| Title |
We need more replication research – A case for test-retest reliability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40037-017-0347-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jimmie Leppink, Patricia Pérez-Fuster |
| Abstract |
Following debates in psychology on the importance of replication research, we have also started to see pleas for a more prominent role for replication research in medical education. To enable replication research, it is of paramount importance to carefully study the reliability of the instruments we use. Cronbach's alpha has been the most widely used estimator of reliability in the field of medical education, notably as some kind of quality label of test or questionnaire scores based on multiple items or of the reliability of assessment across exam stations. However, as this narrative review outlines, Cronbach's alpha or alternative reliability statistics may complement but not replace psychometric methods such as factor analysis. Moreover, multiple-item measurements should be preferred above single-item measurements, and when using single-item measurements, coefficients as Cronbach's alpha should not be interpreted as indicators of the reliability of a single item when that item is administered after fundamentally different activities, such as learning tasks that differ in content. Finally, if we want to follow up on recent pleas for more replication research, we have to start studying the test-retest reliability of the instruments we use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| Turkey | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 81 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 26 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 9 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 23% |
| Unknown | 30 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 May 2017.
All research outputs
#7,797,845
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#300
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,714
of 325,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#12
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 325,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 53% of its contemporaries.