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 |
Motivation of medical students: selection by motivation or motivation by selection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-016-0560-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anouk Wouters, Gerda Croiset, Francisca Galindo-Garre, Rashmi A. Kusurkar |
| Abstract |
Medical schools try to implement selection procedures that will allow them to select the most motivated students for their programs. Though there is a general feeling that selection stimulates student motivation, conclusive evidence for this is lacking. The current study aims to use the perspective of Self-determination Theory (SDT) of motivation as a lens to examine how medical students' motivation differs in relation to different selection procedures. The hypotheses were that 1) selected students report higher strength and autonomous motivation than non-selected students, and 2) recently selected students report higher strength and autonomous motivation than non-selected students and students who were selected longer ago. First- (Y1) and fourth-year (Y4) medical students in the six-year regular programme and first-year students in the four-year graduate entry programme (GE) completed questionnaires measuring motivation strength and type (autonomous-AM, controlled-CM). Scores were compared between students admitted based on selection, lottery or top pre-university GPA (top GPA) using ANCOVAs. Selected students' answers on open-ended questions were analysed using inductive thematic analysis to identify reasons for changes in motivation. The response rate was 61.4 % (n = 357). Selected students (Y1, Y4 and GE) reported a significantly higher strength of motivation than non-selected students (Y1 and Y4 lottery and top GPA) (p < 0.01). Recently selected students (Y1 and GE) reported significantly higher strength (p < 0.01) and higher AM (p < 0.01) and CM (p < 0.05) than non-selected students (lottery and top GPA) and Y4 students who were selected three years ago. Students described that being selected enhanced their motivation as they felt autonomous, competent and that they belonged to a special group. These reported reasons are in alignment with the basic psychological needs described by Self-Determination Theory as important in enhancing autonomous motivation. A comprehensive selection procedure, compared to less demanding admission procedures, does not seem to yield a student population which stands out in terms of autonomous motivation. The current findings indicate that selection might temporarily enhance students' motivation. The mechanism through which this occurs seems to be through feelings of autonomy, competence and relatedness inspired by selection. |
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% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 86 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 19% |
| Unknown | 35 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 42% |
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 09 February 2016.
All research outputs
#16,106,863
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,285
of 4,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,012
of 405,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#52
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 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 4,000 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 405,772 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.