↓ Skip to main content

Developing a clinical teaching quality questionnaire for use in a university osteopathic pre-registration teaching program

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Developing a clinical teaching quality questionnaire for use in a university osteopathic pre-registration teaching program
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0358-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brett Vaughan

Abstract

Clinical education is an important component of many health professional training programs. There is a range of questionnaires to assess the quality of the clinical educator however none are in student-led clinic environments. The present study developed a questionnaire to assess the quality of the clinical educators in the osteopathy program at Victoria University. A systematic search of the literature was used to identify questionnaires that evaluated the quality of clinical teaching. Eighty-three items were extracted and reviewed for their appropriateness to include in a questionnaire by students, clinical educators and academics. A fifty-six item questionnaire was then trialled with osteopathy students. A variety of statistics were used to determine the number of factors to extract. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to investigate the factor structure. The number of factors to extract was calculated to be between 3 and 6. Review of the factor structures suggested the most appropriate fit was four and five factors. The EFA of the four-factor solution collapsed into three factors. The five-factor solution demonstrated the most stable structure. Internal consistency of the five-factor solution was greater than 0.70. The five factors were labelled Learning Environment (Factor 1), Reflective Practice (Factor 2), Feedback (Factor 3) and Patient Management (Factor 4) and Modelling (Factor 5). Further research is now required to continue investigating the construct validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Estonia 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 71 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Lecturer 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 21 29%
Unknown 18 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Social Sciences 7 10%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 23 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 April 2015.
All research outputs
#13,081,919
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,579
of 3,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,048
of 264,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#32
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,314 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 51% 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 264,934 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.