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 |
A population study comparing screening performance of prototypes for depression and anxiety with standard scales
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-11-154 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helen Christensen, Philip J Batterham, Janie Busby Grant, Kathleen M Griffiths, Andrew J Mackinnon |
| Abstract |
Screening instruments for mental disorders need to be short, engaging, and valid. Current screening instruments are usually questionnaire-based and may be opaque to the user. A prototype approach where individuals identify with a description of an individual with typical symptoms of depression, anxiety, social phobia or panic may be a shorter, faster and more acceptable method for screening. The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of four new prototype screeners for predicting depression and anxiety disorders and to compare their performance with existing scales. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 51 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 10 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 05 December 2023.
All research outputs
#3,190,395
of 24,940,046 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#495
of 2,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,078
of 250,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,940,046 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,224 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 250,775 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 99% of its contemporaries.