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 |
Factors confounding the assessment of reflection: a critical review
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Education, December 2011
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6920-11-104 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Sebastiaan Koole, Tim Dornan, Leen Aper, Albert Scherpbier, Martin Valcke, Janke Cohen-Schotanus, Anselme Derese |
Abstract |
Reflection on experience is an increasingly critical part of professional development and lifelong learning. There is, however, continuing uncertainty about how best to put principle into practice, particularly as regards assessment. This article explores those uncertainties in order to find practical ways of assessing reflection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 23% |
United States | 2 | 15% |
Canada | 1 | 8% |
Unknown | 7 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 7 | 54% |
Scientists | 5 | 38% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 309 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
Ireland | 2 | <1% |
United States | 2 | <1% |
Chile | 1 | <1% |
Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
South Africa | 1 | <1% |
Colombia | 1 | <1% |
Thailand | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 297 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 41 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 10% |
Lecturer | 28 | 9% |
Student > Postgraduate | 25 | 8% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 22 | 7% |
Other | 106 | 34% |
Unknown | 55 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 86 | 28% |
Social Sciences | 61 | 20% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 9% |
Psychology | 14 | 5% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 3% |
Other | 52 | 17% |
Unknown | 60 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 02 April 2017.
All research outputs
#4,620,175
of 25,420,980 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#788
of 3,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,107
of 249,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,420,980 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 249,671 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.