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 |
Comparing Feedback Types in Multimedia Learning of Speech by Young Children With Common Speech Sound Disorders: Research Protocol for a Pretest Posttest Independent Measures Control Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00444 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wendy Doubé, Paul Carding, Kieran Flanagan, Jordy Kaufman, Hannah Armitage |
| Abstract |
Children with speech sound disorders benefit from feedback about the accuracy of sounds they make. Home practice can reinforce feedback received from speech pathologists. Games in mobile device applications could encourage home practice, but those currently available are of limited value because they are unlikely to elaborate "Correct"/"Incorrect" feedback with information that can assist in improving the accuracy of the sound. This protocol proposes a "Wizard of Oz" experiment that aims to provide evidence for the provision of effective multimedia feedback for speech sound development. Children with two common speech sound disorders will play a game on a mobile device and make speech sounds when prompted by the game. A human "Wizard" will provide feedback on the accuracy of the sound but the children will perceive the feedback as coming from the game. Groups of 30 young children will be randomly allocated to one of five conditions: four types of feedback and a control which does not play the game. The results of this experiment will inform not only speech sound therapy, but also other types of language learning, both in general, and in multimedia applications. This experiment is a cost-effective precursor to the development of a mobile application that employs pedagogically and clinically sound processes for speech development in young children. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 24% |
| Unknown | 17 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 8 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 7% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 20 | 34% |
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 05 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,171,423
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,180
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,636
of 330,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#486
of 580 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 330,500 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 580 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.