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 benefit of repetitive skills training and frequency of expert feedback in the early acquisition of procedural skills
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-015-0286-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hans Martin Bosse, Jonathan Mohr, Beate Buss, Markus Krautter, Peter Weyrich, Wolfgang Herzog, Jana Jünger, Christoph Nikendei |
| Abstract |
Redundant training and feedback are crucial for successful acquisition of skills in simulation trainings. It is still unclear how or how much feedback should best be delivered to maximize its effect, and how learners' activity and feedback are optimally blended. To determine the influence of high- versus low-frequency expert feedback on the learning curve of students' clinical procedural skill acquisition in a prospective randomized study. N = 47 medical students were trained to insert a nasogastric tube in a mannequin, including structured feedback in the initial instruction phase at the beginning of the training (T1), and either additional repetitive feedback after each of their five subsequent repetitions (high-frequency feedback group, HFF group; N = 23) or additional feedback on just one occasion, after the fifth repetition only (low-frequency feedback group, LFF group; N = 24). We assessed a) task-specific clinical skill performance and b) global procedural performance (five items of the Integrated Procedural Performance Instrument (IPPI); on the basis of expert-rated videotapes at the beginning of the training (T1) and during the final, sixth trial (T2). The two study groups did not differ regarding their baseline data. The calculated ANOVA for task-specific clinical skill performance with the between-subject factor 'Group' (HFF vs. LFF) and within-subject factors 'Time' (T1 vs. T2) turned out not to be significant (p < .147). An exploratory post-hoc analyses revealed a trend towards a superior performance of HFF compared to LFF after the training (T2; p < .093), whereas both groups did not differ at the beginning (T1; p < .851). The smoothness of the procedure assessed as global procedural performance, was superior in HFF compared to LFF after the training (T2; p < .004), whereas groups did not differ at the beginning (T1; p < .941). Deliberate practice with both high- and low-frequency intermittent feedback results in a strong improvement of students' early procedural skill acquisition. High-frequency intermittent feedback, however, results in even better and smoother performance. We discuss the potential role of the cognitive workload on the results. We advocate a thoughtful allocation of tutor resources to future skills training. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 327 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 321 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 45 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 12% |
| Researcher | 28 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 26 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 26 | 8% |
| Other | 79 | 24% |
| Unknown | 85 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 126 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 11% |
| Psychology | 18 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 3% |
| Engineering | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 34 | 10% |
| Unknown | 94 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,323,043
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#149
of 3,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,021
of 255,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#5
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 255,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.