↓ Skip to main content

Analyses of inter-rater reliability between professionals, medical students and trained school children as assessors of basic life support skills

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Analyses of inter-rater reliability between professionals, medical students and trained school children as assessors of basic life support skills
Published in
BMC Medical Education, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0788-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefanie Beck, Bjarne Ruhnke, Malte Issleib, Anne Daubmann, Sigrid Harendza, Christian Zöllner

Abstract

Training of lay-rescuers is essential to improve survival-rates after cardiac arrest. Multiple campaigns emphasise the importance of basic life support (BLS) training for school children. Trainings require a valid assessment to give feedback to school children and to compare the outcomes of different training formats. Considering these requirements, we developed an assessment of BLS skills using MiniAnne and tested the inter-rater reliability between professionals, medical students and trained school children as assessors. Fifteen professional assessors, 10 medical students and 111-trained school children (peers) assessed 1087 school children at the end of a CPR-training event using the new assessment format. Analyses of inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC) were performed. Overall inter-rater reliability of the summative assessment was high (ICC = 0.84, 95 %-CI: 0.84 to 0.86, n = 889). The number of comparisons between peer-peer assessors (n = 303), peer-professional assessors (n = 339), and peer-student assessors (n = 191) was adequate to demonstrate high inter-rater reliability between peer- and professional-assessors (ICC: 0.76), peer- and student-assessors (ICC: 0.88) and peer- and other peer-assessors (ICC: 0.91). Systematic variation in rating of specific items was observed for three items between professional- and peer-assessors. Using this assessment and integrating peers and medical students as assessors gives the opportunity to assess hands-on skills of school children with high reliability.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Master 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 14 24%
Unknown 20 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Linguistics 2 3%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 23 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,482,034
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,758
of 3,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,481
of 320,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#52
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,339 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 320,356 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.