↓ Skip to main content

The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-152
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felix Angst

Abstract

The recently published "COSMIN" guidelines aim to rate properties of outcome instruments and state two issues with regard to responsiveness which is the instrument's ability to detect change over time. These issues are comparison of score changes with change of an external criterion using correlations and the judgement of traditional methods as inappropriate. The latter are the "transition" concept, a global rating of change, and parametric measures of responsiveness, for example, effect sizes. It can be shown that the methodology proposed by the guidelines has important weaknesses and that denunciation of traditional methods is not appropriate. Some claims of the guidelines about responsiveness do not match the demands of clinical reality and confront findings of numerous epidemiological studies.

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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Peru 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 62 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 22%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Postgraduate 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Psychology 7 10%
Unspecified 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Other 17 25%

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 20 November 2011.
All research outputs
#9,905,963
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#915
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,254
of 216,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#70
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 216,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.