ArticleBMC medical education2025
Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of "Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice" (APP-S).
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical education is a key component of the undergraduate education of physiotherapy students, as it provides the context for the development of essential clinical competencies. These competencies can be assessed in a variety of ways, with scales being one of the most widely used. Among these, the “Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice” (APP) has demonstrated robust psychometric properties and is used in several countries. The objective of this study is to translate and cross-culturally adapt the APP into Spanish (APP-S) and assess its psychometric properties (reliability, content validity, and structural validity) and edumetric properties (acceptability and feasibility).
methodsThis study involved 27 clinical educators (CEs) and 145 physiotherapy students (92 students in the fourth year and 53 students in the third year) from two Spanish universities. Students were assessed at the end of a clinical placement period during the last semester of the academic year. Ten CEs and 35 students evaluated content validity in terms of relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility, using the Content Validity Index for each item (I-CVI) and for the entire scale (S-CVI). Structural validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis, while reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Finally, eight CEs assessed acceptability and feasibility using a 12-item feedback form. Their ratings were then analysed using Aiken’s V coefficient and the percentage of agreement was calculated.
resultsThe scale demonstrated acceptable content validity (I-CVI ≥ 0.89, S-CVI >0.95) and an excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.971). Exploratory factor analysis revealed a two-factor solution: dimension 1, items 6–20; dimension 2, items 1–5. CEs provided positive feedback regarding acceptability and feasibility, with Aiken’s V values ≥ 0.78 and a high percentage of agreement.
conclusionsThe APP-S is an appropriate tool for assessing students in clinical placement, and it was well accepted and positively rated by CEs. Further studies are needed to consolidate its psychometric properties.
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.