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 |
Applying the behaviour change technique (BCT) taxonomy v1: a study of coder training
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Translational Behavioral Medicine, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13142-014-0290-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caroline E Wood, Michelle Richardson, Marie Johnston, Charles Abraham, Jill Francis, Wendy Hardeman, Susan Michie |
| Abstract |
Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1 (BCTTv1) has been used to detect active ingredients of interventions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate effectiveness of user training in improving reliable, valid and confident application of BCTTv1 to code BCTs in intervention descriptions. One hundred sixty-one trainees (109 in workshops and 52 in group tutorials) were trained to code frequent BCTs. The following measures were taken before and after training: (i) inter-coder agreement, (ii) trainee agreement with expert consensus, (iii) confidence ratings and (iv) coding competence. Coding was assessed for 12 BCTs (workshops) and for 17 BCTs (tutorials). Trainees completed a course evaluation. Methods improved agreement with expert consensus (p < .05) but not inter-coder agreement (p = .08, p = .57, respectively) and increased confidence for BCTs assessed (both p < .05). Methods were as effective as one another at improving coding competence (p = .55). Training was evaluated positively. The training improved agreement with expert consensus, confidence for BCTs assessed, coding competence but not inter-coder agreement. This varied according to BCT. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 | 10 | 63% |
| Canada | 2 | 13% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 6% |
| Ireland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 56% |
| Scientists | 5 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Unknown | 135 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 20% |
| Researcher | 19 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 14% |
| Unknown | 19 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 32 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Unknown | 23 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#2,892,893
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#176
of 1,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,761
of 374,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,093 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 374,957 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them