ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2026
Evaluating the test-retest reliability of the chiropractic professional identity embodiment scale.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study evaluated the test-retest reliability of the scores obtained from the Chiropractic Professional Identity Embodiment Scale (CPIES), a brief self-report tool assessing professional identity in chiropractors and students. Methods: Students were invited across all 4 year levels at a chiropractic college to complete an online survey featuring 15 CPIES statements rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The survey was administered twice, 4 weeks apart, with participants matched across time points using three sociodemographic identifiers. Test-retest reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with a 2-way mixed-effects model for absolute agreement. Results: Due to anonymous participation, the exact response rate could not be calculated; the estimated response rate was 24%. Of these respondents, 23 participants (35%) were matched across 2 time points. The CPIES sum score demonstrated good to excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97). Most items demonstrated moderate reliability across assessments. Conclusion: Data collected using the CPIES demonstrated good to excellent test-retest reliability, supporting its temporal stability. This provides further evidence to support use of the CPIES in research, education, and policy, when professional identity is increasingly recognized as a key competency.
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.