MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3046279306 · doi:10.11575/prism/38046

A Clinical Educator Needs Assessment in Athletic Therapy

2020· dissertation· en· W3046279306 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Jeffrey Michael Owen

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMount Royal UniversityGovernment of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicineMedical educationPhysical therapyMedical physicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem: Canadian athletic therapy (AT) education is embracing major pedagogical change in transitioning to competency-based education (CBE). The national certification process has recently undergone substantial, and somewhat controversial, changes. Furthermore, new entry-level competencies have been developed for teaching and assessment. A pivotal component of AT education consists of longitudinal placements in the clinic and field contexts of AT. Clinical educators are volunteers, and primarily Certified Athletic Therapists, typically lacking pedagogical experience. Moreover, there appear to be no standardized practices across institutions for supervisory development. There is an absence of published research related to Canadian AT clinical education. Furthermore, clinical educator needs assessments across health professions education have employed various methods. Therefore, this study used a novel mixed-methods approach to understand Canadian AT clinical educators’ needs entering CBE. Method of Study: Interviews (n = 14) and a subsequent survey (n = 123) involving Canadian AT clinical educators were employed within a preplanned exploratory sequential mixed design (Tashakkori et al., 2012). The initial qualitative analysis involved conceptually mapping the content of responses using directed content analysis. The corresponding findings informed survey design. Three data strands resulted from the subsequent analyses. First, the interview findings related to supervisory role were analyzed using phenomenography to discern the different ways of understanding the role. Second, the conceptual map was revisited to identify strengths and barriers to role fulfilment. Third, valued and necessary development topics were identified from the survey results. Finally, the interpretations of the three data strands were mixed, incorporating other relevant findings, to develop AT supervisory support recommendations for CBE. Conclusions: Four different AT clinical educator role conceptualizations were discovered that were hierarchically related, which reflected the extent of variation perceived among six aspects of AT supervision. These findings, combined with three valued and necessary pedagogical skill topics, represent a valuable starting point for AT supervisory development, for which there was high interest. The strengths and barriers informed 14 considerations related to clinical educators’ potential capacity. Lastly, the 13 supervisory support recommendations developed from the clinical educator findings may aid the Canadian AT program directors with transitioning to 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)→Same topicNursing Roles and Practices→French-language works237,207→