↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of the responsible drinking dimensions among underage and legal drinkers: examining differences in beliefs, motives, self-efficacy, barriers and intentions

Overview of attention for article published in Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
A comparison of the responsible drinking dimensions among underage and legal drinkers: examining differences in beliefs, motives, self-efficacy, barriers and intentions
Published in
Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1747-597x-9-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam E Barry, Michael L Stellefson, Conrad L Woolsey

Abstract

To date, scholarly discourse over the Amethyst Initiative has primarily debated the relative effectiveness of the 21 year-old Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA). Unfortunately, this discourse has failed to account for the Amethyst Initiative's central tenet/mission: facilitating responsible drinking among college students. This investigation seeks to help fill this gap by quantitatively determining whether a random sample of underage (n = 158) and legal (n = 298) drinkers differed with regard to their alcohol-related behaviors, responsible drinking behaviors, and responsible drinking beliefs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 24%
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Sports and Recreations 2 6%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 11 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,819,983
of 25,571,620 outputs
Outputs from Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
#147
of 746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,964
of 321,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,571,620 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 321,828 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.