↓ Skip to main content

Narrative descriptions should replace grades and numerical ratings for clinical performance in medical education in the United States

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Narrative descriptions should replace grades and numerical ratings for clinical performance in medical education in the United States
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00668
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janice L. Hanson, Adam A. Rosenberg, J. Lindsey Lane

Abstract

Background: In medical education, evaluation of clinical performance is based almost universally on rating scales for defined aspects of performance and scores on examinations and checklists. Unfortunately, scores and grades do not capture progress and competence among learners in the complex tasks and roles required to practice medicine. While the literature suggests serious problems with the validity and reliability of ratings of clinical performance based on numerical scores, the critical issue is not that judgments about what is observed vary from rater to rater but that these judgments are lost when translated into numbers on a scale. As the Next Accreditation System of the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) takes effect, medical educators have an opportunity to create new processes of evaluation to document and facilitate progress of medical learners in the required areas of competence. Proposal and initial experience: Narrative descriptions of learner performance in the clinical environment, gathered using a framework for observation that builds a shared understanding of competence among the faculty, promise to provide meaningful qualitative data closely linked to the work of physicians. With descriptions grouped in categories and matched to milestones, core faculty can place each learner along the milestones' continua of progress. This provides the foundation for meaningful feedback to facilitate the progress of each learner as well as documentation of progress toward competence. Implications: This narrative evaluation system addresses educational needs as well as the goals of the Next Accreditation System for explicitly documented progress. Educators at other levels of education and in other professions experience similar needs for authentic assessment and, with meaningful frameworks that describe roles and tasks, may also find useful a system built on descriptions of learner performance in actual work settings. Conclusions: We must place medical learning and assessment in the contexts and domains in which learners do clinical work. The approach proposed here for gathering qualitative performance data in different contexts and domains is one step along the road to moving learners toward competence and mastery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 111 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Researcher 13 11%
Other 10 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 9%
Professor 9 8%
Other 36 31%
Unknown 22 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 54%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Psychology 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 24 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,598,447
of 26,352,576 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,218
of 35,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,102
of 294,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#227
of 967 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,352,576 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,194 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. 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 294,611 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 967 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.