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 |
Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0068967 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric van Sonderen, Robbert Sanderman, James C. Coyne |
| Abstract |
We examined the effectiveness of reverse worded items as a means of reducing or preventing response bias. We first distinguished between several types of response bias that are often confused in literature. We next developed arguments why reversing items is probably never a good way to address response bias. We proposed testing whether reverse wording affects response bias with item-level data from the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20), an instrument that contains reversed worded items. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 | 5 | 16% |
| Japan | 4 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 6% |
| Philippines | 1 | 3% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Comoros | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 71% |
| Scientists | 6 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 420 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 406 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 82 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 57 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 46 | 11% |
| Researcher | 44 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 27 | 6% |
| Other | 85 | 20% |
| Unknown | 79 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 124 | 30% |
| Social Sciences | 63 | 15% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 42 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 57 | 14% |
| Unknown | 99 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 10 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,280,757
of 24,821,035 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#16,334
of 214,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,756
of 203,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#437
of 4,883 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,821,035 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 203,921 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,883 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 90% of its contemporaries.