↓ Skip to main content

Is being a “small fish in a big pond” bad for students´ psychosomatic health? A multilevel study on the role of class-level school performance

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Is being a “small fish in a big pond” bad for students´ psychosomatic health? A multilevel study on the role of class-level school performance
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5977-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharina Rathmann, Ludwig Bilz, Klaus Hurrelmann, Wieland Kiess, Matthias Richter

Abstract

Features of schools and classes are closely related to students´ health and wellbeing. However, class composition (e.g. in terms of school performance) has rarely been examined in relation to students´ health and wellbeing. This study focuses on the so called Big-Fish-Little-Pond-Effect (BFLPE), by investigating whether the level of high-performing students in classroom is negatively associated with psychosomatic complaints of students who perceive themselves as poor performers. Data were derived from the German sample of the WHO-Collaborative "Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC)" study 2013/2014. The sample included 5226 11-, 13- and 15-year-old students. Individual perceived school performance (PSP) was included (very good/good vs. average/below average PSP) at the individual student-level. At the class-level, school performance in class was generated by aggregating the share (in percentage) of students who report a very good/good PSP to the class-level, indicating the percentage of students with good/very good PSP in classroom. Using multilevel regression models, the association between class-level school performance (in percentage of students with very good/good PSP) and individual psychosomatic complaints were analyzed, stratified by students´ individual PSP. Students who report average/below average PSP showed higher likelihoods of psychosomatic complaints (Odds Ratio: 1.75; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.52-2.03) compared to counterparts with very good/good PSP. The aggregated class-level PSP was not significantly associated with psychosomatic complaints. However, in line with the BFLPE, results further revealed that students with average/below average PSP, who attend classes with a higher percentage of students who report very good/good PSP, had higher likelihoods of psychosomatic complaints (Odds Ratio: 1.91; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.01-4.01) compared to classmates with very good/good PSP. This study revealed that class composition in terms of PSP was differentially associated with students´ psychosomatic complaints, depending on their individual PSP. Findings highlight the vulnerability of students with poor PSP placed in classes with a higher percentage of students with good PSP. Results of this study therefore indicate a need for initiatives for low performing students from teachers and school staff in class.

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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 53%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 17%
Social Sciences 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 19 63%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,049,105
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,479
of 15,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,174
of 336,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#115
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 336,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 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 52% of its contemporaries.