| Title |
An exploratory study into the effect of time-restricted internet access on face-validity, construct validity and reliability of postgraduate knowledge progress testing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6920-13-147 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marja GK Dijksterhuis, Izabela Jozwiak, Didi DM Braat, Fedde Scheele |
| Abstract |
Yearly formative knowledge testing (also known as progress testing) was shown to have a limited construct-validity and reliability in postgraduate medical education. One way to improve construct-validity and reliability is to improve the authenticity of a test. As easily accessible internet has become inseparably linked to daily clinical practice, we hypothesized that allowing internet access for a limited amount of time during the progress test would improve the perception of authenticity (face-validity) of the test, which would in turn improve the construct-validity and reliability of postgraduate progress testing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 24% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 22% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 January 2014.
All research outputs
#14,895,165
of 24,950,117 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,949
of 3,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,672
of 222,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#18
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,950,117 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,859 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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 222,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.