Performance of speech-language pathology students in problem-based learning tutorials and in clinical practice
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to identify if performance of speech-language pathology students in problem-based learning (PBL) tutorials could predict subsequent clinical performance evaluated through (a) a non-standardized, custom clinical evaluation form (HKU form) and (b) a standardized competency assessment for speech pathology developed in Australia (COMPASS®). Students' scores from PBL tutorial performance were correlated with scores in clinical placement on both the HKU form and the COMPASS. Significant correlations were found between students' PBL tutorial performance (reflective journals and participation in the tutorial process) and their clinical performance (treatment and interpersonal skills) on the HKU clinical evaluation form. Significant correlations were also found between (a) PBL tutorial performance (participation in the tutorial process) and their clinical performance (all generic and occupational competencies, and the overall score) on the COMPASS, (b) PBL tutorial performance (reading forms) and two occupational competencies on the COMPASS, (c) PBL tutorial performance (reflective journals) and four occupational competencies and the overall score on the COMPASS. The results highlighted the need for validating the assessment for the learning process in PBL tutorials with empirical evidence and the advantage of assessing clinical performance through COMPASS in Hong Kong. Tutors, clinical supervisors and students should be given clear behavioral descriptors for expected performance in PBL tutorials and clinical practice at different year levels.
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 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 | 0.017 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it