A Survey of Canadian Physiotherapists’ and Physiotherapy Students’ Knowledge and Use of Executive Functioning Assessments in Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study examined what physiotherapists and physiotherapy students understand and know about executive functioning (EF), what EF outcome measures they use clinically, and whether their primary area of practice influences their assessment practices. Method: An open online survey was distributed to registered members of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association, its various divisions, and colleges of physiotherapy within Canada that took approximately 15 minutes to complete and was available for 13 months. Pearson correlation was used to assess the relationship between subjective and objective understanding and knowledge of EF (UKEF) and a one-way multivariate analysis of variance was used to analyze differences in survey responses based on respondents’ primary area of practice. Results: A total of 335 respondents consented to participate (completion rate = 78.4%). There was a significant moderate positive correlation between subjective and objective UKEF ( r = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.32, 0.54; n = 260; p < 0.001). Significant differences in survey responses were related to physiotherapists’ primary areas of practice (i.e., musculoskeletal, neurological, cardiorespiratory, or multi-systems; F 12,555.89 = 2.29, p = 0.008; Wilks Λ = 0.880; partial η 2 = 0.042). Conclusions: Respondents reported that they had good subjective UKEF, but this was only moderately correlated with objective UKEF.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".