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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Case for Using the Repeatability Coefficient When Calculating Test–Retest Reliability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0073990 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sharmila Vaz, Torbjörn Falkmer, Anne Elizabeth Passmore, Richard Parsons, Pantelis Andreou |
| Abstract |
The use of standardised tools is an essential component of evidence-based practice. Reliance on standardised tools places demands on clinicians to understand their properties, strengths, and weaknesses, in order to interpret results and make clinical decisions. This paper makes a case for clinicians to consider measurement error (ME) indices Coefficient of Repeatability (CR) or the Smallest Real Difference (SRD) over relative reliability coefficients like the Pearson's (r) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), while selecting tools to measure change and inferring change as true. The authors present statistical methods that are part of the current approach to evaluate test-retest reliability of assessment tools and outcome measurements. Selected examples from a previous test-retest study are used to elucidate the added advantages of knowledge of the ME of an assessment tool in clinical decision making. The CR is computed in the same units as the assessment tool and sets the boundary of the minimal detectable true change that can be measured by the tool. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 582 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | <1% |
| United States | 4 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| Singapore | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 563 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 124 | 21% |
| Researcher | 91 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 74 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 31 | 5% |
| Other | 113 | 19% |
| Unknown | 110 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 128 | 22% |
| Psychology | 62 | 11% |
| Engineering | 44 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 32 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 5% |
| Other | 151 | 26% |
| Unknown | 135 | 23% |
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 25 May 2020.
All research outputs
#20,793,949
of 25,547,904 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#182,780
of 222,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,438
of 210,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,827
of 5,035 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,547,904 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 222,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 210,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,035 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.