↓ 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
19 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
444 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
560 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 19 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 560 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 1%
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 538 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 75 13%
Other 67 12%
Researcher 63 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 56 10%
Other 185 33%
Unknown 54 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 312 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 53 9%
Social Sciences 44 8%
Psychology 24 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 2%
Other 39 7%
Unknown 76 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 23 April 2020.
All research outputs
#993,726
of 17,930,534 outputs
Outputs from Academic Emergency Medicine
#377
of 3,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,485
of 140,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic Emergency Medicine
#6
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,930,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. 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 140,852 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 95% 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.