ArticleBMC primary care2025
Development of the physical activity counseling practices scale in health professionals: a validity and reliability study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim is to develop the scale of Physical Activity Counseling Practices (PACPS) in Turkish and validate it among health professionals.
methodsPACPS test-retest was applied to 162 health professionals (physician, physiotherapist, dietician, nurse) with a 1-week interval. Construct validity, correlations of PACPS with other scales were evaluated with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire short form (IPAQ), Conscious Behavioral Physical Activity Questionnaire (CBAPQ).
resultsThe content validity index value of the scale was found to be 0.76. The overall internal consistency of the scale (Cronbach α:0.917) was high. The item-total correlations of the scale are between 0.45 and 0.76.
conclusionThis study, it was determined that the PACPS scale has good internal consistency, test-retest validity and sufficient construct validity when compared with the IPAQ and CBAPQ.
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.