↓ 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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
France 1 3%
Unknown 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 26%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Engineering 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 6 16%

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
#9,422,622
of 16,036,419 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,729
of 16,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,490
of 388,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,072
of 1,584 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,036,419 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,213 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 388,496 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,584 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.