Are Changes Needed for Therapeutic Recreation Undergraduate Curricula? Perceived Competencies of Therapeutic Recreationists and Recreation Staff Working with Seniors in Long Term Care Homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'objectif de cette étude était d'identifier les lacunes dans les compétences gérontologiques autoperçues par le personnel en loisir dans les centres de soins de longue durée en Ontario. Deux séries de compétences gérontologiques ont été présentées dans un sondage en ligne qui a été distribué à du personnel en loisir œuvrant dans 500 centres de soins de longue durée. Parmi eux, 487 membres du personnel ont répondu au sondage. Ce sondage comportait des questions concernant les compétences actuelles du personnel et les compétences dont ils avaient eu connaissance avant d'entrer sur le marché du travail. Les facteurs perçus comme favorables à une plus grande confiance en ces compétences gérontologiques étaient l'expérience, la formation continue et les sessions de formation en cours d'emploi. Une meilleure compréhension des lacunes dans les compétences gérontologiques est nécessaire pour améliorer la formation en loisirs thérapeutiques, dont la formation continue dans ce domaine. The purpose of the study was to identify self-perceived gaps in gerontological competencies among recreation staff in long-term care homes in Ontario. Two sets of gerontological competencies, in an online survey, were distributed to recreation staff working in 500 long-term care homes. There were 487 recreation staff members who completed the questionnaire. The questionnaire contained questions regarding staff’s current competencies and competencies that they recalled learning prior to entering the workforce. Factors that were perceived to contribute to confidence in gerontological competencies were experience, continuing education, in-service training sessions, and education. Understanding the gaps in gerontological competencies is required for enhancing therapeutic recreation education and continuing 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".