| Title |
Rasch analysis of the Trypophobia Questionnaire
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-018-3245-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shu Imaizumi, Yoshihiko Tanno |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to assess Rasch-based psychometric properties of the Trypophobia Questionnaire measuring proneness to trypophobia, which refers to disgust and unpleasantness induced by the observation of clusters of objects (e.g., lotus seed pods). Rasch analysis was performed on data from 582 healthy Japanese adults. The results suggested that Trypophobia Questionnaire has a unidimensional structure with ordered response categories and sufficient person and item reliabilities, and that it does not have differential item functioning across sexes and age groups, whereas the targeting of the scale leaves room for improvements. When items that did not fit the Rasch model were removed, the shortened version showed slightly improved psychometric properties. However, results were not conclusive in determining whether the full or shortened version is better for practical use. Further assessment and validation are needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 14% |
| Finland | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 27% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,890,407
of 24,068,839 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,050
of 4,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,034
of 453,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#30
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,068,839 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,360 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 453,067 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.