Measuring Scholarly Practice in Respiratory Therapists: The Development and Initial Validation of a Scholarly Practice Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Respiratory therapists (RTs) must apply competencies to address the health care needs of the public. Although all competencies are deemed essential, scholarly practice requires that professionals critically assess their practices, integrate evidence-based literature, and enhance the care they deliver to patients. Though scholarly practice is also associated with professional empowerment, role satisfaction, and improved patient care, it is rarely measured. The purpose of this study was to develop, pilot, and generate preliminary validity evidence of a tool designed to measure scholarly practice among RTs. METHODS: We used DeVellis' nine-step scale development process and exploratory factor analysis to develop the tool. The results of a scoping review and qualitative study were used to generate an item pool and pilot test it with 81 RTs across Canada. The refined tool was tested on a larger sample (n = 832) and analyzed using exploratory factor analysis. RESULTS: Using principal axis factoring with Promax rotation, we retained 18 items across 4 factors, explaining 56.7% of the variance in the data (31.7%, 10.2%, 8.6%, 6.2%): (Factor 1) professional development and credibility, (Factor 2) elements supporting scholarly practice, (Factor 3) the perceived impact of scholarly activities on practice, and (Factor 4) s cholarly practitioner identity and ability. Internal consistency of the final 18-item scale was suitable overall (Cronbach alpha = 0.879) and for each factor (F1 = 0.888; F2 = 0.774; F3 = 0.842; F4 = 0.746). DISCUSSION: Our results provide preliminary evidence for a scholarly practice tool that can encourage self-reflection and/or foster peer-based reflection. Using the tool with other health care professionals and conducting confirmatory factor analysis could generate additional validity evidence.
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 | 0.073 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".