↓ Skip to main content

Using peer review to distribute group work marks equitably between medical students

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Using peer review to distribute group work marks equitably between medical students
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0987-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex R Cook, Mikael Hartman, Nan Luo, Judy Sng, Ngan Phoon Fong, Wei Yen Lim, Mark I-Cheng Chen, Mee Lian Wong, Natarajan Rajaraman, Jeannette Jen-Mai Lee, Gerald Choon-Huat Koh

Abstract

Although peer assessment has been used for evaluating performance of medical students and practicing doctors, it has not been studied as a method to distribute a common group work mark equitably to medical students working in large groups where tutors cannot observe all students constantly. The authors developed and evaluated a mathematical formulation whereby a common group mark could be distributed among group members using peer assessment of individual contributions to group work, maintaining inter-group variation in group work scores. This was motivated by community health projects undertaken by large groups of year four medical students at the National University of Singapore, and the new and old formulations are presented via application to 263 students in seven groups of 36 to 40 during the academic year 2012/2013. This novel formulation produced a less clustered mark distribution that rewarded students who contributed more to their team. Although collusion among some members to form a voting alliance and 'personal vendettas' were potential problems, the former was not detected and the latter had little impact on the overall grade a student received when working in a large group. The majority of students thought the new formulation was fairer. The new formulation is easy to implement and arguably awards grades more equitably in modules where group work is a major component.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 9 22%
Unknown 14 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Computer Science 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 17 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,055,667
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,543
of 3,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,644
of 318,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#26
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,363 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 318,397 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 52% of its contemporaries.