MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139827616 · doi:10.4085/1947-380x-20-080

Development and Validation of a New Competency Framework for Athletic Therapy in Canada

2021· article· en· W3139827616 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAthletic Training Education Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)AccreditationDelphi methodMedical educationCertificationTerminologyPhase (matter)PsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Competency-based education (CBE) is entrenched in educating health professionals in Canada. CBE is a framework that identifies desired performance characteristics in training competent, entry-level health professionals. Objective To update, develop, and validate a new Canadian Athletic Therapists Association (CATA) framework for athletic therapy education. Design Framework development occurred in 4 phases and was developed through a multistage process that involved a scoping review (phase 1) and consensus methodology (ie, a blending of modified Ebel and modified Delphi consensus methods; phases 2–4). Patients or Other Participants Phase 2: a total of 7 experts (program directors) from each Canadian accredited institution. Phase 3: a total of 14 experts (1 program director and educational expert from each accredited institution). Phase 4: a total of 7 experts (program directors) and 246 certified members of the CATA. Main Outcome Measure(s) Each phase consisted of a systematic process with 80% consensus agreement set a priori. In phase 1, a scoping review was conducted to identify common terminology that could be used to guide the framework development process and to identify competency frameworks used by other health professional organizations. Phase 2 consisted of adopting a common language that would serve to keep the expert group on the task at hand and avoid confusion. In phase 3, frameworks used by other health professional organizations were evaluated and used to determine the validity of the old CATA framework. In phase 4, the old CATA framework was updated and a new framework was developed and validated. Results In phase 1, the result of the scoping review yielded 368 papers, of which 5 were used to propose a common language for phase 2 and 9 highlighted competency frameworks used by other health professions for comparison in phase 3. In phase 3, the expert group voted unanimously to adopt and adapt the CanMEDS framework (ie, roles). In phase 4, the new CATA competency framework was validated, and most competencies achieved consensus. Competencies that did not achieve consensus in the first round of voting underwent face-to-face discussions via videoconferencing. After discussions, the remaining competencies were revised, and all newly worded competencies achieved consensus. Conclusions The resultant framework was validated, and most competencies achieved consensus. The new athletic therapy competency framework outlines the 165 competencies resulting from this methodical process and will hopefully facilitate interdisciplinary communication and practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.288 · 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