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 |
Development and validation of the cannabis experiences questionnaire – Intoxication effects checklist (CEQ-I) short form
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Schizophrenia Research, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.schres.2017.01.048 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Catherine A. Quinn, Hollie Wilson, Wendell Cockshaw, Emma Barkus, Leanne Hides |
| Abstract |
To develop and validate a short form of the Cannabis Experiences Questionnaire - Intoxication Effects (CEQ-I), a 42-item scale which measures the euphoric and paranoid-dysphoric effects of cannabis intoxication. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted among 604 past-month cannabis users to develop the short form. The factor structure was replicated in a second sample of 146 past-month cannabis users. The concurrent validity of the scale was also examined. Consistent with previous research, two factors were identified (paranoid-dysphoric; euphoric), and were replicated with confirmatory factor analyses. The most parsimonious scale consisted of 13 items. Correlations of short-form subscales with corresponding original subscales were high. The paranoid-dysphoric subscale was also moderately positively correlated with measures of psychotic-like experiences (PLEs) and psychological distress. The revised and validated CEQ-I short form can be used to explore the euphoric and paranoid-dysphoric effects of cannabis intoxication in young cannabis users, and whether these experiences increase their risk of developing cannabis use and psychotic disorders. The CEQ-I short form has the potential to aid in the identification of young cannabis users at risk of the paranoid-dysphoric effects of cannabis intoxication and may assist in the development of early intervention strategies targeting cannabis users with PLEs. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 21% |
| Unknown | 24 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 21 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 25% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 33 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 08 January 2020.
All research outputs
#4,314,251
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Schizophrenia Research
#1,038
of 5,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,947
of 424,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Schizophrenia Research
#46
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 424,548 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 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 58% of its contemporaries.