, Volume 114, Issue 1, pp 253–275 | Cite as

And now for something completely different: the congruence of the Altmetric Attention Score’s structure between different article groups

  • Bhaskar Mukherjee
  • Siniša SubotićEmail author
  • Ajay Kumar Chaubey


Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is an increasingly popular composite altmetric measure, which is being criticized for an inappropriate and arbitrary aggregation of different altmetric sources into a single measure. We examined this issue empirically, by testing unidimensionality and the component structure congruence of the five ‘key’ AAS components: News, Blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. As a reference point, these tests were also done on different citation data: WoS, Scopus, and Google Scholar. All tests were done for groups of articles with: (1) high citations, but lower AAS (HCGs), and (2) high AAS, but lower citations (HAGs). Changes in component structures over time (from 2016 to 2017) were also considered. Citation data consistently formed congruent unidimensional structures for all groups and over time. Altmetric data formed congruent unidimensional structures only for the HCGs, with much inconsistency for the HAGs (including change over time). The relationship between Twitter and News counts was shown to be curvilinear. It was not possible to obtain a satisfactory congruent and reliable linear unidimensional altmetric structure between the groups for any variable combination, even after Mendeley and CiteULike altmetric counts were included. Correlations of altmetric aggregates and citations were fairly inconsistent between the groups. We advise against the usage of composite altmetric measures (including the AAS) for any group comparison purposes, until the measurement invariance issues are dealt with. The underlying pattern of associations between individual altmetrics is likely too complex and inconsistent across conditions to justify them being simply aggregated into a single score.


Altmetrics Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) Citations Measurement invariance Measurement congruence 


  1. Adie, E., & Roe, W. (2013). Altmetric: Enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing, 26(1), 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bornmann, L. (2014). Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 935–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1123–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Development Core Team, R. (2005). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer Software]. Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  7. Drasgow, F. (1984). Scrutinizing psychological tests: Measurement equivalence and equivalent relations with external variables are the central issues. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 134–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunlap, W. P. (1994). Generalizing the common language effect size indicator to bivariate normal correlations. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 509–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erdt, M., Nagarajan, A., Sin, S. C. J., & Theng, Y. L. (2016). Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1117–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2017). Assessing the quality and appropriateness of factor solutions and factor score estimates in exploratory item factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Scholar
  11. Galligan, F., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2013). Altmetrics: Rethinking the way we measure. Serials Review, 39(1), 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glänzel, W., & Gorraiz, J. (2015). Usage metrics versus altmetrics: Confusing terminology? Scientometrics, 102(3), 2161–2164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., & Schlögl, C. (2014). Usage versus citation behaviours in four subject areas. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1077–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grice, J. W. (2001). Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 430–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gumpenberger, C., Glänzel, W., & Gorraiz, J. (2016). The ecstasy and the agony of the altmetric score. Scientometrics, 108(2), 977–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1145–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Kline, P. (2010). Handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 88–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2013). FACTOR 9.2: A comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and semiconfirmatory factor analysis and IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(6), 497–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ten Berge, J. M. (2006). Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2(2), 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1992). A common language effect size statistic. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 361–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nuredini, K., & Peters, I. (2016). Enriching the knowledge of altmetrics studies by exploring social media metrics for Economic and Business Studies journals. EconStor Conference Papers, ZBWGerman National Library of Economics. Retrieved from
  28. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from
  29. Ortega, J. L. (2015). Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC’s members. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from
  31. Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 552–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ronald, R., & Fred, Y. Y. (2013). A multi-metric approach for research evaluation. Chinese Science Bulletin, 58(26), 3288–3290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Subotić, S. (2013). Pregled metoda za utvrđivanje broja faktora i komponenti (u EFA i PCA) [Review of methods for determining the number of factors and components to retain (in EFA and PCA)]. Primenjena Psihologija, 6(3), 203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  36. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies (Personnel Research Section Report No. 984). Washington, DC: Department of the Army.Google Scholar
  38. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2005). Web citation data for impact assessment: A comparison of four science disciplines. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1075–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang, X., Fang, Z., & Sun, X. (2016). Usage patterns of scholarly articles on Web of Science: A study on Web of Science usage count. Scientometrics, 109(2), 917–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control—Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Utrecht: SURF foundation.Google Scholar
  43. Wu, A. D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 1–26.Google Scholar
  44. Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ωH: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123–133.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Library and Information ScienceBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasiIndia
  2. 2.Laboratory of Experimental Psychology – LEP-BLUniversity of Banja LukaBanja LukaBosnia and Herzegovina
  3. 3.CEON/CEESBelgradeRepublic of Serbia

Personalised recommendations