| Title |
On the utility of within-participant research design when working with patients with neurocognitive disorders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s81868 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hanna Steinunn Steingrimsdottir, Erik Arntzen |
| Abstract |
Within-participant research designs are frequently used within the field of behavior analysis to document changes in behavior before, during, and after treatment. The purpose of the present article is to show the utility of within-participant research designs when working with older adults with neurocognitive disorders. The reason for advocating for these types of experimental designs is that they provide valid information about whether the changes that are observed in the dependent variable are caused by manipulations of the independent variable, or whether the change may be due to other variables. We provide examples from published papers where within-participant research design has been used with patients with neurocognitive disorders. The examples vary somewhat, demonstrating possible applications. It is our suggestion that the within-participant research design may be used more often with the targeted client group than is documented in the literature at the current date. |
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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 31% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 18% |
| Psychology | 6 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
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 24 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,550
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,786
of 277,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#44
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 277,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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.