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 |
Exploring the reliability and acceptability of cognitive tests for Indigenous Australians: a pilot study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychology, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40359-017-0195-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kylie M. Dingwall, Allison O. Gray, Annette R. McCarthy, Jennifer F. Delima, Stephen C. Bowden |
| Abstract |
Reliable cognitive assessment for Indigenous Australians is difficult given that mainstream tests typically rely on Western concepts, content and values. A test's psychometric properties should therefore be assessed prior to use in other cultures. The aim of this pilot study was to examine the reliability and acceptability of four cognitive tests for Australian Aboriginal people. Participants were 40 male and 44 female (N = 84) Aboriginal patients from Alice Springs Hospital. Four tests were assessed for reliability and acceptability - Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Screen (RUDAS) (n = 19), PEBL Corsi Blocks (Corsi) (n = 19), Story Memory Recall Test (SMRT) (n = 17) and a CogState battery (n = 18). Participants performed one to three of the tests with repeated assessment to determine test-retest reliability. Qualitative interviews were conducted and analysed based on an adapted phenomenological approach to explore test acceptability. An Indigenous Reference Group gave advice and guidance. Intra-class correlations (ICC) for test retest reliability ranged from r = 0.58 (CogState One Back accuracy) to 0.86 (RUDAS). Themes emerged relating to general impressions, impacts on understanding and performance, appropriateness, task preferences and suggested improvements. RUDAS, CogState Identification task, and SMRT showed the highest reliabilities. Overall the tests were viewed as a positive challenge and an opportunity to learn about the brain despite provoking some anxiety in the patients. Caveats for test acceptability included issues related to language, impacts of convalescence and cultural relevance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 81 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Researcher | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 17% |
| Unknown | 27 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 22 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 28 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 2017.
All research outputs
#4,160,860
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychology
#277
of 866 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,868
of 319,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychology
#6
of 12 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 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 866 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 319,354 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.