↓ Skip to main content

Investigating possible ethnicity and sex bias in clinical examiners: an analysis of data from the MRCP(UK) PACES and nPACES examinations

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
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

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.
Mendeley readers

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

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.