The journey through an undergraduate occupational therapy course: Does it change students’ attitudes, perceptions and career plans?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students’ attitudes towards people with a disability, their perceptions of the characteristics of a successful occupational therapist, and their future career plans were surveyed on entry to and exit from the Bachelor of Occupational Therapy course at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. Factors impacting on students’ career plans were also examined. Questionnaires were administered to 84 students on the first day of the course in 1994 and to 59 students on the last day of the course in 1997. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise and compare the data. While generally positive on entry to the course, students’ attitudes were even more positive on completion. Entry and exit perceptions of the characteristics considered important to being a successful occupational therapist were closely aligned with the values and ideals of the profession. At both survey points, students indicated a reluctance to pursue work in non‐metropolitan areas and in psychosocial, research and academic fields. Clinical placements and particular clinicians were identified as having the greatest impact on students’ career plans. These findings provide support for the notions that student self‐selection into occupational therapy may assist in bringing aware students to the course and that clinical experiences during the course serve as potent influences on future career plans. Tailored use of the processes of socialisation within occupational therapy courses may assist in attracting therapists to particular geographical and clinical areas.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".