In our target article, we tested the replicability of 4 popular psychopathology network estimation methods that aim to reveal causal relationships among symptoms of mental illness. We started with the focal data set from the 2 foundational psychopathology network papers (i.e., the National Comorbidity Survey-Replication) and identified the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing as a close methodological match for comparison. We compared the psychopathology networks estimated in each data set-as well as in 10 sets of random split-halves within each data set-with the goal of quantifying the replicability of the network parameters as they are interpreted in the extant psychopathology network literature. We concluded that current psychopathology network methods have limited replicability both within and between samples and thus have limited utility. Here we respond to the 2 commentaries on our target article, concluding that the findings of Steinley, Hoffman, Brusco, and Sher (2017)-along with other recent developments in the literature-provide further conclusive evidence that psychopathology networks have poor replicability and utility. (PsycINFO Database Record
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 18 January 2022.
All research outputs
#4,665,450
of 32,151,140 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Abnormal Psychology
#434
of 2,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,234
of 349,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Abnormal Psychology
#8
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,151,140 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 349,519 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 66% of its contemporaries.
