↓ Skip to main content

The External Validity of Sluggish Cognitive Tempo Versus Inattention in Behavioral, Social Interaction, and Academic Performance Measures.

Overview of attention for article published in Psicothema, August 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 287)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
The External Validity of Sluggish Cognitive Tempo Versus Inattention in Behavioral, Social Interaction, and Academic Performance Measures.
Published in
Psicothema, August 2022
DOI 10.7334/psicothema2021.583
Pubmed ID
Authors

Inmaculada Moreno-García, Mateu Servera, Manuel Morales-Ortiz, Almudena Cano-Crespo, Belén Sáez

Abstract

The main objective was to replicate data on the external validity of the Sluggish Cognitive Tempo (SCT) dimension, versus ADHD Inattention (IN), with the Spanish version of the Child and Adolescent Behavior Inventory (CABI) SCT subscale [ Cuestionario sobre el Comportamiento de Niños ] (Burns et al., 2015). 273 mothers and 255 fathers evaluated their 9 to13 year old children on SCT, IN and other CABI internalizing externalizing, academic impairment and social interaction measures. As hypothesized, the relationship between SCT and externalizing measures, in contrast to IN, was practically nonexistent, whereas both measures were related to internalizing and social interaction measures. Thus, the unique predictive capacity of SCT and IN was significant and similar on internalizing measures, except in the case of shyness, where SCT was better, while IN was better on externalizing measures. The data largely replicated previous results: SCT, despite its relationship with IN, is capable of predicting a significant proportion of anxiety, depression, and excessive shyness problems and, unlike IN, functions as a protective measure for externalizing problems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 27%
Librarian 1 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Unknown 8 53%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 27%
Mathematics 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 22 February 2023.
All research outputs
#4,116,114
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from Psicothema
#29
of 287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,948
of 431,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psicothema
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 287 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. 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 431,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them