↓ Skip to main content

The development and validation of the clinicians’ awareness towards cognitive errors (CATChES) in clinical decision making questionnaire tool

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
The development and validation of the clinicians’ awareness towards cognitive errors (CATChES) in clinical decision making questionnaire tool
Published in
BMC Medical Education, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0897-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keng Sheng Chew, Yee Cheng Kueh, Adlihafizi Abdul Aziz

Abstract

Despite their importance on diagnostic accuracy, there is a paucity of literature on questionnaire tools to assess clinicians' awareness toward cognitive errors. A validation study was conducted to develop a questionnaire tool to evaluate the Clinician's Awareness Towards Cognitive Errors (CATChES) in clinical decision making. This questionnaire is divided into two parts. Part A is to evaluate the clinicians' awareness towards cognitive errors in clinical decision making while Part B is to evaluate their perception towards specific cognitive errors. Content validation for both parts was first determined followed by construct validation for Part A. Construct validation for Part B was not determined as the responses were set in a dichotomous format. For content validation, all items in both Part A and Part B were rated as "excellent" in terms of their relevance in clinical settings. For construct validation using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for Part A, a two-factor model with total variance extraction of 60% was determined. Two items were deleted. Then, the EFA was repeated showing that all factor loadings are above the cut-off value of >0.5. The Cronbach's alpha for both factors are above 0.6. The CATChES questionnaire tool is a valid questionnaire tool aimed to evaluate the awareness among clinicians toward cognitive errors in clinical decision making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 22%
Student > Master 4 17%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 9%
Other 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 7 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 26%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 06 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,199,148
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,020
of 3,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,169
of 309,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#20
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 309,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 56% of its contemporaries.