↓ Skip to main content

Learning the facts in medical school is not enough: which factors predict successful application of procedural knowledge in a laboratory setting?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
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
Learning the facts in medical school is not enough: which factors predict successful application of procedural knowledge in a laboratory setting?
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-13-28
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ralf Schmidmaier, Stephan Eiber, Rene Ebersbach, Miriam Schiller, Inga Hege, Matthias Holzer, Martin R Fischer

Abstract

Medical knowledge encompasses both conceptual (facts or "what" information) and procedural knowledge ("how" and "why" information). Conceptual knowledge is known to be an essential prerequisite for clinical problem solving. Primarily, medical students learn from textbooks and often struggle with the process of applying their conceptual knowledge to clinical problems. Recent studies address the question of how to foster the acquisition of procedural knowledge and its application in medical education. However, little is known about the factors which predict performance in procedural knowledge tasks. Which additional factors of the learner predict performance in procedural knowledge?

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Thailand 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 99 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 28 27%
Unknown 23 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 33%
Social Sciences 10 10%
Psychology 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 25 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 24 May 2021.
All research outputs
#5,622,528
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#884
of 3,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,228
of 192,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#15
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,295 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 192,954 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 61% of its contemporaries.