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.
The Use of Single-Subject Research to Identify Evidence-Based Practice in Special Education
20052.3k citationsMark Wolery et al.Exceptional Childrenprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Mark Wolery'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 Mark Wolery with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Mark Wolery more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Mark Wolery. 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 Mark Wolery. The network helps show where Mark Wolery may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Mark Wolery
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Mark Wolery.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Mark Wolery 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 Mark Wolery. Mark Wolery is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Schuster, John W., et al.. (1998). Constant Time Delay with Chained Tasks: A Review of the Literature.. Education and Treatment of Children. 21(1). 74–106.44 indexed citations
7.
Dunst, Carl J. & Mark Wolery. (1997). Family policy and practice in early child care. JAI Press eBooks.2 indexed citations
8.
Wolery, Mark. (1997). Training Elementary Teachers to Embed Instruction during Classroom Activities.. Education and Treatment of Children. 20(1). 40–58.38 indexed citations
9.
McDonnell, Andrea P., et al.. (1997). Teaching Experience and Specialist Support: A Survey of Preschool Teachers Employed in Programs Accredited by NAEYC.. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 17(3).17 indexed citations
10.
Wolery, Mark. (1995). Experienced Teachers' Perceptions of Resources and Supports for Inclusion.. Education and training in mental retardation and developmental disabilities. 30(1). 15–26.61 indexed citations
11.
Wolery, Mark. (1993). Mainstreaming in Early Childhood Programs: Current Status and Relevant Issues.. Young children. 49(1). 78–84.26 indexed citations
12.
Wolery, Mark. (1992). Choral and Individual Responding during Small Group Instruction: Identification of Interactional Effects.. Education and Treatment of Children. 15(4). 289–309.33 indexed citations
Wolery, Mark. (1990). Comparison of Constant Time Delay and the System of Least Prompts in Teaching Chained Tasks.. Education and training in mental retardation. 25(3).47 indexed citations
Gast, David L. & Mark Wolery. (1988). Parallel Treatments Design: A Nested Single Subject Design for Comparing Instructional Procedures.. Education and Treatment of Children. 11(3).45 indexed citations
18.
Wolery, Mark. (1988). Fading Extra-Stimulus Prompts with Autistic Children Using Time Delay.. Education and Treatment of Children. 11(1). 29–44.16 indexed citations
Wolery, Mark & Felix F. Billingsley. (1982). The application of Revusky's Rn test to slope and level changes..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.