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 |
Clinical workplace learning: perceived learning value of individual and group feedback in a collectivistic culture
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-018-1188-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yoyo Suhoyo, Johanna Schönrock-Adema, Ova Emilia, Jan B. M. Kuks, Janke Cohen-Schotanus |
| Abstract |
Feedback is essential for workplace learning. Most papers in this field concern individual feedback. In collectivistic cultures, however, group feedback is common educational practice. This study was conducted to investigate the perceived learning value and characteristics of individual and group feedback in a collectivistic culture. During two weeks, on a daily basis, clerkship students (n = 215) from 12 clinical departments at Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, recorded individual and group feedback moments by using a structured form: the providers, focus and perceived learning value of feedback. Data were analysed with logistic regression and multilevel techniques. Students reported 2687 group and 1535 individual feedback moments. Group feedback more often focused on history taking, clinical judgment, patient management, patient counselling, and professional behaviour (OR ranging from 1.232, p < .01, to 2.152, p < .001), but less often on physical examination (OR = .836, p < .01). Group feedback less often aimed at correcting performance deficiencies (OR = .523, p < .001) and more often at comparing performance to the standard (OR = 2.447, p < .001) and planning action to improve performance (OR = 1.759, p < .001). Group feedback was perceived as more valuable than individual feedback (M = 4.08 and 3.96, respectively, β group = .065, SE = .026, p < .01). In collectivistic cultures, group feedback may add to the array of educational measures that optimize student learning. Congruence between culture and type of feedback may be important for the effectiveness of feedback. |
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 | 1 | 50% |
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 92 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 24% |
| Unknown | 31 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 10% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 32 | 35% |
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 04 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,505,836
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,291
of 3,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,691
of 327,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#65
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,373 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 327,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.