↓ Skip to main content

Calibration of confidence and assessed clinical skills competence in undergraduate paediatric OSCE scenarios: a mixed methods study

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Calibration of confidence and assessed clinical skills competence in undergraduate paediatric OSCE scenarios: a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1318-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dara O’Donoghue, Gail Davison, Laura-Jo Hanna, Ben McNaughten, Michael Stevenson, Andrew Thompson

Abstract

The relationship between confidence and competence in clinical skills development is complex but important. This study aims to determine undergraduate paediatric student confidence in performing three common paediatric clinical skills framed as Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) scenarios and to compare this with subsequent assessed performance. The study also aims to explore possible barriers to successful paediatric skills completion. A mixed-methods study was conducted on medical students. Cross-sectional questionnaire data relating to confidence in performing a number of paediatric skills were compared with assessed paediatric skills competency. Focus groups were carried out to identify themes in paediatric skills completion to triangulate this data. Eighty-five medical students participated in the study. Students had high levels of pre-test confidence in their ability to perform paediatrics skills. However agreement between pre-test confidence and subsequent task performance was poor and students had significantly greater belief in their skills ability than was subsequently demonstrated. Focus groups identified paediatric skills complexity, conflicting teaching and having limited supervised skills opportunities and as being possible contributory factors to this discrepancy. Student paediatric skills confidence is not matched by performance. The reasons for this are diverse but mostly modifiable. A major factor is the lack of supervised skills experience with appropriate feedback to support students in learning to calibrate their confidence against their competence. A number of recommendations are made including the introduction of formative assessment opportunities.

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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Other 8 9%
Lecturer 6 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 4 4%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 30 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 29%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 32 36%
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 19 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,990,045
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,648
of 3,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,726
of 341,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#50
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,387 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 341,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.