↓ Skip to main content

Turning the Page on Pen-and-Paper Questionnaires: Combining Ecological Momentary Assessment and Computer Adaptive Testing to Transform Psychological Assessment in the 21st Century

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
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.
Title
Turning the Page on Pen-and-Paper Questionnaires: Combining Ecological Momentary Assessment and Computer Adaptive Testing to Transform Psychological Assessment in the 21st Century
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01933
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris J. Gibbons

Abstract

The current paper describes new opportunities for patient-centred assessment methods which have come about by the increased adoption of affordable smart technologies in biopsychosocial research and medical care. In this commentary, we review modern assessment methods including item response theory (IRT), computer adaptive testing (CAT), and ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and explain how these methods may be combined to improve psychological assessment. We demonstrate both how a 'naïve' selection of a small group of items in an EMA can lead to unacceptably unreliable assessments and how IRT can provide detailed information on the individual information that each item gives thus allowing short form assessments to be selected with acceptable reliability. The combination of CAT and IRT can ensure assessments are precise, efficient, and well targeted to the individual; allowing EMAs to be both brief and accurate.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 50 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 15%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 September 2020.
All research outputs
#14,311,050
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,187
of 30,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,901
of 417,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#266
of 418 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 417,500 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 418 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.