↓ Skip to main content

A proof of principle for using adaptive testing in routine Outcome Monitoring: the efficiency of the Mood and Anxiety Symptoms Questionnaire -Anhedonic Depression CAT

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
A proof of principle for using adaptive testing in routine Outcome Monitoring: the efficiency of the Mood and Anxiety Symptoms Questionnaire -Anhedonic Depression CAT
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niels Smits, Frans G Zitman, Pim Cuijpers, Margien E den Hollander-Gijsman, Ingrid VE Carlier

Abstract

In Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) there is a high demand for short assessments. Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) is a promising method for efficient assessment. In this article, the efficiency of a CAT version of the Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire, - Anhedonic Depression scale (MASQ-AD) for use in ROM was scrutinized in a simulation study.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 4%
United States 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 53 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 18%
Student > Master 8 14%
Professor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 32%
Psychology 18 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Engineering 3 5%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 2 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 April 2013.
All research outputs
#3,068,898
of 11,236,312 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#407
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,073
of 263,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#7
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,236,312 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 50th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 263,192 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 65% of its contemporaries.