Attitudes toward Adults with Intellectual Disability: A Survey of Ontario Occupational and Physical Therapy Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine attitudes of students in Ontario master's degree programmes in occupational therapy (MScOT) and physical therapy (MScPT) toward adults with intellectual disability (ID). METHODS: A quantitative cross-sectional survey study was conducted. An electronic questionnaire was distributed to 1,255 MScOT/PT students at five Ontario universities via email, using a modified Dillman approach. Descriptive statistics were used to describe experiences, attitudes, willingness, and preparedness. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 17.9%. A total of 96.0% of respondents felt "quite" or "very willing" to deliver rehabilitation to adults with ID; however, 50.7% of respondents felt "not at all prepared" or "a little prepared" to interact with this population in a clinical setting. Of those who felt unprepared, 75.4% reported it to be due to inadequate knowledge. In addition, Ontario MScOT/PT students have neutral attitudes toward adults with ID. CONCLUSIONS: While many MScOT/PT students are willing to deliver rehabilitation to adults with ID, a large proportion do not feel adequately prepared to interact with this population in a clinical setting. These findings could inform future research and curricular reform in the rehabilitation professions so that future clinicians are better prepared to provide support for this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".