Establishing National Consensus on the Canadian Physiotherapy Association's Core Professional Values Through e-Delphi Surveys and Member Consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Core professional values (CPVs) guide both physiotherapist behaviours and the Association's activities. The purpose of this study was to confirm or modify a list of 10 CPVs and their associated behaviours (ABs) through a series of online surveys and member consultation. Method: Members of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association (CPA) rated whether or not 10 CPVs and their ABs were “relevant and essential” through three rounds of electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) surveys. Consensus was defined a priori as 80% agreement. Demographic data and respondents’ feedback were collected. Revisions to the CPVs and ABs in subsequent rounds were guided by member ratings and feedback. Additional input was sought through meetings with members, professional leaders and content experts. Results: Over 1,000 members participated. There were 548, 446, and 295 surveys completed for rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Ten CPVs (accountability, advocacy, altruism, client centredness, compassion, equity, excellence, integrity, respect, social responsibility) were confirmed. The number of ABs increased from 29 in the first round to 35 in the final version. Conclusions: Ten CPVs with ABs have been confirmed by members of the CPA. These values can inform the professional activities of clinicians, the CPA, and others. Future work includes the identification of ABs that relate to non-clinical activities and exploring the relationship between demographic factors and the integration of CPVs into practice.
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 | 0.215 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".