↓ Skip to main content

Understanding Why Children Commit Scale Errors: Scale Error and Its Relation to Action Planning and Inhibitory Control, and the Concept of Size

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
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.
Title
Understanding Why Children Commit Scale Errors: Scale Error and Its Relation to Action Planning and Inhibitory Control, and the Concept of Size
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00826
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mikako Ishibashi, Yusuke Moriguchi

Abstract

Scale error is a phenomenon where young children attempt to perform inappropriate actions on miniature object without considering the actual size of the object. The present study examined two hypotheses on what factors contribute to the occurrence of scale errors, focusing on the following possible factors: action planning and inhibitory control, and concept of size. Thus, we hypothesize that scale errors derived from either immaturity of their action planning and inhibitory control abilities or understanding of size concepts. The results revealed that the concept of size was significantly negatively associated with the occurrence of scale errors. However, action planning and inhibitory control were not significantly associated with the occurrence of scale errors. These results suggest that scale errors may arise from a misunderstanding of size concepts.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Researcher 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 16%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Unknown 3 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 December 2023.
All research outputs
#5,482,215
of 26,385,174 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,818
of 35,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,043
of 332,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#217
of 605 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,385,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 332,009 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 605 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 63% of its contemporaries.