Translation of professionalism in physical therapy questionnaire for Portuguese of Portugal: Core values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Physiotherapists play a key role in today’s healthcare and are recognised as the professionals in charge of rehabilitation, prevention and risk reduction [1 Jensen GM, Hack LM, Nordstrom T, et al. National study of excellence and innovation in physical therapist education: part 2 – a call to reform. Physical Therapy. 2017;97(9):875–888.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]]. Professionalism is interconnected and inherent with the profession; physiotherapists have the duty to act in an ethically correct way and for this must be governed by certain ethical principles [2 Bialocerkowski A, Johnson A, Allan T, et al. Development of physiotherapy inherent requirement statements – an Australian experience. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(54):1–13.[PubMed] , [Google Scholar]]. The evaluation of professionalism is difficult to achieve because of various qualities that should be present, and also because it is needed to use several measurement methods, particularly in complex real world contexts [3 Hodges BD, Ginsburg S, Cruess R, et al. Assessment of professionalism: recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach. 2011;33(5):354–363.[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]]. The linguistic adaptation of an instrument is carried out using the Delphi Method, which brings a group of experts where a series of rounds is conducted until consensus of the translation is reached [4 Green AR. The Delphi technique in educational research. SAGE Open. 2014;4(2):215824401452977–215824401452978.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]]. The aim of the study is the translation of the instrument Professionalism in Physical Therapy: Core Values, of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), with the intention to be used by physiotherapists in Portugal.Materials and methods The translation/back-translation was made by the Delphi Method with three rounds which were performed until de adaptation of the instrument to the Portuguese culture was achieved. A group of five experts, all with master and PhD academic degree, all with more than 25 years as Physiotherapist and Portuguese as their first language were selected.Results In order to reach consensus on the translation of the instrument, 3 rounds were carried out using the Delphi method, thus allowing linguistic equivalence to be obtained. In the 1st round of the process regarding the physical therapist's part, a 92 questions questionnaire was sent to the experts. In the 2nd round 42 questions were held and in the 3rd and final round, 5 questions were translated. Regarding the patient's part of the questionnaire, in the 1st round 18 questions were sent and in the 2nd round the number decreased to 9 questions. Consensus was achieved at 2nd round. The level of minimum agreement in each item was set to 80%, ensuring good translation and adaptation for Portuguese culture.Discussion and conclusions The aim of the study was achieved, and the linguistic translation was completed. As next step, it is needed to conduct validation of the instrument for Portuguese culture by performing a pre-test. The results of this content validation by experts will be useful to improve the standard of care, teaching and research in physiotherapy, based on a standardised instrument which allow to measure Portuguese Physiotherapists professionalism, and perform international benchmark as well.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".