Gail H. Weems
- Social Psychology top 10%
- Education top 10%
- Clinical Psychology
- Sociology and Political Science
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
- Co-authors
- Anthony J. OnwuegbuzieDaniel C. LustigJames B. SchreiberDavid R. StrauserKathleen M. T. Collins
- Topics
- Psychometric Methodologies and Testing (3 papers)Counseling Practices and Supervision (2 papers)Education, Achievement, and Giftedness (2 papers)
- Journals
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher EducationMeasurement and Evaluation in Counseling and DevelopmentJournal of rehabilitation
- Partner nations
- United States
In The Last Decade
Gail H. Weems
8 papers receiving 324 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 89
- Social Psychology 89
- Education 85
- Clinical Psychology 69
- Sociology and Political Science 64
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 53
Countries citing papers authored by Gail H. Weems
This map shows the geographic impact of Gail H. Weems'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 Gail H. Weems with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Gail H. Weems more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Gail H. Weems
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Gail H. Weems. 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 Gail H. Weems. The network helps show where Gail H. Weems may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Gail H. Weems
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Gail H. Weems. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Gail H. Weems 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 Gail H. Weems. Gail H. Weems is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 30 | |
| 2 | Rehabilitation Service Patterns: A Rural/urban Comparison of Success Factors | 24 |
| 3 | 36 | |
| 4 | 17 | |
| 5 | 60 | |
| 6 | Comparison of Beginning Algebra Taught Onsite versus Online. | 21 |
| 7 | 146 | |
| 8 | The Impact of Homework Collection on Performance in Intermediate Algebra. | 16 |
About Gail H. Weems
Gail H. Weems is a scholar working on Library and Information Sciences, Management Science and Operations Research and Occupational Therapy, having authored 8 papers that have together received 350 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Psychometric Methodologies and Testing (3 papers), Counseling Practices and Supervision (2 papers) and Education, Achievement, and Giftedness (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Applied Psychology (23 citations), Social Psychology (89 citations) and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (53 citations). Gail H. Weems has collaborated with scholars based in United States. Frequent co-authors include Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Daniel C. Lustig, James B. Schreiber, David R. Strauser and Kathleen M. T. Collins. Their work appears in journals such as Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development and Journal of rehabilitation.
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.