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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Assessment of examiner leniency and stringency ('hawk-dove effect') in the MRCP(UK) clinical examination (PACES) using multi-facet Rasch modelling
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Education, August 2006
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6920-6-42 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
IC McManus, M Thompson, J Mollon |
Abstract |
A potential problem of clinical examinations is known as the hawk-dove problem, some examiners being more stringent and requiring a higher performance than other examiners who are more lenient. Although the problem has been known qualitatively for at least a century, we know of no previous statistical estimation of the size of the effect in a large-scale, high-stakes examination. Here we use FACETS to carry out a multi-facet Rasch modelling of the paired judgements made by examiners in the clinical examination (PACES) of MRCP(UK), where identical candidates were assessed in identical situations, allowing calculation of examiner stringency. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
Sri Lanka | 1 | 20% |
Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
United States | 2 | 1% |
Canada | 2 | 1% |
Peru | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 180 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 26 | 14% |
Student > Master | 21 | 11% |
Student > Postgraduate | 19 | 10% |
Lecturer | 16 | 9% |
Other | 15 | 8% |
Other | 54 | 29% |
Unknown | 36 | 19% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 101 | 54% |
Social Sciences | 16 | 9% |
Psychology | 6 | 3% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 2% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
Other | 17 | 9% |
Unknown | 41 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 28 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,993,757
of 24,518,979 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#482
of 3,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,445
of 69,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,518,979 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,765 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 well, scoring higher than 86% 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 69,678 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.