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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Modified Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale: A Valid and Reliable Instrument for Use with Children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00011 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emma Carey, Francesca Hill, Amy Devine, Dénes Szűcs |
| Abstract |
Mathematics anxiety (MA) can be observed in children from primary school age into the teenage years and adulthood, but many MA rating scales are only suitable for use with adults or older adolescents. We have adapted one such rating scale, the Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale (AMAS), to be used with British children aged 8-13. In this study, we assess the scale's reliability, factor structure, and divergent validity. The modified AMAS (mAMAS) was administered to a very large (n = 1746) cohort of British children and adolescents. This large sample size meant that as well as conducting confirmatory factor analysis on the scale itself, we were also able to split the sample to conduct exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of items from the mAMAS alongside items from child test anxiety and general anxiety rating scales. Factor analysis of the mAMAS confirmed that it has the same underlying factor structure as the original AMAS, with subscales measuring anxiety about Learning and Evaluation in math. Furthermore, both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the mAMAS alongside scales measuring test anxiety and general anxiety showed that mAMAS items cluster onto one factor (perceived to represent MA). The mAMAS provides a valid and reliable scale for measuring MA in children and adolescents, from a younger age than is possible with the original AMAS. Results from this study also suggest that MA is truly a unique construct, separate from both test anxiety and general anxiety, even in childhood. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 311 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 310 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 33 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 28 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 8% |
| Researcher | 22 | 7% |
| Other | 52 | 17% |
| Unknown | 110 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 78 | 25% |
| Mathematics | 36 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 34 | 11% |
| Arts and Humanities | 8 | 3% |
| Engineering | 4 | 1% |
| Other | 31 | 10% |
| Unknown | 120 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 17 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,633,800
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,269
of 30,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,847
of 417,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#72
of 418 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,112 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 done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 417,761 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 418 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.