↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Understanding of evaluation capacity building in practice: a case study of a national medical education organization

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Medical Education and Practice, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Understanding of evaluation capacity building in practice: a case study of a national medical education organization
Published in
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/amep.s141886
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aimee J Sarti, Stephanie Sutherland, Angele Landriault, Kirk DesRosier, Susan Brien, Pierre Cardinal

Abstract

Evaluation capacity building (ECB) is a topic of great interest to many organizations as they face increasing demands for accountability and evidence-based practices. ECB is about building the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of organizational members, the sustainability of rigorous evaluative practices, and providing the resources and motivations to engage in ongoing evaluative work. There exists a solid foundation of theoretical research on ECB, however, understanding what ECB looks like in practice is relatively thin. Our purpose was to investigate what ECB looks like firsthand within a national medical educational organization. The context for this study was the Acute Critical Events Simulation (ACES) organization in Canada, which has successfully evolved into a national educational program, driven by physicians. We conducted an exploratory qualitative study to better understand and describe ECB in practice. In doing so, interviews were conducted with program leaders and instructors so as to gain a richer understanding of evaluative processes and practices. A total of 21 individuals participated in the semistructured interviews. Themes from our qualitative data analysis included the following: evaluation knowledge, skills, and attitudes, use of evaluation findings, shared evaluation beliefs and commitment, evaluation frameworks and processes, and resources dedicated to evaluation. The national ACES organization was a useful case study to explore ECB in practice. The ECB literature provided a solid foundation to understand the purpose and nuances of ECB. This study added to the paucity of studies focused on examining ECB in practice. The most important lesson learned was that the organization must have leadership who are intrinsically motivated to employ and use evaluation data to drive ongoing improvements within the organization. Leaders who are intrinsically motivated will employ risk taking when evaluation practices and processes may be somewhat unfamiliar. Creating and maintaining a culture of data use and ongoing inquiry have enabled national ACES to achieve a sustainable evaluation practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 23%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Lecturer 2 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 12 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 14 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Psychology 4 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 12 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 January 2019.
All research outputs
#6,813,625
of 26,523,931 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#167
of 733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,958
of 345,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,523,931 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 345,299 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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.