Critical thinking in occupational therapy education: A mixed-methods study.

Only 118 educators took part and the language-group comparisons rest on much smaller numbers than the English group, which supplied 59.3% of responses. Participation was voluntary, so those who answered are likely to be educators already interested in critical thinking, which the authors acknowledge. Some participants answered in a second or third language, which may have limited how fully they could explain their views. The survey was offered only in English, Spanish and Portuguese, so educators who work in other languages could not take part. Educators rated their own programmes, and not all may have known every part of the curriculum, which could explain why courses were rated higher than programmes. Nothing was observed directly: no teaching was watched and no students were followed, so the study cannot show whether any teaching method changes students' thinking. There were no patient outcomes and no clinical participants, so nothing here speaks to patient care. The paper states in one place that no significant differences were found between language groups, yet reports significant differences on several items elsewhere, so the language comparisons should be read cautiously.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest and state that they did not use artificial intelligence in writing the manuscript. The supplied text contains no funding statement. The study was approved by the Griffith University ethics committee.

Do not read this as evidence that any particular way of teaching critical thinking works. The study asked educators what they believe and what they say they do; it did not follow students or measure changes in their thinking. The differences between language groups are also not a ranking of programmes or countries.