↓ Skip to main content

Debriefing as Formative Assessment: Closing Performance Gaps in Medical Education

Overview of attention for article published in Academic Emergency Medicine, November 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
318 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
418 Mendeley
Title
Debriefing as Formative Assessment: Closing Performance Gaps in Medical Education
Published in
Academic Emergency Medicine, November 2008
DOI 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00248.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenny W. Rudolph, Robert Simon, Daniel B. Raemer, Walter J. Eppich

Abstract

The authors present a four-step model of debriefing as formative assessment that blends evidence and theory from education research, the social and cognitive sciences, experience drawn from conducting over 3,000 debriefings, and teaching debriefing to approximately 1,000 clinicians worldwide. The steps are to: 1) note salient performance gaps related to predetermined objectives, 2) provide feedback describing the gap, 3) investigate the basis for the gap by exploring the frames and emotions contributing to the current performance level, and 4) help close the performance gap through discussion or targeted instruction about principles and skills relevant to performance. The authors propose that the model, designed for postsimulation debriefings, can also be applied to bedside teaching in the emergency department (ED) and other clinical settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 418 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
Spain 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 396 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 14%
Other 51 12%
Researcher 49 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 47 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 11%
Other 169 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 251 60%
Social Sciences 43 10%
Unspecified 39 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 8%
Psychology 18 4%
Other 33 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 07 February 2019.
All research outputs
#863,941
of 13,333,056 outputs
Outputs from Academic Emergency Medicine
#346
of 2,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,817
of 126,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic Emergency Medicine
#5
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,333,056 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 126,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.