ArticleBMC medical education2026
Development and validation of the Traineeship Evaluation Questionnaire (TEQ) from the physiotherapy student's perception.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical traineeships represent a core component of undergraduate physiotherapy education, contributing substantially to the development of professional competencies. Despite their central role, psychometrically validated instruments specifically designed to evaluate students’ perceptions of placement quality remain limited. This study aimed to develop and evaluate the measurement properties of the Traineeship Evaluation Questionnaire (TEQ).
methodsA multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey administered to undergraduate physiotherapy students from six Italian universities. The TEQ was developed through a structured content validation process involving expert review and cognitive interviews with students. Structural validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Internal consistency, test–retest reliability, construct validity, and feasibility (including floor and ceiling effects) were evaluated.
resultsA total of 436 students participated. EFA supported a predominantly unidimensional structure, justifying computation of the TEQ total score. The instrument demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.932) and strong test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.916). Construct validity was confirmed through strong correlations with a validated comparator instrument assessing clinical supervisor competencies (r = 0.874, p < 0.001). Floor effects were negligible, whereas ceiling effects were substantial, particularly at the subdomain level. Completion time was under ten minutes.
conclusionThe TEQ demonstrated satisfactory structural validity, excellent reliability, and robust construct validity. Its brevity and feasibility support its use as a practical instrument for evaluating clinical placement quality in undergraduate physiotherapy education. Further research should explore cross-cultural validity and responsiveness.
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.