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 |
Working memory capacity and fluid abilities: the more difficult the item, the more more is better
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00239 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel R. Little, Stephan Lewandowsky, Stewart Craig |
| Abstract |
The relationship between fluid intelligence and working memory is of fundamental importance to understanding how capacity-limited structures such as working memory interact with inference abilities to determine intelligent behavior. Recent evidence has suggested that the relationship between a fluid abilities test, Raven's Progressive Matrices, and working memory capacity (WMC) may be invariant across difficulty levels of the Raven's items. We show that this invariance can only be observed if the overall correlation between Raven's and WMC is low. Simulations of Raven's performance revealed that as the overall correlation between Raven's and WMC increases, the item-wise point bi-serial correlations involving WMC are no longer constant but increase considerably with item difficulty. The simulation results were confirmed by two studies that used a composite measure of WMC, which yielded a higher correlation between WMC and Raven's than reported in previous studies. As expected, with the higher overall correlation, there was a significant positive relationship between Raven's item difficulty and the extent of the item-wise correlation with WMC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 11% |
| Romania | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 18% |
| Researcher | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 39 | 51% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 14 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,532,753
of 24,943,708 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,026
of 33,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,754
of 229,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#52
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,943,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 229,351 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 204 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.