↓ Skip to main content

Individual differences in the efficacy of a short theory of mind intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 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
Individual differences in the efficacy of a short theory of mind intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-13-206
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elske Hoddenbach, Hans M Koot, Pamela Clifford, Carolien Gevers, Cassandra Clauser, Frits Boer, Sander Begeer

Abstract

Having a 'theory of mind', or having the ability to attribute mental states to oneself or others, is considered one of the most central domains of impairment among children with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Many interventions focus on improving theory of mind skills in children with ASD. Nonetheless, the empirical evidence for the effect of these interventions is limited. The main goal of this study is to examine the effectiveness of a short theory of mind intervention for children with ASD. A second objective is to determine which subgroups within the autism spectrum profit most from the intervention.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 29 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 54 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 11%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 35 26%