↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Developing educational competencies for dissemination and implementation research training programs: an exploratory analysis using card sorts

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, August 2015
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Developing educational competencies for dissemination and implementation research training programs: an exploratory analysis using card sorts
Published in
Implementation Science, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0304-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margaret Padek, Graham Colditz, Maureen Dobbins, Nikolas Koscielniak, Enola K. Proctor, Anne E. Sales, Ross C. Brownson

Abstract

With demand increasing for dissemination and implementation (D&I) training programs in the USA and other countries, more structured, competency-based, and tested curricula are needed to guide training programs. There are many benefits to the use of competencies in practice-based education such as the establishment of rigorous standards as well as providing an additional metrics for development and growth. As the first aim of a D&I training grant, an exploratory study was conducted to establish a new set of D&I competencies to guide training in D&I research. Based upon existing D&I training literature, the leadership team compiled an initial list of competencies. The research team then engaged 16 additional colleagues in the area of D&I science to provide suggestions to the initial list. The competency list was then additionally narrowed to 43 unique competencies following feedback elicited from these D&I researchers. Three hundred additional D&I researchers were then invited via email to complete a card sort in which the list of competencies were sorted into three categories of experience levels. Participants had previous first-hand experience with D&I or knowledge translation training programs in the past. Participants reported their self-identified D&I expertise level as well as the country in which their home institution is located. A mean score was calculated for each competency based on their experience level categorization. From these mean scores, beginner-, intermediate-, and advanced-level tertiles were created for the competencies. The card sort request achieved a 41 % response rate (n = 124). The list of 43 competencies was organized into four broad domains and sorted based on their experience level score. Eleven competencies were classified into the "Beginner" category, 27 into "Intermediate," and 5 into "Advanced." Education and training developers can use this competency list to formalize future trainings in D&I research, create more evidence-informed curricula, and enable overall capacity building and accompanying metrics in the field of D&I training and research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sierra Leone 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 61 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Unspecified 8 13%
Other 8 13%
Student > Master 6 9%
Other 19 30%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 25%
Social Sciences 13 20%
Psychology 9 14%
Unspecified 9 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 1 2%

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 17 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,008,354
of 12,961,283 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#347
of 1,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,194
of 233,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#7
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,961,283 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 233,911 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.