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 |
Making medical student course evaluations meaningful: implementation of an intensive course review protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-015-0387-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patrick Fleming, Olga Heath, Alan Goodridge, Vernon Curran |
| Abstract |
Ongoing course evaluation is a key component of quality improvement in higher education. The complexities associated with delivering high quality medical education programs involving multiple lecturers can make course and instructor evaluation challenging. We describe the implementation and evaluation of an "intensive course review protocol" in an undergraduate medical program METHODS: We examined pre-clerkship courses from 2006 to 2011 - prior to and following protocol implementation. Our non-parametric analysis included Mann-Whitney U tests to compare the 2006/07 and 2010/11 academic years. We included 30 courses in our analysis. In the 2006/07 academic year, 13/30 courses (43.3 %) did not meet the minimum benchmark and were put under intensive review. By 2010/11, only 3/30 courses (10.0 %) were still below the minimum benchmark. Compared to 2006/07, courses ratings in the 2010/11 year were significantly higher (p = 0.004). However, during the study period mean response rates fell from 76.5 % in 2006/07 to 49.7 % in 2010/11. These results suggest an intensive course review protocol can have a significant impact on pre-clerkship course ratings in an undergraduate medical program. Reductions in survey response rates represent an ongoing challenge in the interpretation of student feedback. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Chile | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 7% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 23% |
| Unknown | 12 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 51% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 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 30 July 2015.
All research outputs
#13,949,040
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,881
of 3,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,666
of 267,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#18
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,318 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 267,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.