Perception of undergraduate physical therapy students regarding the clinical teaching attributes of their clinical instructors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical instructors play an important role in the clinical education of physical therapy students. A good clinical instructor ensures that the students get maximum benefit out of the clinical experience. The feedback of students about their clinical instructors is very important in designing strategies that can improve the clinical learning of students. Objective of this study was to find the perception of undergraduate physical therapy students regarding the clinical teaching attributes of their clinical instructors. This observational cross sectional study was done at departments of physical therapy of four institutes of Lahore. Study was completed in 4 months. Non-probability, purposive sampling was used to select a sample of 202 students. The Response rate was 92%. Self-administered questionnaires consisting of validated 25-point McGill Clinical Teacher Evaluation Tool (CTE) were used to find out the perception of students about their clinical teachers. The total agreement score of McGill’s CTE rating was high i.e. Mean ± SD=97.35 ± 15.478. The attribute of clinical teacher “is interested in helping students to learn” was rated the highest (Mean ± SD=4.41 ± 0.786) and “Occasionally challenges points presented in texts and journals” was rated the lowest (Mean ± SD=3.38 ± 1.109). The undergraduate physical therapy students rated their clinical instructors higher. Clinical instructors were helping for the students however more focus should be placed on the evidence based practice and instructors should regularly incorporate evidence from literature in their teaching practices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".