↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
29 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.
Article details
Title
Assessing Anaclitic and Introjective Characteristics Using the SWAP‐200 Q‐Sort: Concurrent Validity with the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex Scales
Published in
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/cpp.2057
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This investigation's goal was to assess the concurrent validity of the four scales of the Anaclitic and Introjective Depression Assessment (AIDA), a newly developed clinician-rated measure, and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex Scales (IIP-64). The AIDA is composed of Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure items and is comprised of two primitive and two more mature scales of introjective and anaclitic personality types. Specific predictions of relationships were made and are discussed further in this paper. The participants in this study were 106 outpatients engaged in psychodynamic psychotherapy. Patients completed the IIP-64 upon assessment and were rated by their therapist on the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure 200 (SWAP-200). The present findings demonstrated several expected relationships between the SWAP-derived AIDA and the IIP-64. Primitive levels of Anaclitic and Introjective characteristics on the AIDA were related to more difficulties involving Affiliation and Dominance on the IIP. The primitive Introjective-Dismissive (Dismissive Depression) scale was related to difficulties involving high Dominance and low Affiliation. The more adaptive Introjective-Self-Critical (Self-Critical Depression) scale was not related to any interpersonal problem. The more adaptive Anaclitic-Needy (Needy Depression) scale was related to difficulties involving high Affiliation, and the primitive Anaclitic-Submissive (Submissive Depression) scale was associated with difficulties related to high Affiliation, as well as problems related to low Dominance in one of two domains. Our results bolster the concurrent validity of the four AIDA scales and add to current knowledge of the differential interpersonal patterns of individuals with more mature and primitive levels of anaclitic and introjective personality types. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Clinicians can utilize the Anaclitic and Introjective Depression Assessment (AIDA; Rost, Fonagy, & Luyten, 2014), derived from Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP) items, to assess if their patients possess Anaclitic or Introjective characteristics. This measure can also be used to assess if the Anaclitic and Introjective characteristics are of a more primitive or mature nature. Clinicians should be aware that individuals with more primitive levels of Anaclitic and Introjective characteristics experience more difficulties involving Affiliation and Dominance than individuals with more mature levels of personality development. Specifically, the more primitive Introjective individual will likely encounter difficulties involving high Dominance and low Affiliation. The more adaptive Introjective individual will likely not demonstrate difficulties in these areas. The more primitive Anaclitic individual will likely encounter more difficulties related to high Affiliation, as well as problems related to low Dominance. The more adaptive Anaclitic individual also likely will encounter difficulties involving high Affiliation Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Researcher 2 7%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 8 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Materials Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,700,369
of 28,829,220 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy
#391
of 976 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,600
of 422,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy
#13
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,829,220 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 976 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 422,010 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.