You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Preceptors' experiences of using a competence assessment tool to assess undergraduate nursing students
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nurse Education in Practice, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.nepr.2016.01.004 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eimear Burke, Marcella Kelly, Evelyn Byrne, Toni Ui Chiardha, Miriam Mc Nicholas, Adrienne Montgomery |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to explore Irish preceptors' experience of using a competence tool to assess undergraduate nursing students' clinical competence. This study used a mixed methods design. This study was conducted in two phases, the qualitative phase involved six focus group interviews to ascertain preceptors' experiences of using an assessment tool to assess clinical competence. The quantitative phase involved a descriptive survey measuring preceptors (N = 843) attitudes linked with the use of the assessment tool. The key themes that emerged from qualitative analysis were challenges of using the assessment tool, recognising competence and valuing adult learners. The challenges of using the tool included negotiating complex language and time constraints in completing assessments. Recognising competence revealed the use of intuition and subjectivity. While valuing adult learners acknowledged the reciprocal learning process between the preceptor and the learner. These findings reveal the inherent skills of preceptors to intuitively and subjectively recognise competence. The quantitative findings revealed merits and challenges for the preceptors using the assessment tool. In particular the complexity of the language was highlighted as an issue. A key recommendation from this research is the need to revise the assessment tool to support objective and subjective measurement of competence. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 83 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 18% |
| Lecturer | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 20% |
| Unknown | 14 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 43 | 51% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 18 | 21% |
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 16 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,653,708
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Nurse Education in Practice
#1,149
of 1,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#300,210
of 405,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nurse Education in Practice
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,343 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 405,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.