↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of two different types of bias affecting the results of outcome-based evaluation in undergraduate medical education

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Assessment of two different types of bias affecting the results of outcome-based evaluation in undergraduate medical education
Published in
BMC Medical Education, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-14-149
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Schiekirka, Sven Anders, Tobias Raupach

Abstract

Estimating learning outcome from comparative student self-ratings is a reliable and valid method to identify specific strengths and shortcomings in undergraduate medical curricula. However, requiring students to complete two evaluation forms (i.e. one before and one after teaching) might adversely affect response rates. Alternatively, students could be asked to rate their initial performance level retrospectively. This approach might threaten the validity of results due to response shift or effort justification bias.

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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Thailand 1 2%
Unknown 41 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Lecturer 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 11 25%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 36%
Social Sciences 7 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Psychology 3 7%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 5 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 February 2015.
All research outputs
#4,934,127
of 10,467,720 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#677
of 1,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,282
of 217,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#23
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,467,720 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 52nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 217,347 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.