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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Guiding principles for printed education materials: Design preferences of people with aphasia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Speech Language Pathology, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.3109/17549507.2011.631583 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tanya A. Rose, Linda E. Worrall, Louise M. Hickson, Tammy C. Hoffmann |
| Abstract |
The objectives of this study were to obtain the preferences of people with aphasia for the design of stroke and aphasia printed education materials (PEMs) and to compare these preferences with recommendations in the literature for developing written information for other populations. A face-to-face quantitative questionnaire was completed with 40 adults with aphasia post-stroke. The questionnaire explored preferences for: (1) the representation of numbers, (2) font size and type, (3) line spacing, (4) document length, and (5) graphic type. Most preferences (62.4%, n = 146) were for numbers expressed as figures rather than words. The largest proportion of participants selected 14 point (28.2%, n = 11) and Verdana ref (33.3%, n = 13) as the easiest font size and type to read, and a preference for 1.5 line spacing (41.0%, n = 16) was identified. Preference for document length was not related to the participant's reading ability or aphasia severity. Most participants (95.0%, n = 38) considered graphics to be helpful, with photographs more frequently reported as a helpful graphic type. The identified preferences support many of the formatting recommendations found within the literature. This research provides guiding principles for developing PEMs in preferred formats for people with aphasia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 135 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 12% |
| Researcher | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 20% |
| Unknown | 28 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 22% |
| Linguistics | 13 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 9% |
| Psychology | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 19% |
| Unknown | 35 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 February 2012.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Speech Language Pathology
#592
of 832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,922
of 246,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Speech Language Pathology
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 832 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 246,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.