↓ Skip to main content

Order effects in high stakes undergraduate examinations: an analysis of 5 years of administrative data in one UK medical school

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Order effects in high stakes undergraduate examinations: an analysis of 5 years of administrative data in one UK medical school
Published in
BMJ Open, October 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012541
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenni Burt, Gary Abel, Matt Barclay, Robert Evans, John Benson, Mark Gurnell, Burt, Jenni, Abel, Gary, Barclay, Matt, Evans, Robert, Benson, John, Gurnell, Mark

Abstract

To investigate the association between student performance in undergraduate objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) and the examination schedule to which they were assigned to undertake these examinations. Analysis of routinely collected data. One UK medical school. 2331 OSCEs of 3 different types (obstetrics OSCE, paediatrics OSCE and simulated clinical encounter examination OSCE) between 2009 and 2013. Students were not quarantined between examinations. (1) Pass rates by day examination started, (2) pass rates by day station undertaken and (3) mean scores by day examination started. We found no evidence that pass rates differed according to the day on which the examination was started by a candidate in any of the examinations considered (p>0.1 for all). There was evidence (p=0.013) that students were more likely to pass individual stations on the second day of the paediatrics OSCE (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54). In the cases of the simulated clinical encounter examination and the obstetrics and gynaecology OSCEs, there was no (p=0.42) or very weak evidence (p=0.099), respectively, of any such variation in the probability of passing individual stations according to the day they were attempted. There was no evidence that mean scores varied by day apart from the paediatric OSCE, where slightly higher scores were achieved on the second day of the examination. There is little evidence that different examination schedules have a consistent effect on pass rates or mean scores: students starting the examinations later were not consistently more or less likely to pass or score more highly than those starting earlier. The practice of quarantining students to prevent communication with (and subsequent unfair advantage for) subsequent examination cohorts is unlikely to be required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Unspecified 2 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 9%
Other 9 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 59%
Unspecified 4 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Psychology 2 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,591,060
of 9,684,470 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#2,917
of 8,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,298
of 257,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#165
of 436 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,684,470 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 257,031 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 436 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 62% of its contemporaries.