Perceptions of competencies and education of registered kinesiologists in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kinesiology has been a regulated health profession in Ontario, Canada, since 2013. A critical step in understanding their integration into the health delivery system is evaluating the perceptions and awareness of associated groups. This study involved a cross-sectional survey of 202 Registered Kinesiologists (RKin) and 341 other healthcare professionals (OHPs) and assessed perceptions of RKin clinical competency across 10 domains within their scope of practice, and education and clinical training in six areas. A lack of overall awareness of RKins' was observed amongst OHP, with 33% unable to judge RKin clinical competences and 24% expressing uncertainty in evaluating the adequacy of educational training. The majority of RKins (80%-93%) self-rated their proficiency as "clinically competent" across nine of ten clinical domains within their scope of practice. The sole exception was diet counselling, which exhibited the greatest variability and lowest self-reported competency (39%). OHPs and RKins perceived RKin clinical competency and education most favourably in exercise prescription, basic science and physiology, and movement analysis. Gaps in awareness of their broader scope represent potential barriers to integration. Targeted advocacy, interprofessional education, professional learning opportunities, and practical training are suggested and critical to enhancing RKins integration within the Ontario health delivery system.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".