Psychological Assessment

3.7k papers and 224.5k indexed citations i.

About

The 3.7k papers published in Psychological Assessment in the last decades have received a total of 224.5k indexed citations. Papers published in Psychological Assessment usually cover Clinical Psychology (2.1k papers), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (870 papers) and Social Psychology (611 papers) specifically the topics of Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development (838 papers), Personality Disorders and Psychopathology (548 papers) and Mental Health Research Topics (365 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Psychological Assessment are Domenic V. Cicchetti, Lewis R. Goldberg, Lee Anna Clark, David Watson, Michael Sullivan, Scott R. Bishop, Jayne Pivik, M. Lynne Cooper, Neal Schmitt and Frank J. Floyd.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Psychological Assessment

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Psychological Assessment. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Psychological Assessment.

Countries where authors publish in Psychological Assessment

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Psychological Assessment. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by papers published in Psychological Assessment with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Psychological Assessment more than expected).

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar’s output or impact.

Explore journals with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2025