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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Absence of social desirability bias in the evaluation of chronic disease self-management interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1477-7525-11-114 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sandra Nolte, Gerald R Elsworth, Richard H Osborne |
| Abstract |
Bias due to social desirability has long been of concern to evaluators relying on self-report data. It is conceivable that health program evaluation is particularly susceptible to social desirability bias as individuals may be inclined to present themselves or certain health behaviors in a more positive light and/or appease the course leader. Thus, the influence of social desirability bias on self-report outcomes was explored in the present study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 64 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 20% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 22% |
| Unknown | 6 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 17% |
| Psychology | 10 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 12% |
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 2013.
All research outputs
#16,045,990
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,279
of 2,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,559
of 206,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#16
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 206,313 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 51% of its contemporaries.