↓ Skip to main content

Latino Adolescents’ Loneliness, Academic Performance, and the Buffering Nature of Friendships

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Youth and Adolescence, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
Title
Latino Adolescents’ Loneliness, Academic Performance, and the Buffering Nature of Friendships
Published in
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, June 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10964-010-9561-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aprile D. Benner

Abstract

This longitudinal study examined Latino adolescents' feelings of loneliness and the repercussions of loneliness for later educational success. Participants were 640 Latino students (56% girls, 62% Mexican/Mexican-American) who reported on loneliness across the first 2 years of high school. Growth mixture modeling identified three distinct loneliness trajectory classes for the Latino adolescents--consistently low, chronically high, and low but increasing. Language brokering, language use, and school mobility emerged as predictors of class membership. Increasingly and chronically lonely youth experienced academic difficulty, both in terms of academic progress and exit exam success, but support from friends served as a buffer of the negative relationship between loneliness and academic success. This study highlights the pernicious effects of loneliness and suggests promoting prosocial friendship support as a means of facilitating more positive academic outcomes for Latino youth.

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 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 147 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 18%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Master 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 46 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 45 30%
Social Sciences 30 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 48 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 01 May 2023.
All research outputs
#3,427,036
of 24,375,780 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Youth and Adolescence
#412
of 1,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,020
of 97,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Youth and Adolescence
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,375,780 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,832 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 97,775 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.