↓ Skip to main content

Validity of the Children’s Social Behavior Questionnaire (CSBQ) in Children with Intellectual Disability: Comparing the CSBQ with ADI-R, ADOS, and Clinical DSM-IV-TR Classification

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, June 2009
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
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
Validity of the Children’s Social Behavior Questionnaire (CSBQ) in Children with Intellectual Disability: Comparing the CSBQ with ADI-R, ADOS, and Clinical DSM-IV-TR Classification
Published in
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, June 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10803-009-0764-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annelies de Bildt, Erik J. Mulder, Pieter J. Hoekstra, Natasja D. J. van Lang, Ruud B. Minderaa, Catharina A. Hartman

Abstract

The Children's Social Behavior Questionnaire (CSBQ) was compared with the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R), Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS), and clinical classification in children with mild and moderate intellectual disability (ID), to investigate its criterion related validity. The contribution of the CSBQ to a classification of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) was most specific for the subscales 'contact' and 'stereotyped', with high coherence with all three classification methods. The CSBQ may be used as a signaling, screening, or describing instrument for children with ASD and ID, as it complements other methods by adding unique information about the clinical presentation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 23%
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Master 16 13%
Professor 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 21 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 56 47%
Social Sciences 11 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 24 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 26 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,013,593
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#1,334
of 5,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,644
of 116,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#6
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 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 5,240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 116,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.