↓ Skip to main content

Relating professionalism and conscientiousness to develop an objective, scalar, proxy measure of professionalism in anaesthetic trainees

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, March 2017
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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Relating professionalism and conscientiousness to develop an objective, scalar, proxy measure of professionalism in anaesthetic trainees
Published in
BMC Medical Education, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0891-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. A. Sawdon, K. Whitehouse, G. M. Finn, J. C. McLachlan, D. Murray

Abstract

The concept of professionalism is complex and subjective and relies on expert judgements. Currently, there are no existing objective measures of professionalism in anaesthesia. However, it is possible that at least some elements of professionalism may be indicated by objective measures. A number of studies have suggested that conscientiousness as a trait is a significant contributor to professionalism. A 'Conscientiousness Index' (CI) was developed by collation of routinely collected data from tasks expected to be carried out by anaesthetic trainees such as punctual submission of holiday and 'not-on-call' requests, attendance at audit meetings, timely submission of completed appraisal documentation and sickness/absence notifications. The CI consists of a sum of points deducted from a baseline of 50 for non-completion of these objective and measurable behaviours related to conscientiousness. This was correlated with consultants' formal and informal subjective measures of professionalism in those trainees. Informal, subjective measures of professionalism consisted of a 'Professionalism Index' (PI). The PI consisted of a score developed from consultants' expert, subjective views of professionalism for those trainees. Formal, subjective measures of professionalism consisted of a score derived from comments made by consultants in College Tutor feedback forms on their views on the professionalism of those trainees (College Tutor feedback; CT). The PI and CT scores were correlated against the CI using a Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficient. There was a negative, but not statistically significant, relationship between the CI and formal, subjective measures of professionalism; CT scores (r = -0.341, p = 0.06), but no correlation between CI and consultants informal views of trainees' professionalism; the PI scores (r s  = -0.059, p = 0.759). This may be due the 'failure to fail' phenomenon due to the high stakes nature of raising concerns of professionalism in postgraduate healthcare professionals or may be that the precision of the tool may be insufficient to distinguish between trainees who generally show highly professional behaviour. Future development of the tool may need to include more of the sub-facets of conscientiousness. Independently of a relationship with the construct of professionalism, a measure of conscientiousness might be of interest to future employers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Professor 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 5%
Other 14 23%
Unknown 21 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 37%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 23 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 14 April 2017.
All research outputs
#3,068,911
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#516
of 3,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,833
of 311,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#12
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,348 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 done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 311,244 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.