Attitudes toward Master's and Clinical Doctorate Degrees in Physical Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Purpose : To examine the attitudes of a self-selected sample of Canadian physical therapists toward the transition from bachelor's to master's degrees and the implementation of clinical doctorate degrees in physical therapy (PT). Methods : A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a modified Dillman tailored approach. All eligible members of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association (CPA) were invited to participate. RESULTS: Of 1,397 Canadian physical therapists who responded to the survey, 45% favoured the transition from bachelor's to master's degrees, 21% did not, and 34% were neutral; 27% favoured a transition from a master's to a doctoral degree for entry into practice in PT, 53% did not favour this transition, and 20% were neutral. Finally, 56% favoured the implementation of a post-professional clinical doctorate (PPCD) in PT, 23% did not, and 21% were neutral. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a self-selected sample of Canadian physical therapists supported the future implementation of a post-professional clinical doctorate degree in PT but did not support an entry-to-practice doctoral degree. However, these results must be interpreted with caution because of the study's small sample size.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".