| Title |
Validity and reliability of critical power field testing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-014-3001-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B. Karsten, S. A. Jobson, J. Hopker, L. Stevens, C. Beedie |
| Abstract |
To test the validity and reliability of field critical power (CP). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Ireland | 1 | 8% |
| South Africa | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 180 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 33 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Researcher | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 34 | 18% |
| Unknown | 36 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 106 | 57% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Unknown | 42 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 30 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,685,143
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#1,274
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,213
of 263,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#16
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 263,759 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 65% of its contemporaries.