Professional practice behaviour: Identification and validation of key indicators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Professional behaviour is regarded as an important competency for occupational therapy practice, yet little guidance exists for indicators underpinning development or remediation in the educational or practice settings. This study sought to confirm the content validity of observable professional behaviour indicators from an existing evaluation framework for representativeness and relevance for occupational therapy practice. Methods A modified Delphi approach was conducted with expert panellists ( n = 30) consisting of regulators, administrators, faculty members, practitioners, and students for professional behaviour indicator consensus, together with a cross-sectional survey of practitioners ( n = 119). Fleiss’ κ and χ2 contingency tables were completed for agreement across panellists, and between panellist and survey groups. Cross-case qualitative analyses identified facilitators and barriers for professional behaviour practice. Results Content validity of 17 professional behaviour indicators was achieved, with >85% agreement from the expert panellists and the cross-sectional survey group. Main professional behaviour reporting issues in practice included fear of reprisal, lack of formal policies, and an unsupportive culture. Support from others, documented workplace policies, and self-regulation/duty to monitor were the critical facilitators for supporting professional behaviour in practice. Conclusion The professional behaviour indicators in this study offer observable behaviours from which assessment rubrics or tools may be developed. Further study is warranted.
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 | 0.075 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".