↓ Skip to main content

Electronic portfolio use in pediatric residency and perceived efficacy as a tool for teaching lifelong learning

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Electronic portfolio use in pediatric residency and perceived efficacy as a tool for teaching lifelong learning
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1045-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annabel Frank, Kimberly Gifford

Abstract

Residency programs use electronic portfolios (efolios) to organize data, track resident performance, and sometimes teach and assess lifelong learning (LLL) skills. Published studies on efolios in graduate medical education are mostly descriptions of implementation at individual institutions. An anonymous online survey was sent to 199 pediatric residency program directors across the United States. Efolio usage patterns were described and compared between program directors that perceived efolios effective at fostering LLL and those that did not. Surveys were completed by 82 of 199 program directors (41%), and 55% used efolios. The 20% (9 of 45) of program directors that believed efolios were effective at teaching LLL more often used self-assessment (88% vs. 50%, p = 0.05) and goal-setting (75% vs. 40%, p = 0.03) functionalities. Common efolio challenges included limited usability and difficulty integrating data. Most non-users (65%) would like to invest in efolios. Respondents reported technical and convenience-related challenges to efolio use, which need to be addressed for efolios to meet their potential as valuable learning tools. The use of self-assessments and goal-setting features was associated with program directors' perceptions that efolios were effective at fostering LLL.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Lecturer 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 17 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Social Sciences 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 18 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,573,145
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,734
of 3,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,917
of 328,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#64
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,365 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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 328,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.