ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Speaking fluency and critical thinking among Egyptian EFL business students: a mixed-methods study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
The integration of speaking fluency (SF) and critical thinking (CT) is essential for effective academic and professional communication; however, these skills are often examined separately in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) research. Limited evidence exists regarding their interaction within Egyptian higher education, particularly in non-language faculties. This mixed-methods study investigated the relationship between SF and CT among 100 second-year Egyptian EFL business students at an intermediate (B1) level. Students completed a six-task performance-based test targeting multiple fluency skills (oral fluency, discourse management, suprasegmental features, interactive fluency, and formulaic expressions) and critical thinking skills (idea clarification, evidence provision, perspective integration, solution justification, and reflective reasoning). Students' performances were evaluated using analytic rubrics with strong internal consistency (SF α = 0.87; CT α = 0.90) and high inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.87). Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and linear regression analyses were conducted. Results indicated moderate performance in both SF (
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.