| Title |
How honest are the signals? A protocol for validating wearable sensors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-017-1005-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Varol Onur Kayhan, Zheng (Chris) Chen, Kimberly A. French, Tammy D. Allen, Kristen Salomon, Alison Watkins |
| Abstract |
There is growing interest among organizational researchers in tapping into alternative sources of data beyond self-reports to provide a new avenue for measuring behavioral constructs. Use of alternative data sources such as wearable sensors is necessary for developing theory and enhancing organizational practice. Although wearable sensors are now commercially available, the veracity of the data they capture is largely unknown and mostly based on manufacturers' claims. The goal of this research is to test the validity and reliability of data captured by one such wearable badge (by Humanyze) in the context of structured meetings where all individuals wear a badge for the duration of the encounter. We developed a series of studies, each targeting a specific sensor of this badge that is relevant for structured meetings, and we make specific recommendations for badge data usage based on our validation results. We have incorporated the insights from our studies on a website that researchers can use to conduct validation tests for their badges, upload their data, and assess the validity of the data. We discuss this website in the corresponding studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 States | 5 | 45% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
| Scientists | 5 | 45% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 7 | 18% |
| Psychology | 7 | 18% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
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 09 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,661,764
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#606
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,479
of 450,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#11
of 34 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 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 450,934 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 67% of its contemporaries.