Development and initial evaluation of an instrument to assess physiotherapists’ clinical reasoning focused on clients’ behavior change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: A systematically developed and evaluated instrument is needed to support investigations of physiotherapists' clinical reasoning integrated with the process of clients' behavior change. This study's aim was to develop an instrument to assess physiotherapy students' and physiotherapists' clinical reasoning focused on clients' activity-related behavior and behavior change, and initiate its evaluation, including feasibility and content validity. METHODS: The study was conducted in three phases: 1) determination of instrument structure and item generation, based on a model, guidelines for assessing clinical reasoning, and existing measures; 2) cognitive interviews with five physiotherapy students to evaluate item understanding and feasibility; and 3) a Delphi process with 18 experts to evaluate content relevance. RESULTS: Phase 1 resulted in an instrument with four domains: Physiotherapist; Input from client; Functional behavioral analysis; and Strategies for behavior change. The instrument consists of case scenarios followed by items in which key features are identified, prioritized, or interpreted. Phase 2 resulted in revisions of problems and approval of feasibility. Phase 3 demonstrated high level of consensus regarding the instrument's content relevance. CONCLUSIONS: This feasible and content-validated instrument shows potential for use in investigations of physiotherapy students' and physiotherapists' clinical reasoning, however continued development and testing are needed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".