The relationship between resilience, reflective thinking and professionalism in Australian undergraduate occupational therapy students

Abstract

Background

Professionalism is a key attribute that occupational therapy students must establish throughout their education. Resilience and reflective thinking are two skills that may underpin students’ professionalism.

Objective

To investigate whether resilience and reflective thinking are predictive of undergraduate occupational therapy students’ professionalism.

Methods

152 occupational therapy undergraduate students completed the Professionalism Assessment Tool (PAT); the Resilience at University Scale (RAU); and the Reflective Thinking Scale (RTS). Regression analyses with bootstrapping were completed.

Results

Regression models revealed that multiple domains of resilience and reflective thinking were predictive of the following professionalism variables: Reliability, Responsibility and Accountability (R²=0.080, p = 0.002); Lifelong Learning and Adaptability (R²=0.084, p = 0.01); Relationships with Others (R²=0.046, p = 0.03); and Citizenship and Professional Engagement (R²=0.110, p = 0.004). Common independent variables among these models included RTS Reflection, RAU Managing Stress and RAU Finding Your Calling.

Conclusions and significance

This preliminary evidence revealed that when working together, factors of resilience and reflective thinking were predictive of occupational therapy student professionalism. Incorporating a greater focus on these skills into the occupational therapy education curriculum may help enhance student professionalism. Further research on resilience and reflective thinking, and the potential links to professionalism, is recommended.

Keywords:

• Professionalism
• resilience
• reflective thinking
• students
• occupational therapy education

Acknowledgements

The authors of the study would like to acknowledge and thank the occupational therapy students who volunteered their time to participate in the study.

Author contributions

M. George, T. Brown, M. Yu: Conceptualization; Design; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Software; Supervision; Validation; Roles/Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing; Approval of final submitted version.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The data collection phase of this study was funded by the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing & Health Sciences Learning & Teaching Research Grant Scheme 2019, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.