ArticleOccupational therapy international2023
Perception of the Use of the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills in Occupational Therapy Postgraduate Year Training in Taiwan: Survey of the Perspectives of Trainees and Supervisors.
Article in Occupational therapy international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perception of the Use of the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills in Occupational Therapy Postgraduate Year Training in Taiwan: Survey of the Perspectives of Trainees and Supervisors.Occupational therapy international · 2023Article
- Investigating the Impact of the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills Assessment on the Learning and Satisfaction of the Operating Room Students of Neyshabur University of Medical Sciences, Iran, in 2022.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Assessment of clinical competence is a significant part of the training for young occupational therapists (OTs). Objective and systematic assessment allows both supervisors and trainees to be aware of the training objectives and monitor the progress. The direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) is a work-based assessment to evaluate professional knowledge, skills, and attitude in clinical training. This study investigated the perspectives of OT educators and trainees on using DOPS and their discrepancy for OT postgraduate year (PGY) training. Methods: This study used a quantitative online survey. Eighty-six supervisors and 41 trainees of OT PGY training programs from 95 hospitals returned the questionnaire (a 90.5% return rate), and 64 supervisors and 30 trainees who used DOPS were analyzed. Outcomes included the practicality in using the DOPS in clinical settings, the ease of rating the DOPS, and advantages and the disadvantages of the DOPS. Results: Most respondents reported that completing one DOPS required at least 11 minutes for direct observation (11-40 minutes: teacher 92.2%; trainee 80.6%). Most respondents (teacher 96.9%, trainee 96.8%) had feedback after direct observation of DOPS, and about half of the feedback assessments took 5 to 10 minutes (teacher 53.1%, trainee 48.4%). Most OT educators and trainees agreed that clinical resources were sufficient and that DOPS matched with OT training goals, benefited OT competence training, and had a fair, objective, and consistent scoring system. Significantly higher percentages of OT trainees felt stressed in and satisfied with the DOPS assessment than trainers. Differences between teachers and trainees regarding easiness of rating DOPS items were not significant. Conclusion: Most OT educators and trainees agreed that DOPS was a practical and appropriate assessment for OT PGY training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.