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 |
Implementing statistical equating for MRCP(UK) parts 1 and 2
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Education, September 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6920-14-204 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
IC McManus, Liliana Chis, Ray Fox, Derek Waller, Peter Tang |
Abstract |
The MRCP(UK) exam, in 2008 and 2010, changed the standard-setting of its Part 1 and Part 2 examinations from a hybrid Angoff/Hofstee method to statistical equating using Item Response Theory, the reference group being UK graduates. The present paper considers the implementation of the change, the question of whether the pass rate increased amongst non-UK candidates, any possible role of Differential Item Functioning (DIF), and changes in examination predictive validity after the change. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 5 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
Researcher | 4 | 13% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 9% |
Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
Other | 6 | 19% |
Unknown | 7 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 47% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
Other | 2 | 6% |
Unknown | 9 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 December 2020.
All research outputs
#16,066,214
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,279
of 3,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,873
of 263,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#35
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 263,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.