Troy L. Cox

426 total citations
22 papers, 219 citations indexed

About

Troy L. Cox is a scholar working on Language and Linguistics, Developmental and Educational Psychology and Literature and Literary Theory. According to data from OpenAlex, Troy L. Cox has authored 22 papers receiving a total of 219 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 15 papers in Language and Linguistics, 11 papers in Developmental and Educational Psychology and 7 papers in Literature and Literary Theory. Recurrent topics in Troy L. Cox's work include EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning (14 papers), Second Language Learning and Teaching (6 papers) and Reading and Literacy Development (5 papers). Troy L. Cox is often cited by papers focused on EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning (14 papers), Second Language Learning and Teaching (6 papers) and Reading and Literacy Development (5 papers). Troy L. Cox collaborates with scholars based in United States and Germany. Troy L. Cox's co-authors include Dan P. Dewey, Randall S. Davies, Ray Clifford, K. James Hartshorn, Norman Evans, Margaret E. Malone, Bryan K. Saville, Paula Winke, Maureen E. Sims and Jennifer Bown and has published in prestigious journals such as TESOL Quarterly, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis and System.

In The Last Decade

Troy L. Cox

19 papers receiving 209 citations

Peers

Troy L. Cox
Louise Courtney United Kingdom
Veronica G. Sardegna United States
Íñigo Yanguas United States
Katharine B. Nielson United States
Gene B. Halleck United States
Haiyang Ai United States
Troy L. Cox
Citations per year, relative to Troy L. Cox Troy L. Cox (= 1×) peers Yuly Asención‐Delaney

Countries citing papers authored by Troy L. Cox

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Troy L. Cox

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Troy L. Cox. 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 Troy L. Cox. The network helps show where Troy L. Cox may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Troy L. Cox

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

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown
2.
Li, Mimi, et al.. (2025). Exploring the Potential of ChatGPT for Evaluating English Essays in a Criterion‐Based Assessment. TESOL Quarterly. 59(S1). 1 indexed citations
4.
Cox, Troy L., et al.. (2022). Does text entry method make a difference on Chinese writing test scores?. 57(3). 270–297. 1 indexed citations
5.
Sims, Maureen E., et al.. (2020). Rubric Rating with MFRM versus Randomly Distributed Comparative Judgment: A Comparison of Two Approaches to Second‐Language Writing Assessment. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice. 39(4). 30–40. 10 indexed citations
7.
Cox, Troy L., Margaret E. Malone, & Paula Winke. (2018). Future directions in assessment: Influences of standards and implications for language learning. Foreign Language Annals. 51(1). 104–115. 9 indexed citations
8.
Ma, Rui, et al.. (2018). Pronunciation’s role in English speaking-proficiency ratings. 4(1). 73–102. 4 indexed citations
10.
Cox, Troy L. & Margaret E. Malone. (2018). A validity argument to support the ACTFL Assessment of Performance Toward Proficiency in Languages (AAPPL). Foreign Language Annals. 51(3). 548–574. 5 indexed citations
11.
Brown, Alan V., et al.. (2017). A Comparative Discourse Analysis of Spanish Past Narrations From the ACTFL OPI and OPIc. Foreign Language Annals. 50(4). 793–807. 4 indexed citations
12.
13.
Cox, Troy L., et al.. (2016). Constructing a Russian Elicited Imitation Exam. ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University). 66(1). 3 indexed citations
14.
Cox, Troy L., et al.. (2016). Comparing the OPI and the OPIc: The Effect of Test Method on Oral Proficiency Scores and Student Preference. Foreign Language Annals. 49(1). 75–92. 11 indexed citations
15.
Cox, Troy L., et al.. (2015). Exploring Proficiency‐Based vs. Performance‐Based Items With Elicited Imitation Assessment. Foreign Language Annals. 48(3). 350–371. 3 indexed citations
16.
Cox, Troy L. & Ray Clifford. (2014). Empirical Validation of Listening Proficiency Guidelines. Foreign Language Annals. 47(3). 379–403. 7 indexed citations
17.
Evans, Norman, et al.. (2014). Measuring written linguistic accuracy with weighted clause ratios: A question of validity. Journal of Second Language Writing. 24. 33–50. 32 indexed citations
18.
Clifford, Ray & Troy L. Cox. (2013). Empirical Validation of Reading Proficiency Guidelines. Foreign Language Annals. 46(1). 45–61. 12 indexed citations
19.
Saville, Bryan K., et al.. (2011). INTERTEACHING: THE IMPACT OF LECTURES ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 44(4). 937–941. 25 indexed citations
20.
Cox, Troy L.. (1998). Origin of stone concentrations in loess-derived interfluve soils. Quaternary International. 51-52. 74–75. 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

Rankless by CCL
2026