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 validation of a multi-dimensional capability instrument for outcome measurement in mental health research (OxCAP-MH)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-017-0825-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francis Vergunst, Crispin Jenkinson, Tom Burns, Paul Anand, Alastair Gray, Jorun Rugkåsa, Judit Simon |
| Abstract |
Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used in mental healthcare research for quality of life assessment but most fail to capture the breadth of health and non-health domains that can be impacted. We report the psychometric validation of a novel, multi-dimensional instrument based on Amartya Sen's capability approach intended for use as an outcome measure in mental health research. The Oxford Capabilities Questionnaire for Mental Health (OxCAP-MH) is a 16-item self-complete capability measure that covers multiple domains of functioning and welfare. Data for validation of the instrument were collected through a national randomised controlled trial of community treatment orders for patients with psychosis. Complete OxCAP-MH data were available for 172 participants. Internal consistency was established with Cronbach's alpha; an interclass correlation coefficient was used to assess test-retest reliability in a sub-sample (N = 50) tested one week apart. Construct validity was established by comparing OxCAP-MH total scores with established instruments of illness severity and functioning: EuroQol (EQ-5D), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) and Objective Social Outcomes Index (SIX). Sensitivity was established by calculating standard error of measurement using distributional methods. The OxCAP-MH showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.79) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.86). Convergent validity was evidenced by strong correlations with the EQ-5D (VAS 0.52, p < .001) (Utility 0.45, p < .001), and divergent validity through more modest associations with the BPRS (-0.41, p < .001), GAF (0.24, p < .001) and SIX (0.12, p = ns). A change of 9.2 points on a 0-100 scale was found to be meaningful on statistical grounds. The OxCAP-MH has demonstrable reliability and construct validity and represents a promising multi-dimensional alternative to existing patient-reported outcome measures for quality of life used in mental health research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 4 | 40% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 30% |
| France | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 40% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 22% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 18% |
| Psychology | 11 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 28 | 39% |
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 02 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,065,817
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#525
of 2,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,942
of 441,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#27
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 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 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 has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 441,975 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 79% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.