↓ 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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 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 172 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 19%
Student > Master 19 11%
Researcher 17 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 7%
Lecturer 13 7%
Other 55 31%
Unknown 28 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 34%
Social Sciences 27 15%
Computer Science 16 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Engineering 7 4%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 35 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 January 2013.
All research outputs
#19,469,513
of 24,831,063 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,976
of 3,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,145
of 166,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#18
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,831,063 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,838 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 166,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.