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 |
Psychometric evaluation of the Oswestry Disability Index in patients with chronic low back pain: factor and Mokken analyses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-017-0768-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chin-Pang Lee, Tsai-Sheng Fu, Chia-Yih Liu, Ching-I Hung |
| Abstract |
Disputes exist regarding the psychometric properties of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The present study was to examine the reliability, validity, and dimensionality of a Chinese version of the ODI version 2.1 in a sample of 225 adult orthopedic outpatients with chronic low back pain [mean age (SD): 40.7 (11.4) years]. We conducted reliability analysis, exploratory bifactor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and Mokken scale analysis of the ODI. To validate the ODI, we used the Short-Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) and visual analog scale (VAS). The reliability, and discriminant and construct validities of the ODI was good. The fit statistics of the unidimensional model of the ODI were inadequate. The ODI was a weak Mokken scale (Hs = 0.31). The ODI was a reliable and valid scale suitable for measurement of disability in patients with low back pain. But the ODI seemed to be multidimensional that was against the use of the raw score of the ODI as a measurement of disability. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 218 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 46 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 6% |
| Researcher | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 34 | 16% |
| Unknown | 83 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 57 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 22 | 10% |
| Unknown | 87 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#17,917,778
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,512
of 2,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,058
of 323,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#41
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 323,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.