↓ Skip to main content

Differences in procedural knowledge after a “spaced” and a “massed” version of an intensive course in emergency medicine, investigating a very short spacing interval

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Differences in procedural knowledge after a “spaced” and a “massed” version of an intensive course in emergency medicine, investigating a very short spacing interval
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0770-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Breckwoldt, Jan R. Ludwig, Joachim Plener, Torsten Schröder, Hans Gruber, Harm Peters

Abstract

Distributing a fixed amount of teaching hours over a longer time period (spaced approach) may result in better learning than delivering the same amount of teaching within a shorter time (massed approach). While a spaced approach may provide more opportunities to elaborate the learning content, a massed approach allows for more economical utilisation of teaching facilities and to optimise time resources of faculty. Favourable effects of spacing have been demonstrated for postgraduate surgery training and for spacing intervals of weeks to months. It is however unknown, whether a spacing effect can also be observed for shorter intervals and in undergraduate medical education. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effect of a short spacing intervention within an undergraduate intensive course in emergency medicine (EM) on students' procedural knowledge. An EM intensive course of 26 teaching hours was delivered over either 4.5 days, or 3.0 days. After the course students' procedural knowledge was assessed by a specifically developed video-case based key-feature test (KF-test). Data sets of 156 students (81.7 %, 191 students eligible) were analysed, 54 from the spaced, and 102 from the massed version. In the KF-test students from the spaced version reached a mean of 14.8 (SD 2.0) out of 22 points, compared to 13.7 (SD 2.0) in the massed version (p = .002). Effect size was moderate (Cohen's d: 0.558). A significant spacing effect was observable even for a short spacing interval in undergraduate medical education. This effect was only moderate and may be weighed against planning needs of faculty and teaching resources.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 25%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Other 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 36%
Psychology 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Linguistics 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 11 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 07 May 2019.
All research outputs
#2,615,781
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#418
of 3,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,477
of 322,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#8
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 322,701 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.