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 |
Investigating possible ethnicity and sex bias in clinical examiners: an analysis of data from the MRCP(UK) PACES and nPACES examinations
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Education, July 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6920-13-103 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
I C McManus, Andrew T Elder, Jane Dacre |
Abstract |
Bias of clinical examiners against some types of candidate, based on characteristics such as sex or ethnicity, would represent a threat to the validity of an examination, since sex or ethnicity are 'construct-irrelevant' characteristics. In this paper we report a novel method for assessing sex and ethnic bias in over 2000 examiners who had taken part in the PACES and nPACES (new PACES) examinations of the MRCP(UK). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 | 11 | 55% |
Australia | 1 | 5% |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 5% |
Bermuda | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 6 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 8 | 40% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 35% |
Scientists | 4 | 20% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 80 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 12 | 15% |
Other | 7 | 9% |
Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
Researcher | 6 | 8% |
Other | 19 | 24% |
Unknown | 17 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 55% |
Social Sciences | 5 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
Other | 4 | 5% |
Unknown | 23 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 15 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,798,839
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#226
of 3,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,774
of 201,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#4
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,576 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 201,215 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.