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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Factors influencing trainers’ feedback-giving behavior: a cross-sectional survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6920-14-65 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elisabeth AM Pelgrim, Anneke WM Kramer, Henk GA Mokkink, Cees PM van der Vleuten |
| Abstract |
The literature provides some insight into the role of feedback givers, but little information about within-trainer factors influencing 'feedback-giving behaviours'. We looked for relationships between characteristics of feedback givers (self-efficacy, task perception, neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness) and elements of observation and feedback (frequency, quality of content and consequential impact). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
| Brazil | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 62 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 7 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 45% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 15% |
| Psychology | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 February 2020.
All research outputs
#12,704,038
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,457
of 3,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,727
of 226,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#34
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 226,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.