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 |
A systematic review of factors influencing student ratings in undergraduate medical education course evaluations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-015-0311-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Schiekirka, Tobias Raupach |
| Abstract |
Student ratings are a popular source of course evaluations in undergraduate medical education. Data on the reliability and validity of such ratings have mostly been derived from studies unrelated to medical education. Since medical education differs considerably from other higher education settings, an analysis of factors influencing overall student ratings with a specific focus on medical education was needed. For the purpose of this systematic review, online databases (PubMed, PsycInfo and Web of Science) were searched up to August 1st, 2013. Original research articles on the use of student ratings in course evaluations in undergraduate medical education were eligible for inclusion. Included studies considered the format of evaluation tools and assessed the association of independent and dependent (i.e., overall course ratings) variables. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were checked by two independent reviewers, and results were synthesised in a narrative review. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Qualitative research (2 studies) indicated that overall course ratings are mainly influenced by student satisfaction with teaching and exam difficulty rather than objective determinants of high quality teaching. Quantitative research (23 studies) yielded various influencing factors related to four categories: student characteristics, exposure to teaching, satisfaction with examinations and the evaluation process itself. Female gender, greater initial interest in course content, higher exam scores and higher satisfaction with exams were associated with more positive overall course ratings. Due to the heterogeneity and methodological limitations of included studies, results must be interpreted with caution. Medical educators need to be aware of various influences on student ratings when developing data collection instruments and interpreting evaluation results. More research into the reliability and validity of overall course ratings as typically used in the evaluation of undergraduate medical education is warranted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 67% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 156 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 11% |
| Researcher | 15 | 9% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 51 | 32% |
| Unknown | 37 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 63 | 39% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 8% |
| Psychology | 8 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 29 | 18% |
| Unknown | 37 | 23% |
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 08 November 2015.
All research outputs
#6,731,143
of 22,794,367 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,147
of 3,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,805
of 257,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#25
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,794,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 257,878 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 59% of its contemporaries.