↓ Skip to main content

The Impact of Prior Activity History on the Influence of Restricted Repetitive Behaviors on Socialization for Children With High-Functioning Autism

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Modification, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
The Impact of Prior Activity History on the Influence of Restricted Repetitive Behaviors on Socialization for Children With High-Functioning Autism
Published in
Behavior Modification, June 2017
DOI 10.1177/0145445517706346
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert L. Koegel, Kelsey Oliver, Lynn K. Koegel

Abstract

Research has demonstrated that incorporating restricted interests of an individual with autism into recess activities is effective at increasing socialization with typically developing peers. However, certain activity contexts may alter the reinforcing influence of the restricted repetitive behaviors (RRBs) depending on an individual's history in that activity. Using an alternating treatment design, this study examined whether an individual's history with an activity affected socialization. RRBs were embedded into activities with a reported positive history (i.e., prior history of positive experiences) and activities with a reported negative history (i.e., prior history of aversive experiences) for participants. Data indicated that socialization increased and remained above baseline levels when RRBs were introduced during activities with a positive history, whereas socialization was minimal when RRBs were introduced in activities with a negative history. Social significance and implications for designing activities that incorporate a child's RRBs are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 27%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 50%
Social Sciences 4 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 15%

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 24 June 2017.
All research outputs
#7,103,131
of 11,405,459 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Modification
#250
of 355 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,237
of 265,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Modification
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,405,459 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 355 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 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 265,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.