ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2025
Reliability and Validity of the Arabic Version of the Self-Assessment of Clinical Reflection and Reasoning Questionnaire in Physical Therapy Students.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
Background: Clinical reasoning is a critical skill for physical therapy (PT) students to provide effective care. This study aimed to assess the reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the Arabic version of the Self-Assessment of Clinical Reflection and Reasoning (SACRR) questionnaire in physical therapy students at Majmaah University. Materials and Methods: A quasi-experimental, non-randomized design was employed, with 76 students divided into three groups: intern (n = 19), pre-clinical (n = 21), and post-clinical (n = 36). Pretest and posttest assessments were conducted. Internal consistency of the Arabic version of the SACRR was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0. Results: The mean age was 22.8 ± 1.3 years, 58 (76.3%) were females, and 18 (23.7%) were males. Significant differences were found between pretest and posttest SACRR scores for Items 7-11 and 14-26 ( Conclusion: Clinical exposure improved clinical reasoning skills among physical therapy students, highlighting the importance of clinical education in healthcare curricula. The Arabic version of the SACRR questionnaire demonstrated good reliability for assessing clinical reasoning skills in this population. Further studies are warranted to validate the SACRR questionnaire in diverse cultural and linguistic contexts, as well as to validate the tool across different cultures and healthcare disciplines.
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.