↓ Skip to main content

In pursuit of a valid information assessment method for continuing education: a mixed methods study

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
In pursuit of a valid information assessment method for continuing education: a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-13-137
Pubmed ID
Authors

Soumya Bindiganavile Sridhar, Pierre Pluye, Roland Grad

Abstract

The Information Assessment Method (IAM) is a popular tool for continuing education and knowledge translation. After a search for information, the IAM allows the health professional to report what was the search objective, its cognitive impact, as well as any use and patient health benefit associated with the retrieved health information. In continuing education programs, professionals read health information, rate it using the IAM, and earn continuing education credit for this brief individual reflective learning activity. IAM items have been iteratively developed using literature reviews and qualitative studies. Thus, our research question was: what is the content validity of IAM items from the users' perspective?

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Master 9 18%
Researcher 8 16%
Other 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Computer Science 4 8%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 October 2013.
All research outputs
#18,349,805
of 22,725,280 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,731
of 3,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,904
of 209,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#34
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,725,280 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 209,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.