↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

New Tools for Systematic Evaluation of Teaching Qualities of Medical Faculty: Results of an Ongoing Multi-Center Survey

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
New Tools for Systematic Evaluation of Teaching Qualities of Medical Faculty: Results of an Ongoing Multi-Center Survey
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0025983
Pubmed ID
Authors

Onyebuchi A. Arah, Joost B. L. Hoekstra, Albert P. Bos, Kiki M. J. M. H. Lombarts

Abstract

Tools for the evaluation, improvement and promotion of the teaching excellence of faculty remain elusive in residency settings. This study investigates (i) the reliability and validity of the data yielded by using two new instruments for evaluating the teaching qualities of medical faculty, (ii) the instruments' potential for differentiating between faculty, and (iii) the number of residents' evaluations needed per faculty to reliably use the instruments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
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 %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Italy 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 108 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Researcher 14 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 14 12%
Other 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 30 26%
Unknown 18 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 54%
Social Sciences 11 10%
Psychology 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 20 17%