↓ Skip to main content

The effect of clinical experience, judgment task difficulty and time pressure on nurses’ confidence calibration in a high fidelity clinical simulation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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 effect of clinical experience, judgment task difficulty and time pressure on nurses’ confidence calibration in a high fidelity clinical simulation
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-12-113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Huiqin Yang, Carl Thompson, Martin Bland

Abstract

Misplaced or poorly calibrated confidence in healthcare professionals' judgments compromises the quality of health care. Using higher fidelity clinical simulations to elicit clinicians' confidence 'calibration' (i.e. overconfidence or underconfidence) in more realistic settings is a promising but underutilized tactic. In this study we examine nurses' calibration of confidence with judgment accuracy for critical event risk assessment judgments in a high fidelity simulated clinical environment. The study also explores the effects of clinical experience, task difficulty and time pressure on the relationship between confidence and accuracy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 124 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Other 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Researcher 9 7%
Other 31 24%
Unknown 27 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 30 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 22%
Psychology 13 10%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 34 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 October 2019.
All research outputs
#4,734,949
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#439
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,613
of 173,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#14
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 173,069 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 43 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 67% of its contemporaries.