Newly qualified chiropractors' perceptions of preparedness for practice: A cross-sectional study of graduates from European training programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this pilot study was to explore chiropractic graduates' perceived preparedness for practice in the 7 key competencies of the Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists. Methods: An anonymous 5-point Likert scale electronic questionnaire was distributed to graduates from the 2014–2016 cohorts of 9 European chiropractic colleges accredited by the European Council of Chiropractic Education. For each group under 1 competency role, the mean overall score was calculated. Statistical differences were analyzed using a t test and analysis of variance. Cronbach's alpha was calculated for internal consistency. Results: Results of 7 chiropractic colleges were analyzed (n = 121). Differences were found among colleges, competencies, and items. Overall, the graduates who responded scored the lowest in collaborator (3.76) and scholar (3.78) competencies. They scored the highest in professional (4.39) and chiropractic expert (4.13) competencies. In all colleges, a lower level of perceived preparedness was found in collaborator, scholar, and manager competencies. Statistical differences were found that compared the type of employment and cohorts. Conclusion: Our results show there may be a gap between education and professional practice regarding perceived preparedness, and graduates perceived themselves to be unprepared in some competencies. The preliminary results of this study could be used to improve curricula of chiropractic education.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".