ArticlePloS one2025
The assessment of physiotherapy practice is a robust measure of entry-level physiotherapy standards: Reliability and validity evidence from a large, representative sample.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Individual differences and self-regulatory factors are credible determinants of physiotherapy student performance on clinical placement: Insights from a measurement burst design study.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026Article
- Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of "Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice" (APP-S).BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice (APP) is a 20-item assessment instrument used to assess entry-level physiotherapy practice in Australia, New Zealand and other international locations. Initial APP reliability and validity evidence supported a unidimensional or single latent factor as the best representation of entry-level physiotherapy practice performance. However, there remains inconsistency in how the APP is interpreted and operationalised across Australian and New Zealand universities offering entry-level physiotherapy programs. In essence, the presumption that the psychometric integrity of the APP generalises across people, time, and contexts remains largely untested. This multi-site, archival replication study utilised APP assessment data from 8,979 clinical placement assessments, across 19 Australian and New Zealand universities, graduating entry-level physiotherapy students (n=1865) in 2019. Structural representation of APP scores were examined via confirmatory factor analysis and penalised structural equation models. Factor analyses indicated a 2-factor representation, with four items (1-4) for the professional dimension and 16 items (5-20) for the clinical dimension, is the best approximation of entry-level physiotherapy performance. Measurement invariance analyses supported the robustness of this 2-factor representation over time and across diverse practice areas in both penultimate and final years of study. The findings provide strong evidence for the psychometric integrity of the APP, and the 2-factor alternative interpretation and operationalisation is recommended. To meet entry-level standards students should be assessed as competent across both professional and clinical dimensions of physiotherapy practice.
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.