↓ Skip to main content

Measuring Medical Students’ Empathy

Overview of attention for article published in Academic medicine, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Measuring Medical Students’ Empathy
Published in
Academic medicine, June 2017
DOI 10.1097/acm.0000000000001449
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrício Costa, Marco Antonio de Carvalho-Filho, Marcelo Schweller, Pia Thiemann, Ana Salgueira, John Benson, Manuel João Costa, Thelma Quince

Abstract

Understanding medical student empathy is important to future patient care; however, the definition and development of clinical empathy remain unclear. The authors sought to examine the underlying constructs of two of the most widely used self-report instruments-Davis's Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) and the Jefferson Scale of Empathy version for medical students (JSE-S)-plus, the distinctions and associations between these instruments. Between 2007 and 2014, the authors administered the IRI and JSE-S in three separate studies in five countries, (Brazil, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, and the United Kingdom). They collected data from 3,069 undergraduate medical students and performed exploratory factor analyses, correlation analyses, and multiple linear regression analyses. Exploratory factor analysis yielded identical results in each country, confirming the subscale structures of each instrument. Results of correlation analyses indicated significant but weak correlations (r = 0.313) between the total IRI and JSE-S scores. All intercorrelations of IRI and JSE-S subscale scores were statistically significant but weak (range r = -0.040 to 0.306). Multiple linear regression models revealed that the IRI subscales were weak predictors of all JSE-S subscale and total scores. The IRI subscales explained between 9.0% and 15.3% of variance for JSE-S subscales and 19.5% for JSE-S total score. The IRI and JSE-S are only weakly related, suggesting that they may measure different constructs. To better understand this distinction, more studies using both instruments and involving students at different stages in their medical education, as well as more longitudinal and qualitative studies, are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 15%
Researcher 8 11%
Unspecified 8 11%
Professor 7 10%
Other 27 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 46%
Unspecified 15 21%
Social Sciences 7 10%
Psychology 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Other 6 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 09 August 2017.
All research outputs
#1,194,775
of 12,434,392 outputs
Outputs from Academic medicine
#946
of 4,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,789
of 272,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic medicine
#26
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,434,392 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 272,512 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 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 73% of its contemporaries.