↓ Skip to main content

Test of Gross Motor Development-3 (TGMD-3) with the Use of Visual Supports for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Validity and Reliability

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Test of Gross Motor Development-3 (TGMD-3) with the Use of Visual Supports for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Validity and Reliability
Published in
Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10803-016-3005-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. A. Allen, B. Bredero, T. Van Damme, D. A. Ulrich, J. Simons

Abstract

The validity and reliability of the Test of Gross Motor Development-3 (TGMD-3) were measured, taking into consideration the preference for visual learning of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The TGMD-3 was administered to 14 children with ASD (4-10 years) and 21 age-matched typically developing children under two conditions: TGMD-3 traditional protocol, and TGMD-3 visual support protocol. Excellent levels of internal consistency, test-retest, interrater and intrarater reliability were achieved for the TGMD-3 visual support protocol. TGMD-3 raw scores of children with ASD were significantly lower than typically developing peers, however, significantly improved using the TGMD-3 visual support protocol. This demonstrates that the TGMD-3 visual support protocol is a valid and reliable assessment of gross motor performance for children with ASD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 24%
Unspecified 15 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Researcher 7 10%
Other 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 19 27%
Unspecified 19 27%
Psychology 14 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Other 9 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 15 February 2017.
All research outputs
#1,394,252
of 12,316,253 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders
#820
of 3,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,521
of 335,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders
#32
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,316,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 335,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 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 60% of its contemporaries.