↓ Skip to main content

ARCADO - Adding random case analysis to direct observation in workplace-based formative assessment of general practice registrars

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
ARCADO - Adding random case analysis to direct observation in workplace-based formative assessment of general practice registrars
Published in
BMC Medical Education, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0503-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerard Ingham, Jennifer Fry, Simon Morgan, Bernadette Ward

Abstract

Workplace-based formative assessments using consultation observation are currently conducted during the Australian general practice training program. Assessment reliability is improved by using multiple assessment methods. The aim of this study was to explore experiences of general practice medical educator assessors and registrars (trainees) when adding random case analysis to direct observation (ARCADO) during formative workplace-based assessments. A sample of general practice medical educators and matched registrars were recruited. Following the ARCADO workplace assessment, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted. The data was analysed thematically. Ten registrars and eight medical educators participated. Four major themes emerged - formative versus summative assessment; strengths (acceptability, flexibility, time efficiency, complementarity and authenticity); weaknesses (reduced observation and integrity risks); and contextual factors (variation in assessment content, assessment timing, registrar-medical educator relationship, medical educator's approach and registrar ability). ARCADO is a well-accepted workplace-based formative assessment perceived by registrars and assessors to be valid and flexible. The use of ARCADO enabled complementary insights that would not have been achieved with direct observation alone. Whilst there are some contextual factors to be considered in its implementation, ARCADO appears to have utility as formative assessment and, subject to further evaluation, high-stakes assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Professor 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Lecturer 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 9 25%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Psychology 3 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 December 2015.
All research outputs
#18,432,465
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,742
of 3,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,831
of 388,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#51
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 388,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.