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.
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 |
The Modified Stroop Task Is Susceptible to Feigning: Stroop Performance and Symptom Over-endorsement in Feigned Test Anxiety
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01195 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Irena Boskovic, Anita J. Biermans, Thomas Merten, Marko Jelicic, Lorraine Hope, Harald Merckelbach |
| Abstract |
Some researchers argue that the modified Stroop task (MST) can be employed to rule out feigning. According to these authors, modified Stroop interference effects are beyond conscious control and therefore indicative of genuine psychopathology. We examined this assumption using a within-subject design. In the first session, students (N = 22) responded honestly, while in the second session they were asked to read a vignette about test anxiety and then fake this condition. During both sessions, we administered an MST consisting of neutral, anxiety-related, and test anxiety-related words. Participants also completed the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI; Merten et al., 2016) that focuses on over-reporting of pseudosymptoms. Our feigning instructions were successful in that students succeeded in generating the typical MST effect by providing longer response latencies on anxiety related (r = 0.43) and test anxiety-related (r = 0.31) words, compared with neutral words. Furthermore, students endorsed significantly more pseudosymptoms on the SRSI (r = 0.62) in the feigning session than in the honest control condition. We conclude that the MST effect is not immune to feigning tendencies, while the SRSI provides promising results that require future research. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
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 | 4 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 8 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
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 16 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,330,990
of 24,946,857 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,224
of 33,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,820
of 332,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#417
of 722 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,946,857 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 332,395 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 722 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.