Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Organizational changes, such as program management and managed care, and fluctuations in resources present challenges to the effective provision of fieldwork placements. This study compared an innovative group model with a traditional 1:1 supervision model to determine their effect on students and supervisors. METHOD: The two models were implemented at an urban clinical facility in several areas of practice over a 2 year period. Questionnaires were used to assess student skill development, student and supervising therapist satisfaction, and impact on supervising therapists' use of time. Focus groups were used to explore the advantages and disadvantages of each model. RESULTS: There were few statistically significant differences in students' (n = 26) and supervising therapists' (n = 28) ratings when the two models were compared. The qualitative findings suggest that the advantages of one model often relate to the disadvantages of the other model. In addition, supervising therapists and students offered several suggestions for how to improve implementation of the group model. CONCLUSION: When the results of the study are compared to the objectives established for the group model, it appears that many of the objectives outlined for the model were partially achieved. Several issues, such as the student-supervisor relationship and the evaluation process, need to be addressed with participants to ensure successful implementation of the group model.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".