The Path to Translating Focus of Attention Research Into Canadian Physiotherapy, Part 4: Sequentially Linking Assessment Outcomes Into a Chain of Evidence Supporting the Workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In previous research, Canadian physiotherapists identified barriers to effective external focus promotion and recommended the delivery of a focus of attention workshop as a solution. Accordingly, the current research entailed the virtual delivery of such a workshop, consisting of asynchronous Website modules followed by a synchronous group session, to 15 Canadian physiotherapists working mainly with musculoskeletal rehabilitation clients. Assessment of the workshop outcomes was guided by constructs of social cognitive and adult learning theory, and organized based on the four levels of the Kirkpatrick model (KP1-Reaction, KP2-Learning, KP3-Behavior, and KP4-Results). Specifically, participants received links to questionnaire packages at three time points: 1-week preworkshop, immediately postworkshop, and 1-week postworkshop. Results showed that participants (a) reported high satisfaction, engagement, and perceived relevance of the workshop (KP1); (b) experienced significant improvements to their knowledge, skills, attitudes, and self-efficacy from pre- to immediately postworkshop (KP2); and (c) self-reported increases to their external focus promotion in the week following the workshop (modified KP3), and perceived improvements to their clients’ outcomes as a result of this external focus encouragement (modified KP4). Taken together, these results serve as a chain of evidence supporting the usefulness of the workshop in translating focus of attention findings into Canadian physiotherapy.
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 | 0.176 | 0.353 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".