↓ Skip to main content

When to trust our learners? Clinical teachers’ perceptions of decision variables in the entrustment process

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
Title
When to trust our learners? Clinical teachers’ perceptions of decision variables in the entrustment process
Published in
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40037-018-0430-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chantal C. M. A. Duijn, Lisanne S. Welink, Harold G. J. Bok, Olle T. J. ten Cate

Abstract

Clinical training programs increasingly use entrustable professional activities (EPAs) as focus of assessment. However, questions remain about which information should ground decisions to trust learners. This qualitative study aimed to identify decision variables in the workplace that clinical teachers find relevant in the elaboration of the entrustment decision processes. The findings can substantiate entrustment decision-making in the clinical workplace. Focus groups were conducted with medical and veterinary clinical teachers, using the structured consensus method of the Nominal Group Technique to generate decision variables. A ranking was made based on a relevance score assigned by the clinical teachers to the different decision variables. Field notes, audio recordings and flip chart lists were analyzed and subsequently translated and, as a form of axial coding, merged into one list, combining the decision variables that were similar in their meaning. A list of 11 and 17 decision variables were acknowledged as relevant by the medical and veterinary teacher groups, respectively. The focus groups yielded 21 unique decision variables that were considered relevant to inform readiness to perform a clinical task on a designated level of supervision. The decision variables consisted of skills, generic qualities, characteristics, previous performance or other information. We were able to group the decision variables into five categories: ability, humility, integrity, reliability and adequate exposure. To entrust a learner to perform a task at a specific level of supervision, a supervisor needs information to support such a judgement. This trust cannot be credited on a single case at a single moment of assessment, but requires different variables and multiple sources of information. This study provides an overview of decision variables giving evidence to justify the multifactorial process of making an entrustment decision.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 13 14%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Master 7 7%
Other 29 30%
Unknown 20 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 44%
Social Sciences 10 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 30 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,223,836
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#148
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,704
of 338,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#7
of 22 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 87th 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 74% 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 338,552 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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.