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.
Focus Group Interviews in Education and Psychology
This map shows the geographic impact of Sharon Vaughn'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 Sharon Vaughn with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Sharon Vaughn more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Sharon Vaughn. 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 Sharon Vaughn. The network helps show where Sharon Vaughn may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Sharon Vaughn
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Sharon Vaughn.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Sharon Vaughn 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 Sharon Vaughn. Sharon Vaughn is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Gandhi, Allison Gruner, et al.. (2015). Lessons Learned from District Implementation of Intensive Intervention: A Focus on Students with Disabilities.. 28(1). 39–49.5 indexed citations
Reutebuch, Colleen K., et al.. (2015). Investigating a Reading Comprehension Intervention for High School Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Pilot Study.. Grantee Submission. 9. 96–111.1 indexed citations
11.
Boardman, Alison G., Pamela R. Buckley, Andrew Maul, & Sharon Vaughn. (2014). The Relationship between Implementation of Collaborative Strategic Reading and Student Outcomes for Adolescents with Disabilities.. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.1 indexed citations
Reed, Deborah K., Jade Wexler, & Sharon Vaughn. (2012). RTI for Reading at the Secondary Level: Recommended Literacy Practices and Remaining Questions. What Works for Special-Needs Learners Series..3 indexed citations
14.
Swanson, Elizabeth, et al.. (2010). Title: The Effects of Collaborative Strategic Reading Instruction on the Reading Comprehension of Middle School Students: Year 1. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.3 indexed citations
15.
Klingner, Janette K., Sharon Vaughn, & Alison G. Boardman. (2007). Teaching Reading Comprehension to Students with Learning Difficulties. What Works for Special-Needs Learners..14 indexed citations
16.
James‐Burdumy, Susanne, David Myers, John Deke, et al.. (2006). The National Evaluation of Reading Comprehension Interventions: Design Report. Final Report.. Mathematica Policy Research Reports.1 indexed citations
17.
Kim, Ae-Hwa, et al.. (2004). Kindergarten Reading Interventions for At-Risk Students: Twenty Year s of Research. 2(1). 9–21.55 indexed citations
18.
Bos, Candace S. & Sharon Vaughn. (1998). Samuel Kirk's Legacy To Teaching Reading: The Past Speaks to the Present.. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 13(1). 22–28.3 indexed citations
19.
Vaughn, Sharon. (1993). Social Status, Peer Acceptance, and Reciprocal Friendships Revisited.. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 8(2). 82–88.29 indexed citations
20.
Vaughn, Sharon. (1987). TLC--Teaching, Learning, and Caring: Teaching Interpersonal Problem-Solving Skills to Behaviorally Disordered Adolescents.. 31(2). 25–30.7 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.