| Title |
Assessing the Quality of Clinical Teachers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, August 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-010-1458-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cornelia R. M. G. Fluit, Sanneke Bolhuis, Richard Grol, Roland Laan, Michel Wensing |
| Abstract |
Learning in a clinical environment differs from formal educational settings and provides specific challenges for clinicians who are teachers. Instruments that reflect these challenges are needed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of clinical teachers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 200 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 14% |
| Other | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 19 | 9% |
| Professor | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 59 | 29% |
| Unknown | 44 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 108 | 52% |
| Social Sciences | 23 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 1% |
| Psychology | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 13 | 6% |
| Unknown | 49 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 April 2014.
All research outputs
#19,440,618
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,622
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,440
of 97,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#39
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 97,291 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.