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 |
Misconceptions of the p-value among Chilean and Italian Academic Psychologists
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01247 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Badenes-Ribera, Dolores Frias-Navarro, Bryan Iotti, Amparo Bonilla-Campos, Claudio Longobardi |
| Abstract |
Common misconceptions of p-values are based on certain beliefs and attributions about the significance of the results. Thus, they affect the professionals' decisions and jeopardize the quality of interventions and the accumulation of valid scientific knowledge. We conducted a survey on 164 academic psychologists (134 Italian, 30 Chilean) questioned on this topic. Our findings are consistent with previous research and suggest that some participants do not know how to correctly interpret p-values. The inverse probability fallacy presents the greatest comprehension problems, followed by the replication fallacy. These results highlight the importance of the statistical re-education of researchers. Recommendations for improving statistical cognition are proposed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 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 | 8 | 14% |
| United States | 6 | 11% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 5% |
| Sweden | 2 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 4% |
| Russia | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 26 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 34 | 61% |
| Scientists | 16 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Macao | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 25 | 38% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 15 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 31 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,149,542
of 25,196,456 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,391
of 34,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,143
of 351,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#58
of 405 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,196,456 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,034 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 351,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 405 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.