↓ Skip to main content

How adults with a profound intellectual disability engage others in interaction

Overview of attention for article published in Sociology of Health & Illness, October 2016
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 (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
How adults with a profound intellectual disability engage others in interaction
Published in
Sociology of Health & Illness, October 2016
DOI 10.1111/1467-9566.12500
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles Antaki, Rebecca J. Crompton, Chris Walton, W.M.L. Finlay

Abstract

Using video records of everyday life in a residential home, we report on what interactional practices are used by people with severe and profound intellectual disabilities to initiate encounters. There were very few initiations, and all presented difficulties to the interlocutor (support staff; the recording researcher); one (which we call 'blank recipiency') gave the interlocutor virtually no information at all on which to base a response. Only when the initiation was of a new phase in an interaction already under way (for example, the initiation of an alternative trajectory of a proposed physical move) was it likely to be successfully sustained. We show how interlocutors responded to initiations verbally, as if to neuro-typical speakers - but inappropriately for people unable to comprehend, or to produce well-fitted next turns. This mis-reliance on ordinary speakers' conversational practices was one factor that contributed to residents abandoning the interaction in almost all cases. We discuss the dilemma confronting care workers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 27%
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 25%
Social Sciences 12 21%
Linguistics 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 May 2022.
All research outputs
#5,561,866
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Sociology of Health & Illness
#977
of 1,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,585
of 315,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sociology of Health & Illness
#17
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,982 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 315,898 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.