↓ Skip to main content

Development of Children's Use of External Reminders for Hard‐to‐Remember Intentions

Overview of attention for article published in Child Development, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
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.
Title
Development of Children's Use of External Reminders for Hard‐to‐Remember Intentions
Published in
Child Development, February 2018
DOI 10.1111/cdev.13040
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Redshaw, Johanna Vandersee, Adam Bulley, Sam J. Gilbert

Abstract

This study explored under what conditions young children would set reminders to aid their memory for delayed intentions. A computerized task requiring participants to carry out delayed intentions under varying levels of cognitive load was presented to 63 children (aged between 6.9 and 13.0 years old). Children of all ages demonstrated metacognitive predictions of their performance that were congruent with task difficulty. Only older children, however, set more reminders when they expected their future memory performance to be poorer. These results suggest that most primary school-aged children possess metacognitive knowledge about their prospective memory limits, but that only older children may be able to exercise the metacognitive control required to translate this knowledge into strategic reminder setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 17%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 23 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 41%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 29 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 77. 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 20 February 2019.
All research outputs
#526,478
of 24,451,065 outputs
Outputs from Child Development
#316
of 4,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,545
of 482,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child Development
#10
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,451,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 482,932 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.