↓ Skip to main content

TOWARD A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF SELF-INJURY

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1550 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 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
TOWARD A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF SELF-INJURY
Published in
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, February 2013
DOI 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian A. Iwata, Michael F. Dorsey, Keith J. Slifer, Kenneth E. Bauman, Gina S. Richman

Abstract

This study describes the use of an operant methodology to assess functional relationships between self-injury and specific environmental events. The self-injurious behaviors of nine developmentally disabled subjects were observed during periods of brief, repeated exposure to a series of analogue conditions. Each condition differed along one or more of the following dimensions: (1) play materials (present vs absent), (2) experimenter demands (high vs low), and (3) social attention (absent vs noncontingent vs contingent). Results showed a great deal of both between and within-subject variability. However, in six of the nine subjects, higher levels of self-injury were consistently associated with a specific stimulus condition, suggesting that within-subject variability was a function of distinct features of the social and/or physical environment. These data are discussed in light of previously suggested hypotheses for the motivation of self-injury, with particular emphasis on their implications for the selection of suitable treatments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 5%
Brazil 3 2%
Japan 2 1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 153 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 5%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 12 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 103 60%
Social Sciences 33 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 17 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 26 April 2020.
All research outputs
#2,056,795
of 15,736,034 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
#108
of 1,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,619
of 124,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,736,034 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 124,789 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.