| Title |
Agreement between pre-post measures of change and transition ratings as well as then-tests
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-52 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thorsten Meyer, Susanne Richter, Heiner Raspe |
| Abstract |
Different approaches have been developed for measuring change. Direct measurement of change (transition ratings) requires asking a patient directly about his judgment about the change he has experienced (reported change). With indirect measures of change, the patients' status is assessed at different time points and differences between them are calculated (measured change). When using the quasi-indirect approach ('then-test'), patients are asked after an intervention to rate their statuses both before the intervention as well as at the time of the enquiry. Associations previous studies have found between the different approaches might be biased because transition ratings are generally assessed using a single, general item, while indirect measures of change are generally based on multi-item scales. We aimed to quantify the agreement between indirect and direct as well as indirect and quasi-indirect measures of change while using multi-item scales exclusively. We explored possible reasons for non-agreement (present-state bias, recall bias). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Egypt | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 16% |
| Psychology | 5 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 June 2013.
All research outputs
#20,195,024
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,866
of 2,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,993
of 197,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#29
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 197,842 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.