↓ Skip to main content

Why Do Older People Change Their Ratings of Childhood Health?

Overview of attention for article published in Demography, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Why Do Older People Change Their Ratings of Childhood Health?
Published in
Demography, October 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13524-014-0344-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mike Vuolo, Kenneth F. Ferraro, Patricia M. Morton, Ting-Ying Yang

Abstract

A growing number of studies in life course epidemiology and biodemography make use of a retrospective question tapping self-rated childhood health to assess overall physical health status. Analyzing repeated measures of self-rated childhood health from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), this study examines several possible explanations for why respondents might change their ratings of childhood health. Results reveal that nearly one-half of the sample revised their rating of childhood health during the 10-year observation period. Whites and relatively advantaged older adults-those with more socioeconomic resources and better memory-were less likely to revise their rating of childhood health, while those who experienced multiple childhood health problems were more likely to revise their childhood health rating, either positively or negatively. Changes in current self-rated health and several incident physical health problems were also related to the revision of one's rating of childhood health, while the development of psychological disorders was associated with more negative revised ratings. We then illustrate the impact that these changes may have on an adult outcomes: namely, depressive symptoms. Whereas adult ratings of childhood health are likely to change over time, we recommend their use only if adjusting for factors associated with these changes, such as memory, psychological disorder, adult self-rated health, and socioeconomic resources.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Professor 3 6%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 16 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Psychology 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 October 2014.
All research outputs
#18,382,900
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#1,800
of 1,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,398
of 260,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#19
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,857 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 260,447 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.