↓ 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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
358 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
460 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 460 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%
Ireland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 438 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 14%
Other 57 12%
Researcher 52 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 51 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 11%
Other 154 33%
Unknown 31 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 270 59%
Social Sciences 44 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 9%
Psychology 19 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 2%
Other 28 6%
Unknown 48 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 21 February 2020.
All research outputs
#884,604
of 14,534,376 outputs
Outputs from Academic Emergency Medicine
#353
of 2,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,089
of 129,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic Emergency Medicine
#5
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,534,376 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 2,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 129,224 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 94% 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.