↓ Skip to main content

Construction and updating of a public events questionnaire for repeated measures longitudinal studies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Construction and updating of a public events questionnaire for repeated measures longitudinal studies
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00230
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martha Noone, Maria Semkovska, Mary Carton, Ross Dunne, John-Paul Horgan, Breige O'Kane, Declan M. McLoughlin

Abstract

Impairments of retrospective memory and cases of retrograde amnesia are often seen in clinical settings. A measure of the proportion of memories retained over a specified time can be useful in clinical situations and public events questionnaires may be valuable in this respect. However, consistency of retention of public events memory has rarely been studied in the same participants. In addition, when used in a research context, public events questionnaires require updating to ensure questions are of equivalent age with respect to when the test is taken. This paper describes an approach to constructing and updating a Public Events Questionnaire (PEQ) for use with a sample that is recruited and followed-up over a long time-period. Internal consistency, parallel-form reliability, test-retest reliability, and secondary validity analyses were examined for three versions of the PEQ that were updated every 6 months. Versions 2 and 3 of the questionnaire were reliable across and within versions and for recall and recognition. Change over time was comparable across each version of the PEQ. These results show that PEQs can be regularly updated in a standardized fashion to allow use throughout studies with long recruitment periods.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 11%
Unknown 8 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 22%
Other 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 11%
Neuroscience 1 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 March 2014.
All research outputs
#20,224,618
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,932
of 29,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,515
of 223,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#172
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 223,385 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.