Evidence of Reliability, Validity, and Practicality for the Canadian Physiotherapy Assessment of Clinical Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the internal consistency, construct validity, and practicality of the Canadian Physiotherapy Assessment of Clinical Performance (ACP), a descriptive measure used by physiotherapy students and their clinical instructors (CIs) at the mid- and endpoints of an internship to describe the students' behaviours as observed in the clinical education setting relative to what might be expected of an entry-level physiotherapist. Methods: This multi-centre study piloted the ACP in 10 university physiotherapy (PT) programmes. Both CIs and students undertaking clinical internships completed the ACP and the current tool, the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT-CPI; Version 1997). Results: CIs assessing PT students' performance during internships representing a variety of areas of practice completed the ACP at the midpoint (n=132) and the endpoint (n=126) of the internship. The end-of-internship sample consisted of 55 junior, 30 intermediate, and 41 senior students. The ACP demonstrated strong internal consistency: Alpha coefficients for each role ranged from 0.94 to 0.99. Aligned items on the ACP and PT-CPI were significantly correlated (r=0.51–0.84). Senior PT students performed significantly better than intermediate students, who, in turn, performed better than junior students (p<0.0001). Effect sizes for midpoint to final scores on the ACP ranged from medium to large (0.40–0.74). Participants were satisfied with the online education module that provided instruction on how to use and interpret the ACP, as indicated by satisfaction scores and qualitative comments. Conclusions: The ACP is a reliable, valid, and practical measure to assess and describe the PT students' behaviours as observed during clinical education relative to what is expected of an entry-level physiotherapist.
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 | 0.057 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".