You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A pilot study of marking accuracy and mental workload as measures of OSCE examiner performance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-016-0708-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aidan Byrne, Tereza Soskova, Jayne Dawkins, Lee Coombes |
| Abstract |
The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is now a standard assessment format and while examiner training is seen as essential to assure quality, there appear to be no widely accepted measures of examiner performance. The objective of this study was to determine whether the routine training provided to examiners improved their accuracy and reduced their mental workload. Accuracy was defined as the difference between the rating of each examiner and that of an expert group expressed as the mean error per item. At the same time the mental workload of each examiner was measured using a previously validated secondary task methodology. Training was not associated with an improvement in accuracy (p = 0.547) and that there was no detectable effect on mental workload. However, accuracy was improved after exposure to the same scenario (p < 0.001) and accuracy was greater when marking an excellent compared to a borderline performance. This study suggests that the method of training OSCE examiners studied is not effective in improving their performance, but that average item accuracy and mental workload appear to be valid methods of assessing examiner performance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 30% |
| Australia | 2 | 20% |
| Ireland | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 52 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 26% |
| Unknown | 14 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 15% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#4,681,444
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#796
of 3,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,549
of 365,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#14
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.