Impact of College-Administered Quality Practice Assessments: A Longitudinal Evaluation of Repeat Peer Assessments of Continuing Competence in Physiotherapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The College of Physiotherapists of Ontario (CPO) developed its peer practice assessment (PA) process under statutory requirements for quality assurance. Each year, a small percentage of physiotherapists, most selected at random, undergo PA. To shed light on continuing competence, we report outcomes from physiotherapists who have had two PAs. METHODS: Records were extracted for physiotherapists with two unrelated PAs. Demographic features, peer assessors' scores, and consequent outcome decisions were examined. Outcomes were examined cross-sectionally (vs. other PAs in the same time period) and longitudinally (within cohort). RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2012, 117 Ontario physiotherapists underwent two unrelated PAs, typically 5-7 years apart. This cohort was representative of Ontario physiotherapists in terms of sex ratios, education, and years in practice. At the first PA (PA1), this cohort's outcomes were similar to those of other physiotherapists; at the second PA (PA2), they were better than others undergoing PA1 in the same period (p=0.02). The cohort's outcomes were better at PA2 than at PA1 (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physiotherapists are likely to meet professional standards in a repeat PA 5-7 years after an initial one. Additional research is required to identify risk factors for not meeting standards. The findings provide empirical evidence to guide ongoing development of the CPO's quality management program.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".