↓ Skip to main content

Ten Ways to Improve the Use of Statistical Mediation Analysis in the Practice of Child and Adolescent Treatment Research

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Ten Ways to Improve the Use of Statistical Mediation Analysis in the Practice of Child and Adolescent Treatment Research
Published in
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, March 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10567-012-0114-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marija Maric, Reinout W. Wiers, Pier J. M. Prins

Abstract

Despite guidelines and repeated calls from the literature, statistical mediation analysis in youth treatment outcome research is rare. Even more concerning is that many studies that have reported mediation analyses do not fulfill basic requirements for mediation analysis, providing inconclusive data and clinical implications. As a result, after more than five decades of research, it is still largely unknown through which processes youth treatment works and what the effective treatment components are. In this article, we present ten ways in which the use of statistical mediation analysis in youth treatment outcome research may be improved. These ten ways are related both to conceptual and methodological issues. In discussing how youth clinical researchers may optimally implement these directions, we argue that studies should employ the strongest research designs possible. In so doing, we describe different levels of a mediation evidence ladder. Studies on each step of the ladder contribute to an understanding of mediation processes, but the strongest evidence for mediation is provided by studies that can be classified at the highest level. With the help of the ladder of mediation evidence, results from youth mediation treatment outcome research can be evaluated on their scientific as well as clinical impact.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
Norway 2 1%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 141 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 21%
Researcher 26 17%
Student > Master 22 15%
Professor 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 17 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 71 47%
Social Sciences 16 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 25 17%
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 14 August 2012.
All research outputs
#19,382,126
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
#348
of 376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,917
of 159,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. 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 159,279 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.