↓ Skip to main content

Agreement between pre-post measures of change and transition ratings as well as then-tests

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
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).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
France 1 4%
Unknown 24 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 15%
Lecturer 2 8%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Psychology 3 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 3 12%

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
#10,995,462
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,006
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,577
of 147,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 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 1,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. 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 147,114 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.