↓ Skip to main content

Illustrating idiographic methods for translation research: moderation effects, natural clinical experiments, and complex treatment-by-subgroup interactions

Overview of attention for article published in Translational Behavioral Medicine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Illustrating idiographic methods for translation research: moderation effects, natural clinical experiments, and complex treatment-by-subgroup interactions
Published in
Translational Behavioral Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13142-015-0357-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ty A Ridenour, Andrea K Wittenborn, Bethany R Raiff, Neal Benedict, Sandra Kane-Gill

Abstract

A critical juncture in translation research involves the preliminary studies of intervention tools, provider training programs, policies, and other mechanisms used to leverage knowledge garnered at one translation stage into another stage. Potentially useful for such studies are rigorous techniques for conducting within-subject clinical trials, which have advanced incrementally over the last decade. However, these methods have largely not been utilized within prevention or translation contexts. The purpose of this manuscript is to demonstrate the flexibility, wide applicability, and rigor of idiographic clinical trials for preliminary testing of intervention mechanisms. Specifically demonstrated are novel uses of state-space modeling for testing intervention mechanisms of short-term outcomes, identifying heterogeneity in and moderation of within-person treatment mechanisms, a horizontal line plot to refine sampling design during the course of a clinic-based experimental study, and the need to test a treatment's efficacy as treatment is administered along with (e.g., traditional 12-month outcomes).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 11 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 16 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 March 2019.
All research outputs
#13,218,410
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#582
of 990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,763
of 282,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#12
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 282,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.