You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cognitive–Behavioral Treatment of Recurrent Nonspecific Abdominal Pain in Children: An Analysis of Generalization, Maintenance, and Side Effects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, January 1989
|
| DOI | 10.1037/0022-006x.57.2.294 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew R. Sanders, Margaret Rebgetz, Margaret Morrison, William Bor, Amanda Gordon, Mark Dadds, Ross Shepherd |
| Abstract |
From 10% to 15% of school-aged children experience recurring abdominal pain. This study evaluated the efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral program for the treatment of nonspecific recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) using a controlled group design. The multicomponent treatment program consisted of differential reinforcement of well behavior, cognitive coping skills training, and various generalization enhancement procedures. Multiple measures of pain intensity and pain behavior were conducted, including children's self-monitoring, parent observation, teacher observation, and observation by independent observers. Results showed that both the experimental and the control groups reduced their levels of pain. However, the treated group improved more quickly, the effects generalized to the school setting, and a larger proportion of subjects were completely pain-free by 3-months follow-up (87.5% vs. 37.5%). There was no evidence for any negative side effects of treatment. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 51 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 21% |
| Researcher | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 26 | 49% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 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 29 August 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
#3,228
of 4,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,159
of 53,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
#77
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 53,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 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.