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 |
The Berlin Inventory of Gambling behavior – Screening (BIG-S): Validation using a clinical sample
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-017-1349-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Wejbera, Kai W. Müller, Jan Becker, Manfred E. Beutel |
| Abstract |
Published diagnostic questionnaires for gambling disorder in German are either based on DSM-III criteria or focus on aspects other than life time prevalence. This study was designed to assess the usability of the DSM-IV criteria based Berlin Inventory of Gambling Behavior Screening tool in a clinical sample and adapt it to DSM-5 criteria. In a sample of 432 patients presenting for behavioral addiction assessment at the University Medical Center Mainz, we checked the screening tool's results against clinical diagnosis and compared a subsample of n=300 clinically diagnosed gambling disorder patients with a comparison group of n=132. The BIG-S produced a sensitivity of 99.7% and a specificity of 96.2%. The instrument's unidimensionality and the diagnostic improvements of DSM-5 criteria were verified by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis as well as receiver operating characteristic analysis. The BIG-S is a reliable and valid screening tool for gambling disorder and demonstrated its concise and comprehensible operationalization of current DSM-5 criteria in a clinical setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 10 | 38% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 09 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,994,540
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,129
of 4,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,960
of 315,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#24
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 315,583 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.