MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7062020371

Students’ and Educators’ Perceptions of Competency-based Assessments in Communication Sciences and Disorders Education in Canada

2023· dissertation· en· W7062020371 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTerahertz technology and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionCommunication skillsClinical PracticeDescriptive statisticsDescriptive researchHigher educationEducational measurementCurriculum
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Educational institutions offering Communication Sciences and Disorders programs aim to equip students with essential knowledge and skills required to become competent audiologists and speech-language pathologists, capable of meeting the demands of these rapidly evolving professions. Competency-based assessments (CBAs) play a crucial role in evaluating students' readiness by measuring their achievements against industry standards. Thus, the purpose of this study is to identify the CBAs used in Communication Sciences and Disorders education programs and to investigate the perceptions of both students and educators’ regarding the current practice of CBAs. A descriptive cross-sectional design was employed, using two parallel online surveys that consisted of scaled and open-ended questions to collect data independently from 44 students and 16 educators. The present study confirms that many Canadian universities employ some form of programmatic assessment approach, which involves using a combination of various low-stakes CBAs over time to determine students’ clinical competence. Many of these assessments are conducted in real clinical settings to evaluate performance in practice, rather than assessments conducted to evaluate the demonstration of learning in a controlled clinical environment. Among them direct observations by clinical educators are the most popular and preferred method of assessment by many students and educators. Both students and educators felt that the current CBA practices are well-organized, effective in achieving their purposes and maintain good quality. Given the crucial role of CBAs in evaluating students' clinical competence, the insights provided by this study are essential for further enhancing the effectiveness of CBA systems. Such improvements can lead to accurate measurement of student outcomes in clinical practice against regulatory competencies and contribute to the continued advancement of the audiology and speech-language pathology professions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicTerahertz technology and applicationsFrench-language works237,207