Difference in Physiotherapy Students’ Training and Objective Structured Clinical Exam Performance Before and During COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) and station examinations, in general, have been widely utilized in health professional programmes to evaluate students' clinical performance prior to advancing to a clinical placement. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted student preparation and implementation of our programme's OSCEs. The impact on changes in student OSCE performance due COVID-19 has not been well studied. This non-concurrent cohort study evaluated the difference before and during COVID-19 pandemic on Year 1 physiotherapy students' performances on an in-person OSCE by estimating the mean difference in cohort OSCE scores and safety occurrences. Methods: Two cohorts of MSc (PT) students were compared: Cohort A (not impacted by COVID-19) and Cohort B (impacted by COVID-19). Cohort scores were summarized as means and 95% CIs. Results: = 4.0, 95% CI: 2.1, 5.8). Cohort B students were approximately 4 times more likely to demonstrate safety occurrences. Conclusion: The impact of COVID-19 did not adversely affect total OSCE scores; however, it did increase safety infractions.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".