↓ Skip to main content

Self-efficacy beliefs of medical students: a critical review

Overview of attention for article published in Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
120 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
383 Mendeley
Title
Self-efficacy beliefs of medical students: a critical review
Published in
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40037-018-0411-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert M. Klassen, Joel R. L. Klassen

Abstract

Self-efficacy is a theoretically and empirically robust motivation belief that has been shown to play an important role in the learning and development of new skills and knowledge. In this article, we critically review research on the self-efficacy beliefs of medical students, with a goal to evaluate the existing research and to strengthen future work. In particular, we sought to describe the state of research on medical student self-efficacy and to critically examine the conceptualization and measurement of the construct. Finally, we aimed to provide directions for future self-efficacy research. We critically reviewed 74 published articles that included measures of self-efficacy beliefs of medical students. Our review showed that (a) research on the self-efficacy beliefs of medical students is growing and is becoming increasingly international, and (b) that nearly half (46%) of self-efficacy measures showed conceptual and operational flaws. Our critical review of 74 research studies on self-efficacy of medical students found that although research in the field is increasing, nearly half of measures labelled as self-efficacy were incongruent with the conceptual guidelines set by self-efficacy experts. We provide five suggestions for future research on the self-efficacy of medical students.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 383 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 383 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 42 11%
Student > Master 31 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 5%
Researcher 17 4%
Student > Postgraduate 17 4%
Other 63 16%
Unknown 194 51%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 5%
Psychology 17 4%
Social Sciences 14 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 2%
Other 41 11%
Unknown 196 51%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 April 2021.
All research outputs
#15,175,718
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#405
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,934
of 343,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#9
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 343,860 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 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.