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.
Children's Reading Comprehension Ability: Concurrent Prediction by Working Memory, Verbal Ability, and Component Skills.
20041.1k citationsKate Cain, Jane Oakhill et al.Journal of Educational Psychologyprofile →
The Precursors of Reading Ability in Young Readers: Evidence From a Four-Year Longitudinal Study
This map shows the geographic impact of Jane Oakhill'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 Jane Oakhill with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Jane Oakhill more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Jane Oakhill. 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 Jane Oakhill. The network helps show where Jane Oakhill may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Jane Oakhill
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Jane Oakhill.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Jane Oakhill 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 Jane Oakhill. Jane Oakhill is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Elbro, Carsten, et al.. (2016). How morphological knowledge can affect the process of word decoding. Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen).1 indexed citations
8.
Cain, Kate & Jane Oakhill. (2012). Reading comprehension development from seven to fourteen years : implication for assessment. Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University).8 indexed citations
9.
Cain, Kate & Jane Oakhill. (2011). Matthew Effects in Young Readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 44(5). 431–443.197 indexed citations
10.
Cain, Kate & Jane Oakhill. (2009). Reading comprehension development from 8 to 14 years the contribution of component skills and processes. Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University).19 indexed citations
Cain, Kate & Jane Oakhill. (2007). Children's comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective. Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University).256 indexed citations
13.
Cain, Kate & Jane Oakhill. (2007). Children's Comprehension Problems in Oral and Written Language: A Cognitive Perspective. Challenges in Language and Literacy..50 indexed citations
14.
Oakhill, Jane & Kate Cain. (2007). Introduction to comprehension development. Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University).47 indexed citations
15.
Cain, Kate, Jane Oakhill, & Peter Bryant. (2004). Children's Reading Comprehension Ability: Concurrent Prediction by Working Memory, Verbal Ability, and Component Skills.. Journal of Educational Psychology. 96(1). 31–42.1064 indexed citations breakdown →
Cain, Kate & Jane Oakhill. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure. Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University).39 indexed citations
18.
Garnham, Alan & Jane Oakhill. (1996). Manual de psicologia del pensamiento (Spanish translation of "Thinking and Reasoning"). Figshare.
19.
Oakhill, Jane & Alan Garnham. (1993). Discourse Representation and Text Processing. Psychology Press eBooks.7 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.