↓ Skip to main content

Triple P-Positive Parenting programs: the folly of basing social policy on underpowered flawed studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
101 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Triple P-Positive Parenting programs: the folly of basing social policy on underpowered flawed studies
Published in
BMC Medicine, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

James C Coyne, Linda Kwakkenbos

Abstract

Wilson et al. provided a valuable systematic and meta-analytic review of the Triple P-Positive Parenting program in which they identified substantial problems in the quality of available evidence. Their review largely escaped unscathed after Sanders et al.'s critical commentary. However, both of these sources overlook the most serious problem with the Triple P literature, namely, the over-reliance on positive but substantially underpowered trials. Such trials are particularly susceptible to risks of bias and investigator manipulation of apparent results. We offer a justification for the criterion of no fewer than 35 participants in either the intervention or control group. Applying this criterion, 19 of the 23 trials identified by Wilson et al. were eliminated. A number of these trials were so small that it would be statistically improbable that they would detect an effect even if it were present. We argued that clinicians and policymakers implementing Triple P programs incorporate evaluations to ensure that goals are being met and resources are not being squandered.Please see related articles http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/130 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/145.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 101 tweeters 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 71 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 6 8%
Other 17 23%
Unknown 8 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 40%
Social Sciences 13 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 10 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 112. 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 30 March 2020.
All research outputs
#353,544
of 24,508,104 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#282
of 3,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,620
of 294,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#6
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,508,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.1. 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 294,411 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.