Brief or New: Professional Development of Fieldwork Students: Occupational Adaptation, Clinical Reasoning, and Client-Centeredness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Fieldwork provides occupational therapy students with professional development readiness for entry-level practice. Thus, describing the results of the fieldwork learning process in terms of observed professional behaviors is valuable. This pilot study was initiated as part of program evaluation with the goal to assess fieldwork students' performance maturation, clinical reasoning development, and client-centered behaviors as a result of this specific fieldwork experience. Nine occupational therapy students who completed Level II fieldwork at the Way Station, Inc., in Frederick, MD were videotaped administering the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) to a new client during the 2nd and 10th week of fieldwork to gather descriptions of changes in student professional behavior during the fieldwork experience. Observational analysis demonstrated that primitive and transitional behaviors decreased as mature behaviors increased, clinical reasoning shifted from primarily procedural to interactive and conditional, and client-centered behaviors developed. The findings enhance our understanding of the development of professional behaviors during fieldwork and provide indicants for future studies as well as a methodology for fieldwork supervision.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".