument Implementation. In Phase III, the instrument was distributed to all students entering the first year of occupational therapy studies at the University of Alberta. Data was collected from these students during their four fieldwork placements to address the questions of whether confidence increases during a fieldwork placement regardless of placement level, whether confidence increases by placement level, and whether student or placement characteristics affect levels of confidence. Results of the study support the hypotheses that confidence levels increase both during a fieldwork placement and with successive placements. Reliability and validity analyses indicated that the measure may be a useful tool to assess confidence in students during fieldwork placements. Cet article décrit l'élaboration d'un instrument conçu pour évaluer le degré de confiance des étudiants en ergothérapie pendant leurs stages en milieu clinique. Dans ce contexte, le concept de la confiance est utilisé en référence au concept d'efficacité personnelle présenté dans la théorie sociale cognitive de Bandura. Comme ce sujet a fait l'objet de peu d'études formelles, on n'a trouvé aucun instrument pouvant mesurer adéquatement la confiance des étudiants. Le but de cette étude était de concevoir une mesure qui permettrait aux étudiants d'autoévaluer leur degré de confiance au cours d'un stage et pour l'ensemble de leur formation clinique. L'instrument a été construit en trois étapes: I - Conception de l'instrument; II - Mise à l'essai de l'instrument; 111 - Mise en oeuvre de l'instrument. À l'étape III, l'instrument a été distribué à tous les étudiants de première année de l'Université d'Alberta. Des données ont été recueillies auprès de ces étudiants pendant leur quatre stages, pour déterminer: si la confiance augmente au cours d'un stage, peu importe le niveau du stage; si la confiance augmente en fonction du niveau de stage et si les caractéristiques de l'étudiant ou du stage ont un effet sur le degré de confiance. Les résultats de l'étude appuient les hypothèses selon lesquelles le degré de confiance augmente à la fois pendant un stage et d'un stage à l'autre. Les analyses de la sensibilité et de la validité indiquent que la mesure peut être un outil utile pour évaluer le degré de confiance des étudiants pendant les stages.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".