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 |
An instrument for evaluating clinical teaching in Japan: content validity and cultural sensitivity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6920-14-179 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Makoto Kikukawa, Renee E Stalmeijer, Sei Emura, Sue Roff, Albert JJA Scherpbier |
| Abstract |
Many instruments for evaluating clinical teaching have been developed but almost all in Western countries. None of these instruments have been validated for the Asian culture, and a literature search yielded no instruments that were developed specifically for that culture. A key element that influences content validity in developing instruments for evaluating the quality of teaching is culture. The aim of this study was to develop a culture-specific instrument with strong content validity for evaluating clinical teaching in initial medical postgraduate training in Japan. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 73 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 11% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 27% |
| Unknown | 12 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 49% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 August 2014.
All research outputs
#6,920,744
of 22,761,738 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,206
of 3,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,401
of 236,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#18
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,761,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,305 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 236,621 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 66% of its contemporaries.