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 |
Associations of children’s Big Five personality with eating behaviors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-018-3768-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Margarete E. Vollrath, Svenn Torgersen, Leila Torgersen |
| Abstract |
Our aim is to examine the associations of the Big Five personality factors with eating behaviors in children using a cross-sectional study in 1543 randomly Norwegian 7-12 year olds. Mothers rated the hierarchical personality inventory for children, and the child eating behaviour questionnaire to describe her child. Personality and eating behaviors were substantially associated in bivariate correlations and multivariate analyses of variance. The strongest predictors of eating behaviors were neuroticism, followed by agreeableness and conscientiousness. Neuroticism correlated the highest with slow eating, emotional undereating, food responsiveness, and emotional overeating, and showed minor associations with satiety responsiveness, and fussiness. Neuroticism was not associated with enjoyment of food. Agreeableness was associated with low fussiness, low emotional undereating, low food responsiveness and low emotional overeating, conscientiousness was associated with low satiety responsiveness, and food responsiveness, and extraversion and imagination were associated with high enjoyment of food. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
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 > Master | 14 | 25% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 19 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 24 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 19 November 2020.
All research outputs
#3,393,943
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#472
of 4,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,901
of 339,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#15
of 141 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 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 339,042 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 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.