Exploring the Need for Education on Cortical Visual Impairment Among Occupational Therapy Professionals and Teachers of Students With Visual Impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cortical or cerebral visual impairment (CVI) is the leading cause of bilateral visual impairment in developed countries. The goals of this study were to explore the CVI education and training received by occupational therapy practitioners and teachers of students with visual impairments and to quantify the confidence of these professionals to evaluate and work with children who are diagnosed with CVI. Methods: An Internet-based survey was conducted with a volunteer sample that included occupational therapists, certified occupational therapy assistants, and certified teachers of students with visual impairments who practice in 50 U.S. states; Washington, D.C.; and Canada. The survey was posted on professional organizations and social media websites, as well as emailed to colleagues at organizations such as the Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired, schools for students who are blind, and local universities. Data collection occurred between June 2019 and November 2019. Results: Surveys were completed by 205 respondents from 43 U.S. states; Washington, D.C.; and Canada. Occupational therapy practitioners consistently reported lower rates of formal education in CVI, with only 25% of occupational therapists and 47% of certified occupational therapy assistants receiving education on CVI in their academic programs. Less than 23% of occupational therapists received training on CVI assessments, whereas 75% of teachers of students with visual impairments had training in CVI assessments. Additionally, respondents indicated reduced satisfaction with their knowledge and skills for treating or teaching children with CVI. Discussion: The results indicate a gap in formal CVI education for occupational therapy practitioners and, to a lesser extent, teachers of students with visual impairments. Due to the increasingly high prevalence of CVI, the gap in formal education on CVI is significant. Implications for Practitioners: Results indicate the need to increase formal and continuing education for occupational therapy practitioners and teachers of students with visual impairments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".