Assessment approaches and methods in physiotherapy education: A scoping review protocol

Katie L. Kowalski; Andrews Tawiah; Erin Miller; Maren Goodman; Greg Alcock; Heather Gillis

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0335229

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 22, 2025
22 Aug 2025 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Academic Editor.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335229.r001
15 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - LS Katrina Li, Editor Dear Dr. Kowalski, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 30 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, LS Katrina Li Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. 3. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Katie Kowalski. 4. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Katie L Kowalski. 5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. Reviewer #1: Thank you for a well written scoping review protocol that will narratively characterise the assessment approaches and methods used in physiotherapy and analyse the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of approaches and methods used. Table 1: You may wish to spell out OSCE here or as a foot note (it is mentioned earlier in its full form in line 147, it might be worth adding "OSCE" there) Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents a well-structured and methodologically sound protocol for a scoping review of assessment approaches and methods in physiotherapy education. The research question is clearly outlined using the PCC framework, key terms are appropriately defined, and the proposed methodology is thorough. I was pleased to see the authors acknowledge that their review aims to determine and describe assessment approaches and methods in physiotherapy education, complemented by a SWOT analysis and, importantly, mapping of these methods to relevant competencies. As a reader, I can appreciate the importance of mapping assessment approaches to competencies, and I recognise how this alignment underpins professional standards and graduate readiness. That said, the manuscript would benefit from short justification on how the authors envisage their review might influence practice; whether by guiding educators to adapt or reshape assessment designs, highlighting under-utilised methods, or exposing misalignments with competency expectations. Making this pathway from evidence to application more explicit would sharpen the contribution of the review to educational quality. I also note that while critical appraisal is not required for scoping reviews, some narrative consideration of study quality could add nuance to the evidence-informed outputs. Finally, I recommend including a short dissemination plan. A clear statement on how the findings will be shared - for example, through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations - would improve transparency and signal the intended impact of the work. Overall, this is a carefully conceived and clearly presented protocol on a relevant and timely topic. With minor refinements to the rationale, greater clarity on anticipated implications for assessment practice, acknowledgement of study quality, and a dissemination plan, the work will be well positioned to make a meaningful contribution to physiotherapy education. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Emma McComb ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335229.r002
Revision 1
24 Sep 2025 Author Response We have incorporated feedback into the manuscript from the two reviewers, which has improved its clarity and sharpened the potential impact of study findings to physiotherapy education. We have addressed each point raised by the reviewers and responded in the submitted document titled “Kowalski et al Point-by-point response to reviewers”. The corresponding changes to the manuscript are indicated using tracked changes and uploaded with a file naming convention indicating as such. Reviewer 1 Reviewer 1 comments Author response Thank you for a well written scoping review protocol that will narratively characterise the assessment approaches and methods used in physiotherapy and analyse the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of approaches and methods used. Thank you for the feedback on the quality of writing. Table 1: You may wish to spell out OSCE here or as a foot note (it is mentioned earlier in its full form in line 147, it might be worth adding "OSCE" there) We have spelled out OSCE within table 1. Reviewer 2 Reviewer 2 comments Author response 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? Reviewer 2 response: No We have added to the new dissemination plan paragraph that all data underlying findings will be made available upon publishing the review (line 253). This manuscript presents a well-structured and methodologically sound protocol for a scoping review of assessment approaches and methods in physiotherapy education. The research question is clearly outlined using the PCC framework, key terms are appropriately defined, and the proposed methodology is thorough. Thank you for this positive feedback. I was pleased to see the authors acknowledge that their review aims to determine and describe assessment approaches and methods in physiotherapy education, complemented by a SWOT analysis and, importantly, mapping of these methods to relevant competencies. As a reader, I can appreciate the importance of mapping assessment approaches to competencies, and I recognise how this alignment underpins professional standards and graduate readiness. That said, the manuscript would benefit from short justification on how the authors envisage their review might influence practice; whether by guiding educators to adapt or reshape assessment designs, highlighting under-utilised methods, or exposing misalignments with competency expectations. Making this pathway from evidence to application more explicit would sharpen the contribution of the review to educational quality. Thank you for this suggestion to better highlight the potential impact and use of the review findings. We have added to the discussion paragraph that review findings may highlight under-used or innovative assessment methods that could be more widely adopted, or they could expose misalignment with competency expectations, ultimately supporting physiotherapy educators to refine or re-shape assessments to ensure educational quality (line 269-272). I also note that while critical appraisal is not required for scoping reviews, some narrative consideration of study quality could add nuance to the evidence-informed outputs. Thank you for this thoughtful point. We agree that critical appraisal is not required for scoping reviews and owing to the anticipated heterogeneity of study designs and methodologies, selecting a single critical appraisal tool to enable interpretation across included studies would be problematic. However, the data that we have planned to extract will support a narrative description of methodological features (e.g., design, reporting, sample size) that point towards study quality, allowing for a nuanced interpretation of findings. This has been added to the synthesis of results section (line 216). Finally, I recommend including a short dissemination plan. A clear statement on how the findings will be shared - for example, through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations - would improve transparency and signal the intended impact of the work. Thank you for this suggestion, we have added a brief dissemination plan for the review, which includes intent to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, targeting open access where possible, presenting at conferences hosted by physiotherapy professional organizations (e.g., Canadian Physiotherapy Association Congress), and a broader social media strategy through our institution’s knowledge mobilization team. This paragraph begins on line 250. Overall, this is a carefully conceived and clearly presented protocol on a relevant and timely topic. With minor refinements to the rationale, greater clarity on anticipated implications for assessment practice, acknowledgement of study quality, and a dissemination plan, the work will be well positioned to make a meaningful contribution to physiotherapy education. Thank you for your feedback. We believe we have thoroughly addressed your points, which has added clarity and sharpened the potential impact of study findings to physiotherapy education. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Kowalski et al Point-by-point response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335229.r003
8 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - LS Katrina Li, Editor Assessment approaches and methods in physiotherapy education: A scoping review protocol PONE-D-25-45667R1 Dear Dr. Kowalski, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, LS Katrina Li Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335229.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - LS Katrina Li, Editor PONE-D-25-45667R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kowalski, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. LS Katrina Li Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335229.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .