Content Validation of Athletic Therapy Clinical Presentations in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Competency-based education requires strong planning and a vehicle to deliver and track students' progress across their undergraduate programs. Clinical presentations (CPs) are proposed as 1 method to deliver a competency-based curriculum in a Canadian undergraduate athletic therapy program. Objective: Validation of 253 CPs. Setting: Canadian universities/colleges and clinical practices. Patients or Other Participants: Six Canadian Athletic Therapists Association-accredited program directors and 6 athletic therapists with at least 10 years of experience working in both field and clinical athletic therapy settings. Intervention(s): We surveyed 12 experts who rated the importance and difficulty of 253 CPs using a 100-mm and electronic visual analog scale with extremely important at 1 anchor and irrelevant at the other end. Difficulty was measured in a similar manner anchored by extremely difficulty and extremely easy. Main Outcome Measure(s): Descriptive statistics for importance and difficulty were tabulated on all CPs. An importance-difficulty index was calculated as a mean score of both importance and difficulty scores. Results: Data were converted into quartiles to represent a 4-point categorical importance scale to mimic the original categories from the Ebel procedure (ie, essential, important, acceptable, and questionable). Difficulty was likewise converted into quartiles representing a 4-point categorical difficulty scale. Mean importance scores ranged from 99.3 for airway management (ie, most important) to 54 for high altitude cerebral edema (ie, less important). Clinical presentation difficulty scales ranged from 89.8 for biceps contusion (ie, easier) to 21.2 for decompression illness (ie, harder). Conclusions: These 253 CPs are thought to be representative (ie, valid) of the athletic therapy scope of practice in Canada. To our knowledge, CPs have not been developed in the athletic therapy context prior to this research. We anticipate more will be identified as these CPs are used to align teaching, learning, and assessment within competency-based athletic therapy programs in Canada.
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 | 0.015 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".