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.
Some Guidelines Concerning the Modeling of Traits and Abilities in Test Construction
2010375 citationsKarl SchweizerEuropean Journal of Psychological Assessmentprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
Countries citing papers authored by Karl Schweizer
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Karl Schweizer'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 Karl Schweizer with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Karl Schweizer more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Karl Schweizer. 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 Karl Schweizer. The network helps show where Karl Schweizer may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Karl Schweizer
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Karl Schweizer.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Karl Schweizer 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 Karl Schweizer. Karl Schweizer is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Schweizer, Karl, et al.. (2014). The Structural Validity of the FPI Neuroticism Scale Revisited in the Framework of the Generalized Linear Model. 56(4). 332.1 indexed citations
5.
Schweizer, Karl & Xuezhu Ren. (2013). The position effect in tests with a time limit: the consideration of interruption and working speed. 55(1). 62.11 indexed citations
Schweizer, Karl. (2011). A Rise Beyond Expectations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 27(4). 217–219.1 indexed citations
11.
Schweizer, Karl & Paul Sharp. (2007). The International Thought of Herbert Butterfield. Palgrave Macmillan eBooks.4 indexed citations
12.
Stankov, Lazar & Karl Schweizer. (2007). Raven's Progressive Matrices, Manipulations of Complexity and Measures of Accuracy, Speed and Confidence. 49(4). 326.9 indexed citations
13.
Schweizer, Karl, et al.. (2005). Kompetenzstufen der Lehrerkooperation: Ein empirisches Beispiel für das Latent-Growth-Curve-Modell. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht. 66–79.2 indexed citations
14.
Schweizer, Karl, et al.. (2003). Self-Reported Health, Appraisal, Coping, and Stress in Teachers. 45(1). 92.4 indexed citations
15.
Schweizer, Karl. (2000). Passage Limitation as a Source of the Speed-Ability Relationship. 42(2). 174.4 indexed citations
16.
Schweizer, Karl. (1999). Methoden für die Analyse von Fragebogendaten.1 indexed citations
17.
Schweizer, Karl. (1995). Kognitive Korrelate der Intelligenz.6 indexed citations
18.
Schweizer, Karl. (1992). British Foreign Policy in the 18th century. History of European Ideas. 14.
19.
Schweizer, Karl. (1989). Eine Analyse der Konzepte, Bedingungen und Zielsetzungen von Replikationen. 144(2). 85–97.1 indexed citations
20.
Schweizer, Karl. (1985). A Great and Necessary Measure. Parliamentary History. 240–241.1 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.