↓ Skip to main content

The influence of first impressions on subsequent ratings within an OSCE station

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, November 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 (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
The influence of first impressions on subsequent ratings within an OSCE station
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10459-016-9736-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy J. Wood, James Chan, Susan Humphrey-Murto, Debra Pugh, Claire Touchie

Abstract

Competency-based assessment is placing increasing emphasis on the direct observation of learners. For this process to produce valid results, it is important that raters provide quality judgments that are accurate. Unfortunately, the quality of these judgments is variable and the roles of factors that influence the accuracy of those judgments are not clearly understood. One such factor is first impressions: that is, judgments about people we do not know, made quickly and based on very little information. This study explores the influence of first impressions in an OSCE. Specifically, the purpose is to begin to examine the accuracy of a first impression and its influence on subsequent ratings. We created six videotapes of history-taking performance. Each video was scripted from a real performance by six examinee residents within a single OSCE station. Each performance was re-enacted with six different actors playing the role of the examinees and one actor playing the role of the patient and videotaped. A total of 23 raters (i.e., physician examiners) reviewed each video and were asked to make a global judgment of the examinee's clinical abilities after 60 s (First Impression GR) by providing a rating on a six-point global rating scale and then to rate their confidence in the accuracy of that judgment by providing a rating on a five-point rating scale (Confidence GR). After making these ratings, raters then watched the remainder of the examinee's performance and made another global rating of performance (Final GR) before moving on to the next video. First impression ratings of ability varied across examinees and were moderately correlated to expert ratings (r = .59, 95% CI [-.13, .90]). There were significant differences in mean ratings for three examinees. Correlations ranged from .05 to .56 but were only significant for three examinees. Rater confidence in their first impression was not related to the likelihood of a rater changing their rating between the first impression and a subsequent rating. The findings suggest that first impressions could play a role in explaining variability in judgments, but their importance was determined by the videotaped performance of the examinees. More work is needed to clarify conditions that support or discourage the use of first impressions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 16 28%
Unknown 13 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 44%
Psychology 4 7%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 15 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,476,805
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#244
of 855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,963
of 307,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#15
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 307,021 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.