Implementing competency‐based education for athletic therapy in Canada—Are we ready for change?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context In 2013, the Canadian Athletic Therapists’ Association (CATA) Education Task Force made recommendations for future athletic therapy education in Canada with 10 consensus statements. Little progress has been reported to date, particularly on two statements: implementation of competency‐based education (CBE) and establishing a valid, reliable, feasible, and financially viable practical national certification examination (NCE). Objective We sought to understand the perspectives of CATA program directors (PDs) as it related to implementation of CBE and potential abolishment of the practical examination. Methods A qualitative, phenomenological approach was employed to better understand the athletic therapy program directors’ lived experiences as it related to CBE implementation in their own educational institutions. Secondarily and related to understanding this phenomenon, we sought to understand PD perspectives on taking over the responsibility for establishing competence for their graduates as a surrogate to replace the practical NCE. Semi‐structured interviews took place with the seven PDs or all CATA‐accredited programs. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed for themes. We (ML and RD) independently and blindly established themes and later met to discuss the themes that emerged from the interviews. Results Four key themes emerged from the analysis: (a) definition of CBE; (b) national standards; (c) trust; and (d) collaboration. Discussion Each of the themes that emerged had the commonality that all were barriers to implement CBE. Some PDs did not think they were currently offering CBE, yet described many of the key features of CBE. A definition and national standard would help to progress the implementation of CBE.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".