↓ Skip to main content

Comprehending Adverbs of Doubt and Certainty in Health Communication: A Multidimensional Scaling Approach

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Comprehending Adverbs of Doubt and Certainty in Health Communication: A Multidimensional Scaling Approach
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00558
Pubmed ID
Authors

Norman S. Segalowitz, Marina M. Doucerain, Renata F. I. Meuter, Yue Zhao, Julia Hocking, Andrew G. Ryder

Abstract

This research explored the feasibility of using multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis in novel combination with other techniques to study comprehension of epistemic adverbs expressing doubt and certainty (e.g., evidently, obviously, probably) as they relate to health communication in clinical settings. In Study 1, Australian English speakers performed a dissimilarity-rating task with sentence pairs containing the target stimuli, presented as "doctors' opinions." Ratings were analyzed using a combination of cultural consensus analysis (factor analysis across participants), weighted-data classical-MDS, and cluster analysis. Analyses revealed strong within-community consistency for a 3-dimensional semantic space solution that took into account individual differences, strong statistical acceptability of the MDS results in terms of stress and explained variance, and semantic configurations that were interpretable in terms of linguistic analyses of the target adverbs. The results confirmed the feasibility of using MDS in this context. Study 2 replicated the results with Canadian English speakers on the same task. Semantic analyses and stress decomposition analysis were performed on the Australian and Canadian data sets, revealing similarities and differences between the two groups. Overall, the results support using MDS to study comprehension of words critical for health communication, including in future studies, for example, second language speaking patients and/or practitioners. More broadly, the results indicate that the techniques described should be promising for comprehension studies in many communicative domains, in both clinical settings and beyond, and including those targeting other aspects of language and focusing on comparisons across different speech communities.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 30%
Arts and Humanities 3 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Linguistics 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 5 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 23 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,459,684
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,259
of 29,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,708
of 298,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#356
of 429 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,940 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 298,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 429 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.