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 |
Assessing factorial invariance of two-way rating designs using three-way methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01495 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pieter M. Kroonenberg |
| Abstract |
Assessing the factorial invariance of two-way rating designs such as ratings of concepts on several scales by different groups can be carried out with three-way models such as the Parafac and Tucker models. By their definitions these models are double-metric factorially invariant. The differences between these models lie in their handling of the links between the concept and scale spaces. These links may consist of unrestricted linking (Tucker2 model), invariant component covariances but variable variances per group and per component (Parafac model), zero covariances and variances different per group but not per component (Replicated Tucker3 model) and strict invariance (Component analysis on the average matrix). This hierarchy of invariant models, and the procedures by which to evaluate the models against each other, is illustrated in some detail with an international data set from attachment theory. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 25% |
| Professor | 1 | 13% |
| Librarian | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mathematics | 2 | 25% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 13% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 13% |
| Psychology | 1 | 13% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 13% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
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 09 January 2015.
All research outputs
#20,248,338
of 22,776,824 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,000
of 29,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,273
of 352,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#356
of 389 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,776,824 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 29,687 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 352,269 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 389 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.