↓ 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)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 106 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 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 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 19%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 6 9%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 42%
Social Sciences 13 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 8 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 115. 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
#281,251
of 21,796,013 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#234
of 3,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,381
of 284,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,796,013 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 3,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 42.6. 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 284,091 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 1 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