ArticleBMC medical education2026
Educational assessments in entry-level physical therapy education: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-quality educational assessments in health professions education are critical for ensuring that program graduates are competent to perform safe and effective patient care. While scoping reviews of available assessments and assessment tools have been conducted in some health professions, such knowledge synthesis is not available for physical therapy. The objective of this scoping review is to systematically describe the assessment of knowledge and skills in entry-level physical therapy education and identify gaps that need to be filled.
methodsThe PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, and Scopus electronic databases were searched from inception through April 2025. Studies were included if they evaluated an educational assessment of knowledge and/or skills in physical therapy students. Two reviewers independently screened the abstracts and full texts. One reviewer extracted information from each article, with verification from a second reviewer. Data charting included study characteristics, assessment characteristics, and validity evidence according to Messick’s validity framework. The level of evidence in each study was rated on a four-point scale. Fifteen physical therapy educators and five health professions education experts provided consultation to inform the interpretation of findings.
resultsOf 4705 studies screened, 139 met the inclusion criteria. Ninety-two assessments were included, 74 of which were performance-based assessments. Clinical knowledge, procedural skills, and communication skills were the most prevalent construct types. Knowledge for Practice, Patient and Client Care & Services, and Communication were the most prevalent domains represented from the American Physical Therapy Association’s (APTA’s) Domains of Competence. Content evidence was the most prevalent type of validity evidence, reported for 64 (70.0%) of the assessments. The validity evidence ratings had median ratings of 0 or 1 for each category of validity evidence.
conclusionThis scoping review summarizes and synthesizes the evidence for assessments of knowledge and skills in entry-level physical therapy education. This review helps educators identify and select assessment tools in physical therapy education, reveals gaps in the educational assessment literature, and outlines recommendations for future research areas and approaches.
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.