↓ Skip to main content

Technical Standards and Lawsuits Involving Accommodations for Health Professions Students

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
30 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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.
Title
Technical Standards and Lawsuits Involving Accommodations for Health Professions Students
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, October 2016
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.10.hlaw1-1610
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel R Bagenstos

Abstract

This article will discuss the legal obligations of medical schools to accommodate applicants and students with disabilities. The article begins by describing the problem of denial of medical education to such students, a problem that results from both discrimination in admissions and denial of accommodations to incumbent students with disabilities. The article then discusses the disability rights legislation that prohibits discrimination against-and requires reasonable accommodation of-qualified medical students with disabilities. It concludes by reviewing a number of lawsuits involving requests for accommodation and how disability rights law was applied in those cases.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 11 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 25%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 16 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 13 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,225,593
of 26,522,687 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#347
of 2,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,399
of 336,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#14
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,522,687 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 336,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 63% of its contemporaries.