↓ Skip to main content

A new approach for modeling generalization gradients: a case for hierarchical models

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
A new approach for modeling generalization gradients: a case for hierarchical models
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00652
Pubmed ID
Authors

Koen Vanbrabant, Yannick Boddez, Philippe Verduyn, Merijn Mestdagh, Dirk Hermans, Filip Raes

Abstract

A case is made for the use of hierarchical models in the analysis of generalization gradients. Hierarchical models overcome several restrictions that are imposed by repeated measures analysis-of-variance (rANOVA), the default statistical method in current generalization research. More specifically, hierarchical models allow to include continuous independent variables and overcomes problematic assumptions such as sphericity. We focus on how generalization research can benefit from this added flexibility. In a simulation study we demonstrate the dominance of hierarchical models over rANOVA. In addition, we show the lack of efficiency of the Mauchly's sphericity test in sample sizes typical for generalization research, and confirm how violations of sphericity increase the probability of type I errors. A worked example of a hierarchical model is provided, with a specific emphasis on the interpretation of parameters relevant for generalization research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 2 4%
United States 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 43 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 28%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 40%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 22 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 28 May 2015.
All research outputs
#6,893,759
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,910
of 29,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,786
of 266,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#221
of 528 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,714 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 66% 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 266,683 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 528 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.