↓ Skip to main content

Implementing statistical equating for MRCP(UK) parts 1 and 2

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Implementing statistical equating for MRCP(UK) parts 1 and 2
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-14-204
Pubmed ID
Authors

IC McManus, Liliana Chis, Ray Fox, Derek Waller, Peter Tang

Abstract

The MRCP(UK) exam, in 2008 and 2010, changed the standard-setting of its Part 1 and Part 2 examinations from a hybrid Angoff/Hofstee method to statistical equating using Item Response Theory, the reference group being UK graduates. The present paper considers the implementation of the change, the question of whether the pass rate increased amongst non-UK candidates, any possible role of Differential Item Functioning (DIF), and changes in examination predictive validity after the change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Researcher 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 December 2020.
All research outputs
#16,066,214
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,279
of 3,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,873
of 263,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#35
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,988 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 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 263,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.