↓ Skip to main content

Development of a written assessment for a national interprofessional cardiotocography education program

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Development of a written assessment for a national interprofessional cardiotocography education program
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0915-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Line Thellesen, Thomas Bergholt, Morten Hedegaard, Nina Palmgren Colov, Karl Bang Christensen, Kristine Sylvan Andersen, Jette Led Sorensen

Abstract

To reduce the incidence of hypoxic brain injuries among newborns a national cardiotocography (CTG) education program was implemented in Denmark. A multiple-choice question test was integrated as part of the program. The aim of this article was to describe and discuss the test development process and to introduce a feasible method for written test development in general. The test development was based on the unitary approach to validity. The process involved national consensus on learning objectives, standardized item writing, pilot testing, sensitivity analyses, standard setting and evaluation of psychometric properties using Item Response Theory models. Test responses and feedback from midwives, specialists and residents in obstetrics and gynecology, and medical and midwifery students were used in the process (proofreaders n = 6, pilot test participants n = 118, CTG course participants n = 1679). The final test included 30 items and the passing score was established at 25 correct answers. All items fitted a loglinear Rasch model and the test was able to discriminate levels of competence. Seven items revealed differential item functioning in relation to profession and geographical regions, which means the test is not suitable for measuring differences between midwives and physicians or differences across regions. In the setting of pilot testing Cronbach's alpha equaled 0.79, whereas Cronbach's alpha equaled 0.63 in the setting of the CTG education program. This indicates a need for more items and items with a higher degree of difficulty in the test, and illuminates the importance of context when discussing validity. Test development is a complex and time-consuming process. The unitary approach to validity was a useful and applicable tool for development of a CTG written assessment. The process and findings supported our proposed interpretation of the assessment as measuring CTG knowledge and interpretive skills. However, for the test to function as a high-stake assessment a higher reliability is required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 19%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Linguistics 2 3%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 16 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 May 2017.
All research outputs
#5,970,303
of 11,194,639 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#789
of 1,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,940
of 264,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#17
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,194,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,488 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 264,100 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 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 61% of its contemporaries.