↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
The reliability and validity of multiple mini interviews (MMIs) in values based recruitment to nursing, midwifery and paramedic practice programmes: Findings from an evaluation study
Published in
International Journal of Nursing Studies, October 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.10.003
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Universities in the United Kingdom (UK) are required to incorporate values based recruitment (VBR) into their healthcare student selection processes. This reflects an international drive to strengthen the quality of healthcare service provision. This paper presents novel findings in relation to the reliability and predictive validity of multiple mini interviews (MMIs); one approach to VBR widely being employed by universities. To examine the reliability (internal consistency) and predictive validity of MMIs using end of Year One practice outcomes of under-graduate pre-registration adult, child, mental health nursing, midwifery and paramedic practice students. Cross-discipline evaluation study. One university in the United Kingdom. Data were collected in two streams: applicants to A) The September 2014 and 2015 Midwifery Studies programmes; B) September 2015 adult; Child and Mental Health Nursing and Paramedic Practice programmes. Fifty-seven midwifery students commenced their programme in 2014 and 69 in 2015; 47 and 54 agreed to participate and completed Year One respectively. 333 healthcare students commenced their programmes in September 2015. Of these, 281 agreed to participate and completed their first year (180 adult, 33 child and 34 mental health nursing and 34 paramedic practice students). Stream A featured a seven station four-minute model with one interviewer at each station and in Stream B a six station model was employed. Cronbach's alpha was used to assess MMI station internal consistency and Pearson's moment correlation co-efficient to explore associations between participants' admission MMI score and end of Year one clinical practice outcomes (OSCE and mentor grading). Stream A: Significant correlations are reported between midwifery applicant's MMI scores and end of Year One practice outcomes. A multivariate linear regression model demonstrated that MMI score significantly predicted end of Year One practice outcomes controlling for age and academic entry level: coefficients 0.195 (p=0.002) and 0.116 (p=0.002) for OSCE and mentor grading respectively. In Stream B no significant correlations were found between MMI score and practice outcomes measured by mentor grading. Internal consistency for each MMI station was 'excellent' with values ranging from 0.966-0.974 across Streams A and B. This novel, cross-discipline study shows that MMIs are reliable VBR tools which have predictive validity when a seven station model is used. These data are important given the current international use of different MMI models in healthcare student selection processes.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 8 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 7 5%
Other 34 26%
Unknown 47 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 14%
Psychology 10 8%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Arts and Humanities 3 2%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 47 36%
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 18 November 2017.
All research outputs
#16,314,182
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#1,920
of 2,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,000
of 333,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#47
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 333,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.