ArticleBMC medical education2025
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the modified Fresno test for physical therapists.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe modified Fresno test was developed to assess knowledge and skills related to evidence-based practice among physical therapists and students, however no Chinese version is available. Therefore, the aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt the English version of the modified Fresno test into Chinese and to evaluate its validity and reliability.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional validation study. During Phase 1 cross-cultural adaptation, forward translation, synthesis, back-translation, expert review, and prefinal test were carried out. Content validity was analyzed. During Phase 2 validation, two groups representing different levels of evidence-based practice competence completed the tests twice, two weeks apart. Known-group validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability were analyzed.
resultsPhase 1: According to the expert review, the Chinese version of the modified Fresno test demonstrated good content validity (item-level content validity index = 0.93 to 1.0; scale-level content validity index = 0.99). Phase 2: The expert group scored (115.3 ± 36.2) significantly higher than the novice group did (79.7 ± 25.8) for the entire test (p = 0.01), suggesting good known-group validity. However, the superior performance of the expert group over the novice group was not consistently found across all the questions on the test. In addition, the internal consistency was good (Cronbach's α = 0.96) and the test-retest reliability (ICC
conclusionsThe Chinese version of the modified Fresno test is a valid and reliable tool for objectively assessing evidence-based practice knowledge and skills in Chinese-speaking physical therapists and students.
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.