1,721,045 research outputs found

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed

    Comparison of two screening questionnaires for patients with low back pain. Collation of risk factors for chronification

    No full text
    Screening for risk factors for chronic low back pain (LBP) (yellow flags) is recommended by clinical guidelines. Various questionnaires to assess yellow flags have been proposed. The aim of this study was to compare the prognostic validity of two screening questionnaires. This was a prospective observational study with 241 LBP patients from 9 general practitioners, 4 orthopedic surgeons and 2 pain clinics. We compared the A-rebro musculoskeletal pain questionnaire (A-MSPQ) and the Heidelberg short questionnaire (HKF-R10) which were completed by all patients at inclusion before the consultation. Primary outcomes were assessed after 3 months by mail. Clinical endpoints were pain intensity, disability and more than two follow-up consultations. The sensitivity of the HKF-R10 to predict the primary outcome ranged from 81 % to 88 %, while the specificity was much lower (37-47 %). The A-MSPQ showed an opposite pattern with a low sensitivity ranging from 50 % to 58 % but a higher specificity (77-80 %). In patients initially classified as having chronic LBP (n = 81), using the questionnaires as a diagnostic tool, the sensitivity of both questionnaires increased but specificity decreased. Single items may perform better with regard to primary outcome than the sum scores. Both screening questionnaires for chronic LBP have insufficient diagnostic and prognostic validity for routine use in ambulatory care. Further studies are needed to improve diagnostic and prognostic validity and to elaborate criteria for a targeted use of screening questionnaires to guide therapeutic interventions

    Construct and predictive validity of the German A-rebro questionnaire short form for psychosocial risk factor screening of patients with low back pain

    No full text
    Recognizing patients at risk of developing chronic low back pain is essential for targeted interventions. One of the best researched screening instruments for this purpose is the A-rebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (A-MSPQ). This work addresses psychometric properties of the German A-MSPQ short form and its construct and prognostic validity. Analyses are based on a cluster-randomized trial assessing a risk tailored intervention for patients consulting for low back pain in 35 general practices. A total of 360 patients consulting for acute and sub-acute back pain, aged 20-60 years, were included. All patients received a 10-item German short version of the A-MSPQ, and other generic instruments (Graded Chronic Pain Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-Depression, Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire). The construct validity was assessed based on the factorial structure of the items and correlations with generic instruments. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity were calculated as measures of prognostic validity. A-MSPQ items belonging to the same subscale correlated highest among each other. The internal consistency of the A-MSPQ items was 0.80 (Cronbach's alpha). The factorial structure corresponds with theoretic expectations. A-MSPQ subscales on pain related disability, depression, and fear-avoidance beliefs correlated highest with their counterpart generic scales. The AUC for three A-MSPQ-based prediction models ranged from 0.77 to 0.81. Our results support a satisfactory factorial and prognostic validity of the German short A-MSPQ. The instrument may guide the provision of targeted interventions. Further research should link it to targeted treatments.Federal Ministry of Education and Research [01EM0113

    Variations on the Author

    Full text link
    “Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship

    Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis

    Full text link
    We provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis

    Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts

    Full text link
    We conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more sophisticated methods
    corecore