Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
Measuring Up
2009219 citationsDaniel KoretzHarvard University Press eBooksprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Daniel Koretz's research. 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 Daniel Koretz with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Daniel Koretz more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Daniel Koretz. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Daniel Koretz. The network helps show where Daniel Koretz may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Daniel Koretz
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Daniel Koretz.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Daniel Koretz based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Daniel Koretz. Daniel Koretz is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Koretz, Daniel. (2018). Moving beyond the Failure of Test-Based Accountability.. The American Educator. 41(4). 22–26.7 indexed citations
Koretz, Daniel & Laura S. Hamilton. (2006). Testing for Accountability in K-12.102 indexed citations
9.
Koretz, Daniel. (2005). Alignment, High Stakes, and the Inflation of Test Scores. CSE Report 655..5 indexed citations
10.
Koretz, Daniel & Daniel F. McCaffrey. (2005). Using IRT DIF Methods to Evaluate the Validity of Score Gains. CSE Technical Report 660..3 indexed citations
McCaffrey, Daniel F., J. R. Lockwood, Daniel Koretz, & Laura S. Hamilton. (2003). Evaluating Value-Added Models for Teacher Accountability. Monograph..84 indexed citations
13.
Koretz, Daniel & Laura S. Hamilton. (2003). Assessment of Students with Disabilities in Kentucky.26 indexed citations
14.
Baker, Eva L., Robert L. Linn, Joan L. Herman, & Daniel Koretz. (2002). Standards for Educational Accountability Systems. CRESST Policy Brief 5, Winter 2002..8 indexed citations
Koretz, Daniel, Sheila Barron, Karen Mitchell, & Brian M. Stecher. (1996). Perceived Effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS)..92 indexed citations
17.
Koretz, Daniel, et al.. (1992). The Vermont portfolio assessment program--interim report on implementation and impact, 1991-92 school year.19 indexed citations
18.
Koretz, Daniel. (1988). Arriving in Lake Woebegon: Are Standardized Tests Exaggerating Achievement and Distorting Instruction?.. 12(2). 8.61 indexed citations
19.
Ginsburg, Paul Β. & Daniel Koretz. (1983). Bed availability and hospital utilization: estimates of the "Roemer effect".. PubMed. 5(1). 87–92.47 indexed citations
20.
Saxe, Leonard & Daniel Koretz. (1982). Making evaluation research useful to Congress. Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (Québec government).5 indexed citations
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.