↓ Skip to main content

Application and Evaluation of an Expert Judgment Elicitation Procedure for Correlations

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Application and Evaluation of an Expert Judgment Elicitation Procedure for Correlations
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00090
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariëlle Zondervan-Zwijnenburg, Wenneke van de Schoot-Hubeek, Kimberley Lek, Herbert Hoijtink, Rens van de Schoot

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to apply and evaluate a procedure to elicit expert judgments about correlations, and to update this information with empirical data. The result is a face-to-face group elicitation procedure with as its central element a trial roulette question that elicits experts' judgments expressed as distributions. During the elicitation procedure, a concordance probability question was used to provide feedback to the experts on their judgments. We evaluated the elicitation procedure in terms of validity and reliability by means of an application with a small sample of experts. Validity means that the elicited distributions accurately represent the experts' judgments. Reliability concerns the consistency of the elicited judgments over time. Four behavioral scientists provided their judgments with respect to the correlation between cognitive potential and academic performance for two separate populations enrolled at a specific school in the Netherlands that provides special education to youth with severe behavioral problems: youth with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and youth with diagnoses other than ASD. Measures of face-validity, feasibility, convergent validity, coherence, and intra-rater reliability showed promising results. Furthermore, the current study illustrates the use of the elicitation procedure and elicited distributions in a social science application. The elicited distributions were used as a prior for the correlation, and updated with data for both populations collected at the school of interest. The current study shows that the newly developed elicitation procedure combining the trial roulette method with the elicitation of correlations is a promising tool, and that the results of the procedure are useful as prior information in a Bayesian analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 18%
Student > Master 8 13%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 17 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Linguistics 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 20 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,101,675
of 24,099,692 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,379
of 32,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,693
of 427,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#275
of 458 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,099,692 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. 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 427,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 458 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.