An Examination of Musculoskeletal Cognitive Competency in Chiropractic Interns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the cognitive competency of final-year chiropractic students in musculoskeletal medicine. METHODS: The face, content, and criterion validity of the Basic Clinical Examination (BCE) for musculoskeletal medicine were tested for use in chiropractic education. After validity testing, the BCE was administered in a cross-sectional design to all fourth year students (154) attending the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College. RESULTS: Twenty percent (5 questions) of the BCE was deemed not relevant or outside of the scope of practice by criterion experts. One hundred twenty-three (80%) fourth year chiropractic interns participated in the cross-sectional study. Interns achieved a 51.2% passing rate (mean score, 73.2%; 95% confidence interval, 82%-71.8%) for the 25-item BCE, whereas the criterion experts achieved a 100% passing rate. For the modified 20-item BCE, the interns' mean score was 80.8%, whereas the criterion experts' mean score rose to 92.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Most final-year chiropractic interns at this college were [corrected] found to be competent in musculoskeletal medicine as assessed by the Basic Competency Examination. This is in contradiction to previous work with medical students, recent medical graduates, nonorthopedic staff physicians, osteopathic students, and physical therapy students. Chiropractic clinicians with postgraduate training showed considerably better results than chiropractic interns. Problems pertaining to the content validity (relevance and scope of practice for chiropractors) of the BCE need to be addressed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".