↓ Skip to main content

Can psychotherapists function as their own controls? Meta-analysis of the crossed therapist design in comparative psychotherapy trials.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Can psychotherapists function as their own controls? Meta-analysis of the crossed therapist design in comparative psychotherapy trials.
Published in
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, October 2012
DOI 10.4088/jcp.12r07848
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fredrik Falkenström, John C Markowitz, Hanske Jonker, Björn Philips, Rolf Holmqvist

Abstract

Clinical trials sometimes have the same therapists deliver more than 1 psychotherapy, ostensibly to control for therapist effects. This "crossed therapist" design makes controlling for therapist allegiance imperative, as therapists may prefer one treatment they deliver to the other(s). Research has established a strong relationship between principal investigators' allegiances and treatment outcome. Study therapists' allegiances probably also influence outcome, yet this moderating factor on outcome has never been studied.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Spain 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 77 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Researcher 11 14%
Other 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 26 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 12 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,070,495
of 25,655,374 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
#1,133
of 4,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,002
of 202,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
#12
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,655,374 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 202,673 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 59% of its contemporaries.