| Title |
Progress test utopia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40037-018-0413-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cees van der Vleuten, Adrian Freeman, Carlos Fernando Collares |
| Abstract |
This paper discusses the advantages of progress testing. A utopia is described where medical schools would work together to develop and administer progress testing. This would lead to a significant reduction of cost, an increase in the quality of measurement and phenomenal feedback to learner and school. Progress testing would also provide more freedom and resources for more creative in-school assessment. It would be an educationally attractive alternative for the creation of cognitive licensing exams. A utopia is always far away in the future, but by formulating a vision for that future we may engage in discussions on how to get there. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 Kingdom | 2 | 22% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 22% |
| Mexico | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 23% |
| Unknown | 21 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 June 2018.
All research outputs
#5,300,976
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#232
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,651
of 348,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 348,822 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.