Mental health consumer participation in undergraduate occupational therapy student assessment: No negative impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Australian accreditation standards for occupational therapy courses require consumer participation in the design, delivery and evaluation of programs. This study investigated whether a mental health consumer - as one of two assessors for an oral assessment in a mental health unit - impacted engagement, anxiety states and academic performance of undergraduate occupational therapy students. METHODS: Students (n = 131 eligible) self-selected into two groups but were blinded to the group differences (assessor panel composition) until shortly prior to the oral assessment. Control group assessors were two occupational therapy educators, while consumer group assessors included an occupational therapy educator and a mental health consumer. RESULTS: Pre- and post-assessment data were successfully matched for 79 students (overall response rate = 73.1%). No evidence was found of significant differences between the two groups for engagement, anxiety or academic performance (all P values >0.05). CONCLUSION: Including mental health consumers as assessors did not negatively impact student engagement and academic performance, nor increase student anxiety beyond that typically observed in oral assessment tasks. The findings provide support for expanding the role of mental health consumers in the education and assessment of occupational therapy students. Development of methods to determine the efficacy of consumer involvement remains an area for future research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".