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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Construct validity and internal consistency reliability of the Loewenstein occupational therapy cognitive assessment (LOTCA)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-018-1776-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fidaa Almomani, Tamara Avi-Itzhak, Naor Demeter, Naomi Josman, Murad O. Al-momani |
| Abstract |
Cognitive abilities are essential for children's development and independence. Various cognitive assessments, standardized in Western cultures, have yet to be investigated for their multicultural suitability. To explore the suitability of the Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA) for a Jordanian population. Observed cases of 442 Jordanian children aged 6-12 were used to perform exploratory factor analyses using principal components with Varimax rotation (construct validity evidence) and to compute Cronbach's α coefficient (internal consistency reliability). High total performance on four subscales and a slightly lower total performance on two subscales were observed. Observed performance increased with age on three subtests, whereas a more modest increase was observed on the other three subscales. The expected one-factorial solution confirming the LOTCA's subscales homogeneity (unidimensionality) structure was found on five of six subscales. Variance explained by the subscales ranged from 39 to 82% and internal consistency reliability measured by Cronbach's alpha ranged from .42 to .78. Satisfactory construct validity and internal consistency reliability were demonstrated on two subscales applicable to Jordanian children without adaptation. With adequate cross-cultural adaptation, increasing internal consistency reliability in other subscales could make the LOTCA an effective tool for assessing cognitive abilities in this population. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 22 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 9 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 27 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#5,714,022
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,920
of 4,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,288
of 328,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#77
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 328,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.