↓ Skip to main content

Understanding Etiology of Hearing Loss as a Contributor to Language Dysfluency and its Impact on Assessment and Treatment of People who are Deaf in Mental Health Settings

Overview of attention for article published in Community Mental Health Journal, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Understanding Etiology of Hearing Loss as a Contributor to Language Dysfluency and its Impact on Assessment and Treatment of People who are Deaf in Mental Health Settings
Published in
Community Mental Health Journal, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10597-017-0120-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlene J. Crump, Stephen H. Hamerdinger

Abstract

Working with individuals who are deaf in mental health settings can be complex work, necessitating consideration for the difference in language abilities. These differences include not only the language differences of American Sign Language (ASL) and English, but also the range of heterogeneity within the Deaf Community. Multiple influences such as mental illness, medical conditions, language deprivation and the etiology of deafness can impact how a person acquires and uses language. This article will discuss how various causes of deafness create the potential for specific language dysfluencies with individuals who are deaf in mental health settings. The article will also discuss the use of communication assessments to examine specific language dysfluency patterns and attempt to offer possible corresponding interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Professor 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 18 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 21 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 October 2018.
All research outputs
#6,865,735
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Community Mental Health Journal
#326
of 1,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,206
of 311,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Community Mental Health Journal
#15
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 311,208 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 70% of its contemporaries.