Reaching Consensus on Measuring Professional Behaviour in Physical Therapy Objective Structured Clinical Examinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We determined which professional behaviours (PBs) are important and feasible to measure in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) intended to assess the hands-on skills and knowledge of students in a Canadian physical therapy (PT) program. Methods: We used a modified Delphi technique to identify the criteria required to assess PBs in PT students during an OSCE. We conducted a focus group to better understand the results of the modified Delphi process. Results: Experienced local OSCE examiners participated in the modified Delphi panel, which consisted of two rounds of surveys: round 1 (n=12) and round 2 (n=10). A total of 31 PBs were reduced to 18 through the two rounds. Five of the panellists participated in the focus group, reduced the 18 PBs to 15, and then identified 4 as clinical skills. Participants categorized the remaining 11 as mixed PBs and clinical skills (1 item), PBs (4 items), or communication skills (6 items). Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence to support the feasibility and importance of evaluating 5 PB items in practical skills OSCEs for entry-to-practice PT students.
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 | 0.279 | 0.359 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".