| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 77 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 16 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 21 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 17 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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
#13,359,365
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,277
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,201
of 243,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,000 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 243,229 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 60% of its contemporaries.