Promoting Professional Behaviours in Physical Therapy Students Using Standardized Patient Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Physical therapy (PT) students receive feedback on their professional behaviours from academic and clinical faculty. Another avenue for providing feedback to PT students is by using standardized patients (SPs). Very little research is available on the impact of SPs’ specific feedback on whether, and how, PT students learn professional behaviour, and what research is available has focused on clinical competencies, communities of practice, and broad assessments of professional behaviours. The purpose of this study was to record PT students’ perspectives on how combined verbal and written SP feedback affected their professional behaviours. Method: The sample of convenience consisted of seven students enrolled in a PT professional education programme in the northeastern United States before starting their first full-time clinical experience. The students agreed to participate in an SP experience focused on professional behaviours. This study used a phenomenological approach to understand the students’ perspectives on receiving a combination of verbal and written SP feedback. Results: The students’ perspectives on receiving SP feedback were categorized into four themes: seeing through the patient’s eyes; SPs offer unique contributions to student learning; timely, verbal feedback adds a deeper understanding of professional behaviours in preparation for the clinic; and verbal feedback promotes student self-efficacy of professional behaviours. Conclusions: Using SPs’ written and verbal feedback in the curriculum can be a valuable tool for enhancing the development of PT students’ professional behaviour.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".