↓ Skip to main content

The influence of students’ prior clinical skills and context characteristics on mini-CEX scores in clerkships – a multilevel analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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 influence of students’ prior clinical skills and context characteristics on mini-CEX scores in clerkships – a multilevel analysis
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0490-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anja Rogausch, Christine Beyeler, Stephanie Montagne, Patrick Jucker-Kupper, Christoph Berendonk, Sören Huwendiek, Armin Gemperli, Wolfgang Himmel

Abstract

In contrast to objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), mini-clinical evaluation exercises (mini-CEXs) take place at the clinical workplace. As both mini-CEXs and OSCEs assess clinical skills, but within different contexts, this study aims at analyzing to which degree students' mini-CEX scores can be predicted by their recent OSCE scores and/or context characteristics. Medical students participated in an end of Year 3 OSCE and in 11 mini-CEXs during 5 different clerkships of Year 4. The students' mean scores of 9 clinical skills OSCE stations and mean 'overall' and 'domain' mini-CEX scores, averaged over all mini-CEXs of each student were computed. Linear regression analyses including random effects were used to predict mini-CEX scores by OSCE performance and characteristics of clinics, trainers, students and assessments. A total of 512 trainers in 45 clinics provided 1783 mini-CEX ratings for 165 students; OSCE results were available for 144 students (87 %). Most influential for the prediction of 'overall' mini-CEX scores was the trainers' clinical position with a regression coefficient of 0.55 (95 %-CI: 0.26-0.84; p < .001) for residents compared to heads of department. Highly complex tasks and assessments taking place in large clinics significantly enhanced 'overall' mini-CEX scores, too. In contrast, high OSCE performance did not significantly increase 'overall' mini-CEX scores. In our study, Mini-CEX scores depended rather on context characteristics than on students' clinical skills as demonstrated in an OSCE. Ways are discussed which focus on either to enhance the scores' validity or to use narrative comments only.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Pakistan 1 1%
Unknown 78 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Other 7 9%
Professor 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Linguistics 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 21 27%
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 13 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,351,145
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,261
of 3,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,601
of 386,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#41
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 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 3,323 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 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 386,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.