↓ Skip to main content

Novel Methods for Screening: Contributions from Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-up

Overview of attention for article published in Prevention Science, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Novel Methods for Screening: Contributions from Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-up
Published in
Prevention Science, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11121-018-0894-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

EB Caron, Caroline K. P. Roben, Heather A. Yarger, Mary Dozier

Abstract

Preventative interventions are needed across the lifespan, including for children who have experienced maltreatment. However, interventions' effect sizes are typically smaller in real-world settings than in clinical trials. Identifying providers who are likely to implement interventions with fidelity could promote implementation outcomes through targeted allocation of training resources. This study tested two pre-training screening measures as predictors of provider fidelity to Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-up (ABC), a preventative intervention for maltreated infants. One measure assessed valuing of attachment/openness, and the other used vignettes to assess initial skill in a key intervention component. In a sample of 42 providers across 197 sessions, both screening measures predicted future ABC fidelity, even when controlling for experience and education. These results support the development of screening measures for other interventions, suggesting approaches that target specific qualities and behaviors are likely to predict implementation fidelity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Other 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,633,675
of 23,083,773 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#928
of 1,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,049
of 327,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#26
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,083,773 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 327,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.