↓ Skip to main content

Scholarly research productivity is not related to higher three-year licensure pass rates for physical therapy academic programs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Scholarly research productivity is not related to higher three-year licensure pass rates for physical therapy academic programs
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0431-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chad E. Cook, Michel D. Landry, Jeffrey Kyle Covington, Christine McCallum, Chalee Engelhard

Abstract

In the domain of academia, the scholarship of research may include, but not limited to, peer-reviewed publications, presentations, or grant submissions. Programmatic research productivity is one of many measures of academic program reputation and ranking. Another measure or tool for quantifying learning success among physical therapists education programs in the USA is 100 % three year pass rates of graduates on the standardized National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE). In this study, we endeavored to determine if there was an association between research productivity through artifacts and 100 % three year pass rates on the NPTE. This observational study involved using pre-approved database exploration representing all accredited programs in the USA who graduated physical therapists during 2009, 2010 and 2011. Descriptive variables captured included raw research productivity artifacts such as peer reviewed publications and books, number of professional presentations, number of scholarly submissions, total grant dollars, and numbers of grants submitted. Descriptive statistics and comparisons (using chi square and t-tests) among program characteristics and research artifacts were calculated. Univariate logistic regression analyses, with appropriate control variables were used to determine associations between research artifacts and 100 % pass rates. Number of scholarly artifacts submitted, faculty with grants, and grant proposals submitted were significantly higher in programs with 100 % three year pass rates. However, after controlling for program characteristics such as grade point average, diversity percentage of cohort, public/private institution, and number of faculty, there were no significant associations between scholarly artifacts and 100 % three year pass rates. Factors outside of research artifacts are likely better predictors for passing the NPTE.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Master 3 9%
Librarian 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 9 27%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Computer Science 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 December 2015.
All research outputs
#13,216,332
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,621
of 3,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,569
of 267,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#34
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,323 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 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 267,773 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.