ArticleJournal of exercise rehabilitation2025
Reliability and validity of applying Kirkpatrick model for evaluating exercise rehabilitation program.
Article in Journal of exercise rehabilitation, 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.
- Reframing the Kirkpatrick model for evaluating humanistic care training in nursing: a context-sensitive integrative perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Kirkpatrick four-level questionnaire-comprising reaction (R), learning (L), behavior (B), and results (Res)-in the context of an exercise rehabilitation program. A total of 141 university students, aged 21 to 25, participated in a 15-week exercise rehabilitation program. Intrarater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in a pre-posttest setup and analyzed through Bland-Altman plots. Convergent validity was examined using Pearson correlation. The results of this study were as follows. 'R,' consisting of six questions, showed an ICC ranging from 0.954 to 0.990. 'L,' composed of seven questions, demonstrated an ICC between 0.883 and 0.978. 'B,' made up of five questions, displayed an ICC ranging from 0.859 to 0.974. Additionally, 'Res,' consisting of five questions, showed an ICC between 0.834 and 0.926. Significant correlations were observed among all 23 items (
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.