↓ 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
20 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
385 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
490 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 490 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 468 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 67 14%
Other 59 12%
Researcher 58 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 55 11%
Other 160 33%
Unknown 36 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 286 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 10%
Social Sciences 43 9%
Psychology 21 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 2%
Other 30 6%
Unknown 54 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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
#793,253
of 15,488,719 outputs
Outputs from Academic Emergency Medicine
#305
of 2,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,810
of 133,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic Emergency Medicine
#5
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,488,719 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 2,876 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 133,012 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 35 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.