Issues and recommendations regarding use of the Beck Depression Inventory
- Journal
- Cognitive Therapy and Research
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1007/bf01186280 →Countries where authors are citing Issues and recommendations regarding use of the Beck Depression Inventory
This map shows the geographic impact of Issues and recommendations regarding use of the Beck Depression Inventory. 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 Issues and recommendations regarding use of the Beck Depression Inventory with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Issues and recommendations regarding use of the Beck Depression Inventory more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Issues and recommendations regarding use of the Beck Depression Inventory
This network shows the impact of Issues and recommendations regarding use of the Beck Depression Inventory. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Issues and recommendations regarding use of the Beck Depression Inventory.
About Issues and recommendations regarding use of the Beck Depression Inventory
This paper, published in 1987, received 930 indexed citations . Written by Philip C. Kendall, Steven D. Hollon, Aaron T. Beck, Constance Hammen and Rick E. Ingram covering the research area of Clinical Psychology and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Clinical Psychology (532 citations), Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (429 citations) and Social Psychology (199 citations). Published in Cognitive Therapy and Research.
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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1007/bf01186280.