The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 |
Limited Usefulness of Capture Procedure and Capture Percentage for Evaluating Reproducibility in Psychological Science
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01657 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yongtian Cheng, Johnson Ching-Hong Li, Xiyao Liu |
| Abstract |
In psychological science, there is an increasing concern regarding the reproducibility of scientific findings. For instance, Replication Project: Psychology (Open Science Collaboration, 2015) found that the proportion of successful replication in psychology was 41%. This proportion was calculated based on Cumming and Maillardet (2006) widely employed capture procedure (CPro) and capture percentage (CPer). Despite the popularity of CPro and CPer, we believe that using them may lead to an incorrect conclusion of (a) successful replication when the population effect sizes in the original and replicated studies are different; and (b) unsuccessful replication when the population effect sizes in the original and replicated studies are identical but their sample sizes are different. Our simulation results show that the performances of CPro and CPer become biased, such that researchers can easily make a wrong conclusion of successful/unsuccessful replication. Implications of these findings are considered in the conclusion. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 22% |
| Other | 2 | 22% |
| Librarian | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Researcher | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 3 | 33% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 22% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
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 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,661,887
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,987
of 31,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,647
of 338,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#406
of 753 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 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 31,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. 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 338,615 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 753 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.