↓ Skip to main content

Expert validation of fit-for-purpose guidelines for designing programmes of assessment

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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.
Title
Expert validation of fit-for-purpose guidelines for designing programmes of assessment
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-12-20
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joost Dijkstra, Robert Galbraith, Brian D Hodges, Pauline A McAvoy, Peter McCrorie, Lesley J Southgate, Cees PM Van der Vleuten, Val Wass, Lambert WT Schuwirth

Abstract

An assessment programme, a purposeful mix of assessment activities, is necessary to achieve a complete picture of assessee competence. High quality assessment programmes exist, however, design requirements for such programmes are still unclear. We developed guidelines for design based on an earlier developed framework which identified areas to be covered. A fitness-for-purpose approach defining quality was adopted to develop and validate guidelines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Indonesia 2 1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 152 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 20%
Student > Master 18 11%
Researcher 16 10%
Lecturer 12 8%
Professor 11 7%
Other 53 33%
Unknown 17 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 35%
Social Sciences 27 17%
Computer Science 14 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Psychology 7 4%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 23 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 May 2017.
All research outputs
#4,707,262
of 9,768,421 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#817
of 1,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,105
of 305,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#32
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,768,421 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 50th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 305,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.