↓ 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
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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 profile of 1 tweeter 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 4%
Japan 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 25%
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Other 5 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Unspecified 4 14%
Engineering 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 4 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 January 2017.
All research outputs
#4,821,267
of 8,903,958 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,324
of 8,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,582
of 302,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,123
of 1,582 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,903,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 302,141 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,582 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.