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 |
The validity of a behavioural multiple-mini-interview within an assessment centre for selection into specialty training
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6920-14-169 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chris Roberts, Tyler Clark, Annette Burgess, Michael Frommer, Marcia Grant, Karyn Mossman |
| Abstract |
Entry into specialty training was determined by a National Assessment Centre (NAC) approach using a combination of a behavioural Multiple-Mini-Interview (MMI) and a written Situational Judgement Test (SJT). We wanted to know if interviewers could make reliable and valid decisions about the non-cognitive characteristics of candidates with the purpose of selecting them into general practice specialty training using the MMI. Second, we explored the concurrent validity of the MMI with the SJT. |
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% |
| Ireland | 1 | 20% |
| Kuwait | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 30% |
| Unknown | 16 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 37% |
| Psychology | 15 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 04 February 2016.
All research outputs
#2,609,895
of 24,744,050 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#412
of 3,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,989
of 236,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#9
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,744,050 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,816 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 89% 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 236,439 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.