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 |
Technical flaws in multiple-choice questions in the access exam to medical specialties (“examen MIR”) in Spain (2009–2013)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-016-0559-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
María Cristina Rodríguez-Díez, Manuel Alegre, Nieves Díez, Leire Arbea, Marta Ferrer |
| Abstract |
The main factor that determines the selection of a medical specialty in Spain after obtaining a medical degree is the MIR ("médico interno residente", internal medical resident) exam. This exam consists of 235 multiple-choice questions with five options, some of which include images provided in a separate booklet. The aim of this study was to analyze the technical quality of the multiple-choice questions included in the MIR exam over the last five years. All the questions included in the exams from 2009 to 2013 were analyzed. We studied the proportion of questions including clinical vignettes, the number of items related to an image and the presence of technical flaws in the questions. For the analysis of technical flaws, we adapted the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) guidelines. We looked for 18 different issues included in the manual, grouped into two categories: issues related to testwiseness and issues related to irrelevant difficulties. The final number of questions analyzed was 1,143. The percentage of items based on clinical vignettes increased from 50 % in 2009 to 56-58 % in the following years (2010-2013). The percentage of items based on an image increased progressively from 10 % in 2009 to 15 % in 2012 and 2013. The percentage of items with at least one technical flaw varied between 68 and 72 %. We observed a decrease in the percentage of items with flaws related to testwiseness, from 30 % in 2009 to 20 % in 2012 and 2013. While most of these issues decreased dramatically or even disappeared (such as the imbalance in the correct option numbers), the presence of non-plausible options remained frequent. With regard to technical flaws related to irrelevant difficulties, no improvement was observed; this is especially true with respect to negative stem questions and "hinged" questions. The formal quality of the MIR exam items has improved over the last five years with regard to testwiseness. A more detailed revision of the items submitted, checking systematically for the presence of technical flaws, could improve the validity and discriminatory power of the exam, without increasing its difficulty. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 7 | 78% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 15% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 November 2016.
All research outputs
#6,105,365
of 24,983,099 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#987
of 3,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,472
of 408,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#21
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,983,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,876 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 74% 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 408,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.