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.
Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing
19912.5k citationsLyle F. Bachman et al.Modern Language Journalprofile →
Language Testing in Practice
19981.4k citationsDorry M. Kenyon, Lyle F. Bachman et al.Modern Language Journalprofile →
Countries citing papers authored by Lyle F. Bachman
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Lyle F. Bachman'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 Lyle F. Bachman with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Lyle F. Bachman more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Lyle F. Bachman. 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 Lyle F. Bachman. The network helps show where Lyle F. Bachman may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Lyle F. Bachman
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Lyle F. Bachman.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Lyle F. Bachman 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 Lyle F. Bachman. Lyle F. Bachman is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Bachman, Lyle F. & Adrian S. Palmer. (2010). Language assessment in practice : developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press eBooks.301 indexed citations
3.
Wolf, Mikyung Kim, et al.. (2008). Recommendations for Assessing English Language Learners: English Language Proficiency Measures and Accommodation Uses. Recommendations Report (Part 3 of 3). CRESST Report 737..9 indexed citations
4.
Wolf, Mikyung Kim, et al.. (2008). Issues in Assessing English Language Learners: English Language Proficiency Measures and Accommodation Uses. Literature Review (Part 1 of 3). CRESST Report 731..20 indexed citations
5.
Koenig, Judith Anderson, et al.. (2004). Keeping score for all : the effects of inclusion and accommodation policies on large-scale educational assessments. National Academies Press eBooks.46 indexed citations
Bachman, Lyle F., Paul Black, John R. Frederiksen, et al.. (2003). Commentaries. Measurement Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. 1(1). 63–91.6 indexed citations
8.
Bachman, Lyle F.. (2002). Alternative Interpretations of Alternative Assessments: Some Validity Issues in Educational Performance. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice. 21(3). 5–18.8 indexed citations
9.
Alderson, J. Charles & Lyle F. Bachman. (2000). The Cambridge language assessment series. Cambridge University Press eBooks.8 indexed citations
10.
Bachman, Lyle F.. (1999). 语言测试要略 = Fundamental considerations in language testing.2 indexed citations
Kenyon, Dorry M., Lyle F. Bachman, & Adrian S. Palmer. (1998). Language Testing in Practice. Modern Language Journal. 82(1). 143–143.1361 indexed citations breakdown →
13.
Bachman, Lyle F.. (1996). Review of Seoul national University Criterion-Referenced English Proficiency Test (SNUCREPT). Second language Research. 32(2). 373–383.4 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.