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 |
Reliability of the Client-Centeredness of Goal Setting (C-COGS) Scale in Acquired Brain Injury Rehabilitation.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
American journal of occupational therapy, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.5014/ajot.2016.017046 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emmah Doig, Sarah Prescott, Jennifer Fleming, Petrea Cornwell, Pim Kuipers |
| Abstract |
To examine the internal reliability and test-retest reliability of the Client-Centeredness of Goal Setting (C-COGS) scale. The C-COGS scale was administered to 42 participants with acquired brain injury after completion of multidisciplinary goal planning. Internal reliability of scale items was examined using item-partial total correlations and Cronbach's α coefficient. The scale was readministered within a 1-mo period to a subsample of 12 participants to examine test-retest reliability by calculating exact and close percentage agreement for each item. After examination of item-partial total correlations, test items were revised. The revised items demonstrated stronger internal consistency than the original items. Preliminary evaluation of test-retest reliability was fair, with an average exact percent agreement across all test items of 67%. Findings support the preliminary reliability of the C-COGS scale as a tool to evaluate and promote client-centered goal planning in brain injury rehabilitation. |
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% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 32% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 6 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
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 04 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,404,780
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from American journal of occupational therapy
#680
of 1,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,727
of 354,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American journal of occupational therapy
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,294 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 354,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.