↓ Skip to main content

Holistic rubric vs. analytic rubric for measuring clinical performance levels in medical students

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Holistic rubric vs. analytic rubric for measuring clinical performance levels in medical students
Published in
BMC Medical Education, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1228-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

So Jung Yune, Sang Yeoup Lee, Sun Ju Im, Bee Sung Kam, Sun Yong Baek

Abstract

Task-specific checklists, holistic rubrics, and analytic rubrics are often used for performance assessments. We examined what factors evaluators consider important in holistic scoring of clinical performance assessment, and compared the usefulness of applying holistic and analytic rubrics respectively, and analytic rubrics in addition to task-specific checklists based on traditional standards. We compared the usefulness of a holistic rubric versus an analytic rubric in effectively measuring the clinical skill performances of 126 third-year medical students who participated in a clinical performance assessment conducted by Pusan National University School of Medicine. We conducted a questionnaire survey of 37 evaluators who used all three evaluation methods-holistic rubric, analytic rubric, and task-specific checklist-for each student. The relationship between the scores on the three evaluation methods was analyzed using Pearson's correlation. Inter-rater agreement was analyzed by Kappa index. The effect of holistic and analytic rubric scores on the task-specific checklist score was analyzed using multiple regression analysis. Evaluators perceived accuracy and proficiency to be major factors in objective structured clinical examinations evaluation, and history taking and physical examination to be major factors in clinical performance examinations evaluation. Holistic rubric scores were highly related to the scores of the task-specific checklist and analytic rubric. Relatively low agreement was found in clinical performance examinations compared to objective structured clinical examinations. Meanwhile, the holistic and analytic rubric scores explained 59.1% of the task-specific checklist score in objective structured clinical examinations and 51.6% in clinical performance examinations. The results show the usefulness of holistic and analytic rubrics in clinical performance assessment, which can be used in conjunction with task-specific checklists for more efficient evaluation.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Other 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Researcher 5 5%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 35 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 17%
Social Sciences 12 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 39 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 August 2020.
All research outputs
#6,809,734
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,155
of 3,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,035
of 329,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#32
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 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 3,383 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 65% 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 329,782 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 88 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 63% of its contemporaries.