Comparing Occupational Therapy Students' Competency Scores: 2:1 versus 1:1 Fieldwork
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fieldwork is essential to occupational therapy students’ development of professional competencies. Fieldwork models using student-to-fieldwork educator ratios of 1:1 and 2:1 are widely used, however, quantitative research exploring differences in student competencies between these two models is scarce. The objective of this study was to determine if development of student competencies differ between 2:1 and 1:1 fieldwork models during an occupational therapy educational program. A retrospective study using two years of occupational therapy students’ competency ratings by fieldwork supervisors (N = 95 students; N = 355 fieldwork events) was performed. The Competency Based Fieldwork Evaluation for Occupational Therapists tool was used to assess student competencies at each fieldwork rotation (n = 5 placements). Independent samples t-tests were used to compare students’ scores during 1:1 and 2:1 placements. No significant differences were noted in student competencies following participation in 2:1 and 1:1 placements. It was concluded that students are equally well prepared for practice if they have 1:1 or 2:1 fieldwork experiences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".