↓ Skip to main content

The Temporal Rating of Emergency Non-Technical skills (TRENT) index for self and others: psychometric properties and emotional responses

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
The Temporal Rating of Emergency Non-Technical skills (TRENT) index for self and others: psychometric properties and emotional responses
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12909-014-0240-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eamonn Ferguson, Andy Buttery, Giulia Miles, Christina Tatalia, David D Clarke, Adam J Lonsdale, Bryn Baxendale, Claire Lawrence

Abstract

BackgroundTo enhance the non-technical skills (NTS) assessment literature by developing a reliable and valid peer and self-assessment tool for NTS in a simulated ward setting to include emotional reactions: the Temporal Rating of Emergency Non-Technical skills (TRENT) Index. The paper aims to document (1) the psychometric properties of the TRENT index (e.g., reliability, idiosyncrasy biases) and (2) its validity in terms of performance-emotional associations in the high fidelity simulated ward environment.MethodsTwo samples of doctors (Ns =150 & 90) taking part in emergency simulations provided both self and peer-assessment of NTS, with the second sample also providing self-assessments of mood. The psychometric properties of the TRENT were explored for self- and peer-assessment, and pre- and post-simulation environment mood was used to assess validity.ResultsA psychometrically reliable and valid 5-factor assessment of NTS was developed. While there was evidence for both intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, inter-rater idiosyncrasy was also observed. Self-rated, but not peer-rated, negative performance was positively associated with post simulation negative mood.ConclusionThese are the first results that pertain to inter-, intra-rater reliability as well as idiosyncratic biases in NTS assessment and the first to show that simulator performance can influence mood after assessment. Potential clinical carry-over effects of mood are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 14%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Psychology 4 9%
Engineering 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 8 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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
#15,325,004
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,259
of 3,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,377
of 361,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#43
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,314 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 361,963 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.