Jo Van Hoof

915 total citations
34 papers, 595 citations indexed

About

Jo Van Hoof is a scholar working on Statistics and Probability, Education and Applied Mathematics. According to data from OpenAlex, Jo Van Hoof has authored 34 papers receiving a total of 595 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 32 papers in Statistics and Probability, 31 papers in Education and 7 papers in Applied Mathematics. Recurrent topics in Jo Van Hoof's work include Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills (31 papers), Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques (30 papers) and Statistics Education and Methodologies (10 papers). Jo Van Hoof is often cited by papers focused on Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills (31 papers), Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques (30 papers) and Statistics Education and Methodologies (10 papers). Jo Van Hoof collaborates with scholars based in Belgium, Finland and Ecuador. Jo Van Hoof's co-authors include Wim Van Dooren, Lieven Verschaffel, Andreas Obersteiner, Jake McMullen, Eva Ceulemans, Ceneıda Fernández, Rianne Janssen, Wim De Neys, Minna Hannula‐Sormunen and Joke Torbeyns and has published in prestigious journals such as SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología, Memory & Cognition and Learning and Instruction.

In The Last Decade

Jo Van Hoof

31 papers receiving 569 citations

Peers

Jo Van Hoof

EDUCA

DEP

ECP

Xenia Vamvakoussi Greece

Shanta Hattikudur United States

Meindert Beishuizen Netherlands

Katherine H. Canobi Australia

Paul Changas United States

Tony Harries United Kingdom

Sybilla Beckmann United States

Dana L. Chesney United States

Aryn Pyke United States

Nancy Dyson United States

Xenia Vamvakoussi Greece

Jo Van Hoof

510 ×1.0

588 ×1.2

EDUCA

160 ×1.1

DEP

92 ×0.9

ECP

69 ×1.1

Citations per year, relative to Jo Van Hoof Jo Van Hoof (= 1×) peers Xenia Vamvakoussi

Countries citing papers authored by Jo Van Hoof

Since Specialization

Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Jo Van Hoof'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 Jo Van Hoof with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Jo Van Hoof more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Jo Van Hoof

Since Specialization

Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Jo Van Hoof. 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 Jo Van Hoof. The network helps show where Jo Van Hoof may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Jo Van Hoof

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Jo Van Hoof. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Jo Van Hoof 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 Jo Van Hoof. Jo Van Hoof is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

Sort: Min cites: Since: Top N: Style:

20 of 20 papers shown

Xu, Rui, et al.. (2025). How do different executive function components contribute to children's academic skills?. Cognitive Development. 74. 101589–101589.

Hoof, Jo Van, et al.. (2023). Not realizing that you don't know: Fraction state anxiety is reduced by natural number bias. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 94(1). 138–150. 5 indexed citations

Wilkey, Eric D., Mojtaba Soltanlou, L. Peters, et al.. (2022). Numeracy and COVID-19: examining interrelationships between numeracy, health numeracy and behaviour. Royal Society Open Science. 9(3). 201303–201303. 8 indexed citations

Fernández, Ceneıda, et al.. (2022). Profiles in understanding the density of rational numbers among primary and secondary school students. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología. 47–70. 2 indexed citations

Fernández, Ceneıda, et al.. (2022). Incorrect Ways of Thinking About the Size of Fractions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 21(7). 2005–2025. 15 indexed citations

Hoof, Jo Van, et al.. (2021). How robust are learners’ misconceptions of fraction magnitude? An intervention study comparing the use of refutation and expository text. Educational Psychology. 41(5). 524–543. 7 indexed citations

Hoof, Jo Van, Lieven Verschaffel, Wim De Neys, & Wim Van Dooren. (2020). Intuitive errors in learners’ fraction understanding: A dual-process perspective on the natural number bias. Memory & Cognition. 48(7). 1171–1180. 15 indexed citations

Pollack, Courtney, et al.. (2020). Natural number bias in arithmetic operations with missing numbers – A reaction time study. Journal of Numerical Cognition. 6(1). 22–49. 5 indexed citations

Hoof, Jo Van, et al.. (2019). Validating a Home Numeracy Questionnaire in Ecuador Using Factor Analysis. International Journal of Educational Research Review. 5(1). 37–42. 1 indexed citations

10.

Fernández, Ceneıda, et al.. (2019). Various ways to determine rational number size: an exploration across primary and secondary education. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 35(3). 549–565. 17 indexed citations

11.

McMullen, Jake & Jo Van Hoof. (2019). The role of rational number density knowledge in mathematical development. Learning and Instruction. 65. 101228–101228. 18 indexed citations

12.

McMullen, Jake, et al.. (2018). Profiles of rational number knowledge in Finnish and Flemish students – A multigroup latent class analysis. Learning and Individual Differences. 66. 70–77. 12 indexed citations

13.

Hoof, Jo Van, et al.. (2017). Towards a mathematically more correct understanding of rational numbers: A longitudinal study with upper elementary school learners. Learning and Individual Differences. 61. 99–108. 48 indexed citations

14.

Hoof, Jo Van, Jake McMullen, Minna Hannula‐Sormunen, et al.. (2016). THE RELATION BETWEEN LEARNERS’ SPONTANEOUS FOCUSING ON QUANTITATIVE RELATIONS AND THEIR RATIONAL NUMBER KNOWLEDGE. Studia Psychologica. 58(2). 156–170. 18 indexed citations

15.

Hoof, Jo Van, Lieven Verschaffel, & Wim Van Dooren. (2016). Number sense in the transition from natural to rational numbers. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 87(1). 43–56. 17 indexed citations

16.

Obersteiner, Andreas, Jo Van Hoof, Lieven Verschaffel, & Wim Van Dooren. (2015). Who can escape the natural number bias in rational number tasks? A study involving students and experts. British Journal of Psychology. 107(3). 537–555. 24 indexed citations

17.

Hoof, Jo Van, Rianne Janssen, Lieven Verschaffel, & Wim Van Dooren. (2014). Inhibiting natural knowledge in fourth graders: towards a comprehensive test instrument. ZDM. 47(5). 849–857. 35 indexed citations

18.

Hoof, Jo Van, Lieven Verschaffel, & Wim Van Dooren. (2013). Inhibiting natural number knowledge in rational number tasks: Towards a comprehensive test. 2 indexed citations

19.

Obersteiner, Andreas, Jo Van Hoof, & Lieven Verschaffel. (2013). Expert mathematicians' natural number bias in fraction comparison. Lirias (KU Leuven). 3. 393–400. 5 indexed citations

20.

Dooren, Wim Van, et al.. (2012). Searching for a whole number bias in secondary school students - a reaction time study on fraction comparison. Lirias (KU Leuven). 4. 187–194. 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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact