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 |
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
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.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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
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.