| Title |
Advances in Statistical Methods for Substance Abuse Prevention Research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Prevention Science, September 2003
|
| DOI | 10.1023/a:1024649822872 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David P. MacKinnon, Chondra M. Lockwood |
| Abstract |
The paper describes advances in statistical methods for prevention research with a particular focus on substance abuse prevention. Standard analysis methods are extended to the typical research designs and characteristics of the data collected in prevention research. Prevention research often includes longitudinal measurement, clustering of data in units such as schools or clinics, missing data, and categorical as well as continuous outcome variables. Statistical methods to handle these features of prevention data are outlined. Developments in mediation, moderation, and implementation analysis allow for the extraction of more detailed information from a prevention study. Advancements in the interpretation of prevention research results include more widespread calculation of effect size and statistical power, the use of confidence intervals as well as hypothesis testing, detailed causal analysis of research findings, and meta-analysis. The increased availability of statistical software has contributed greatly to the use of new methods in prevention research. It is likely that the Internet will continue to stimulate the development and application of new methods. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 75 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 23% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Professor | 9 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 9 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 32 | 41% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 15% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 13 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 May 2021.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#563
of 1,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,837
of 53,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 53,936 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.