↓ 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
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
269 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
351 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

Rudolph, Jenny W., Simon, Robert, Raemer, Daniel B., Eppich, Walter J., 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 14 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 351 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 329 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 13%
Researcher 44 13%
Other 44 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 40 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 11%
Other 138 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 224 64%
Social Sciences 39 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 6%
Unspecified 19 5%
Psychology 17 5%
Other 31 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 12 July 2018.
All research outputs
#825,260
of 11,902,583 outputs
Outputs from Academic Emergency Medicine
#346
of 2,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,942
of 116,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic Emergency Medicine
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,902,583 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 2,392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 116,248 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 21 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.