Research Involvement Continuum Level of Dietetic Internship Directors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research is considered to be the foundation of the profession of dietetics, and it is a required component of the dietetic internship (DI) curriculum. However, studies have shown that dietitians, including dietetic educators, are not highly involved with research. This research-competency gap has been studied in the literature, but the role of DI directors, who are the gatekeepers of DI programs, have not been included in empirical discussions on this topic. The purpose of this study was to identify where DI directors fall on the research involvement continuum as defined by the Research Involvement Questionnaire (RIQ) and to identify the types of factors that influence DI directors’ involvement with research. In this cross-sectional survey study that included 96 DI directors, research involvement of DI directors was limited. Using the four levels of the research involvement continuum, it was found that more participants were classified into level one (low research experience) than levels two through four combined. Research involvement was most related to education/training, professional experience, and research experience. Based upon the theory of experiential learning, dietetic educators must have meaningful experiences with research in order to reach the higher levels on the research continuum. The findings from this study can be used to better prepare DI directors and other dietetic educators as well as to inform curricular decisions to better align education and practice within the profession of dietetics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".