↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
5 policy sources
twitter
205 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
3 Redditors
podcasts
2 podcasts

Readers on

mendeley
1181 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
CATALISE: A Multinational and Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus Study. Identifying Language Impairments in Children
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0158753
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Delayed or impaired language development is a common developmental concern, yet there is little agreement about the criteria used to identify and classify language impairments in children. Children's language difficulties are at the interface between education, medicine and the allied professions, who may all adopt different approaches to conceptualising them. Our goal in this study was to use an online Delphi technique to see whether it was possible to achieve consensus among professionals on appropriate criteria for identifying children who might benefit from specialist services. We recruited a panel of 59 experts representing ten disciplines (including education, psychology, speech-language therapy/pathology, paediatrics and child psychiatry) from English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom and USA). The starting point for round 1 was a set of 46 statements based on articles and commentaries in a special issue of a journal focusing on this topic. Panel members rated each statement for both relevance and validity on a seven-point scale, and added free text comments. These responses were synthesised by the first two authors, who then removed, combined or modified items with a view to improving consensus. The resulting set of statements was returned to the panel for a second evaluation (round 2). Consensus (percentage reporting 'agree' or 'strongly agree') was at least 80 percent for 24 of 27 round 2 statements, though many respondents qualified their response with written comments. These were again synthesised by the first two authors. The resulting consensus statement is reported here, with additional summary of relevant evidence, and a concluding commentary on residual disagreements and gaps in the evidence base.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 205 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,181 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 %
United States 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 1177 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 166 14%
Student > Bachelor 127 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 95 8%
Researcher 85 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 44 4%
Other 167 14%
Unknown 497 42%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 176 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 154 13%
Linguistics 120 10%
Social Sciences 60 5%
Neuroscience 41 3%
Other 101 9%
Unknown 529 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 252. 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 July 2026.
All research outputs
#185,309
of 34,452,566 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#2,666
of 224,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,835
of 337,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#59
of 4,531 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,452,566 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,772 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 337,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,531 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.