| Title |
Why peer assessment helps to improve clinical performance in undergraduate physical therapy education: a mixed methods design
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6920-14-117 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marjo JM Maas, Dominique MA Sluijsmans, Philip J van der Wees, Yvonne F Heerkens, Maria WG Nijhuis-van der Sanden, Cees PM van der Vleuten |
| Abstract |
Peer Assessment (PA) in health professions education encourages students to develop a critical attitude towards their own and their peers' performance. We designed a PA task to assess students' clinical skills (including reasoning, communication, physical examination and treatment skills) in a role-play that simulated physical therapy (PT) practice. Students alternately performed in the role of PT, assessor, and patient. Oral face-to-face feedback was provided as well as written feedback and scores.This study aims to explore the impact of PA on the improvement of clinical performance of undergraduate PT students. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 4 | 57% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 164 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 13% |
| Researcher | 15 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 51 | 31% |
| Unknown | 32 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 4% |
| Psychology | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 10% |
| Unknown | 39 | 23% |
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 31 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,320,977
of 24,189,858 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,021
of 3,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,430
of 233,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#18
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,189,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,680 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 233,078 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 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 68% of its contemporaries.