↓ Skip to main content

Network structure of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales–Short Forms: Examining psychometric network filtering approaches

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Network structure of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales–Short Forms: Examining psychometric network filtering approaches
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, March 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13428-018-1032-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander P. Christensen, Yoed N. Kenett, Tomaso Aste, Paul J. Silvia, Thomas R. Kwapil

Abstract

Schizotypy is a multidimensional construct that provides a useful framework for understanding the etiology, development, and risk for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Past research has applied traditional methods, such as factor analysis, to uncovering common dimensions of schizotypy. In the present study, we aimed to advance the construct of schizotypy, measured by the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales-Short Forms (WSS-SF), beyond this general scope by applying two different psychometric network filtering approaches-the state-of-the-art approach (lasso), which has been employed in previous studies, and an alternative approach (information-filtering networks; IFNs). First, we applied both filtering approaches to two large, independent samples of WSS-SF data (ns = 5,831 and 2,171) and assessed each approach's representation of the WSS-SF's schizotypy construct. Both filtering approaches produced results similar to those from traditional methods, with the IFN approach producing results more consistent with previous theoretical interpretations of schizotypy. Then we evaluated how well both filtering approaches reproduced the global and local network characteristics of the two samples. We found that the IFN approach produced more consistent results for both global and local network characteristics. Finally, we sought to evaluate the predictability of the network centrality measures for each filtering approach, by determining the core, intermediate, and peripheral items on the WSS-SF and using them to predict interview reports of schizophrenia-spectrum symptoms. We found some similarities and differences in their effectiveness, with the IFN approach's network structure providing better overall predictive distinctions. We discuss the implications of our findings for schizotypy and for psychometric network analysis more generally.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 23%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Master 8 13%
Professor 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Computer Science 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 19 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 April 2019.
All research outputs
#4,549,873
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#567
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,457
of 348,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#14
of 30 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 82nd 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 348,490 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 50% of its contemporaries.