credit (1.5 n 1 ) 1.5 j 1 ),

, Vol. 43(6), 2006 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc..20183 TOP CONTRIBUTORS TO THE SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY LITERATURE: 1996 2005 GABRIELLE A. ROBERTS, KIM S. DAVIS, DINORAH ZANGER, AIMEE GERRARD-MORRIS, AND DANIEL H. ROBINSON University of Texas S.G. Little (1997) reported the top contributors to the school psychology literature from 1987 to 1995. The present study represents a follow-up by examining the top contributors from 1996 to 2005. Similar to Little, a list of the top 50 contributors was developed using a point system that assigned more credit based on fewer coauthors and higher authorship placement. Expanding upon the Little study, we also computed a list of the top 50 contributors in terms of number of articles authored, thus facilitating a comparison of the two methods. Melissa Bray ranked first on both lists. The top 10 authors in terms of articles also were ranked in the top 13 in terms of points. Thus, for the most productive authors, choice of criteria for ranking does not appear important; however, in terms of encouraging versus discouraging collaboration among researchers, criteria choice may be important. 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Author productivity has been a topic of recent interest in the field of school psychology, and examinations of author productivity in school psychology journals have appeared in two previous articles (Davis, Zanger, Gerrard-Morris, Roberts, & Robinson, 2005; Little, 1997). Researchers have used productivity analyses to determine (a) which authors are most productive in the field (Davis et al., 2005; Little, 1997), (b) which universities generate more publications (Little, 1997), (c) the most popular topics addressed (Carper & Williams, 2004; Little, 1997; Skinner, Robinson, Brown, & Cates, 1999), (d) trends in characteristics of high-producing authors, such as male versus female authorship and year of graduation (Davis et al., 2005; Roberts, Gerrard-Morris, Zanger, Davis, & Robinson, 2006), and (e) changes in the collaborative nature of publications in school psychology (Roberts et al., 2006). With respect to the actual measurement of productivity, however, two different methods have typically been used. One technique quantifies productivity by counting an author s total number of articles across a given time period (Davis et al., 2005; Little, 1997; Roberts et al., 2006) whereas the other assigns the author points for each article, awarding greater points for fewer coauthors and higher authorship position (Little, 1997). In the latter scenario, the author s points from each article are then added to create a total productivity score. In the first school psychology productivity study, Little (1997) applied both scoring methods. As part of a larger examination of publication patterns in the field of school psychology, Little examined author productivity in six school psychology journals from 1987 to 1995. Each author s productivity score was calculated according to the formula: credit (1.5 n 1 ) 1.5 j 1 ), j 1 where n is the total number of authors and i is the particular author s ordinal position (Howard, Cole, & Maxwell, 1987). By this formula, each author received a score for each article based upon author position. Sole authors received a score of 1 whereas for articles with multiple authors, credit was awarded in a decreasing manner from first to last author (Little, 1997). Although Little (1997) used both productivity-measurement techniques, he ultimately ranked top-producing authors according to the productivity score. The decision to do so suggests that individual contribution, as measured by authorship placement on articles, is a more preferred n Correspondence to: Daniel H. Robinson, Department of Educational Psychology, SZB 504, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 1296. E-mail: dan.robinson@mail.utexas.edu 737

738 Roberts et al. measure of productivity than is collaboration with others, as measured by the actual number of articles authored, regardless of placement or number of coauthors. The points technique essentially penalizes an author for choosing collaboration over individual authorship, as increasing the number of coauthors on an article lowers the author s productivity score. From the data on each method provided by Little s (1997) analysis, it was clear that as one might expect, a different ordering of the top 50 authors would result based upon the method used. Little provided the number of articles authored for those top 50 authors ranked by productivity score. On the list, the authors with the highest productivity score also had the greatest number of publications. That is, the top six authors by number of articles were within the top seven as measured by productivity score. Beyond the top of the list, however, author rank based on productivity score did not reflect the number of articles published. Furthermore, as Little only included information on the number of articles published for those authors who had the top 50 productivity scores, it is possible that there may have been authors who would have ranked in the top 50 according to number of articles published who did not make this list because of a low productivity score. Thus, Little s rank of the top 50 authors is but one way of capturing productivity and may neglect to include those individuals who are highly collaborative. Of course, the term collaboration often paints the picture of a roundtable of researchers working with one another toward a goal. Although this may be the case, it is important to acknowledge that there are multiple approaches to collaborative research. That is, an article with multiple authors does not necessarily reflect a collaborative effort in the traditional sense. Though some multiple-authored articles do involve groups of authors who are closely working together, others may result from authors with very little communication between one another, each working on their unique piece. It may be that any article for which there was a distribution of work does represent teamwork and collaboration. Still, it is useful to bear in mind that a collaborative effort can take many forms, especially when considering the mentoring process for junior faculty and graduate students. In the years following the Little (1997) article, researchers have conducted follow-up studies of productivity in school psychology journals using either the author-position scoring method (Carper & Williams, 2004) or by counting each author s total number of articles (Davis et al., 2005); however, there has yet to be a study that compiles lists of the most productive authors using both methods. This study was designed to address that need. Thus, the present study provides a follow-up to the Little (1997) study by examining author productivity from 1996 to 2005. Two lists of the top 50 authors in school psychology journals were generated, one based on the total number of articles authored and the other using the scoring method that assigns points for author placement and number of authors. This study also examined the differences between the two measurement methods and the question that lies therein: Which is the optimal measure of productivity in the field of school psychology? Method Five of the six school psychology journals examined by Little (1997) were included in this study: Journal of School Psychology,, School Psychology Quarterly, School Psychology Review, and School Psychology International. As in the Davis et al. (2005) study, the Journal of Psychological Assessment was not included because it does not publish as many school psychology articles as do the five journals listed (Carper & Williams, 2004). Authorship was recorded for every article included in the five selected journals from 1996 through 2005. As Little (1997) and others have done (Davis et al., 2005; Roberts et al., 2006), book reviews, test reviews, editorials, and introductions to issues were omitted from the database. For every article, each author was recorded along with her or his authorship placement and the

Productivity 739 number of authors included on the article. For example, a second author of three total authors on an article was recorded as 2,3. The data were then analyzed in two ways. First, each author s total number of publications was counted, and a list of the 50 authors with the most publications was compiled. Second, utilizing the same formula as Little (Howard et al., 1987), each author in each article received a score based on authorship position and the number of authors. The total point scores were then summed for every author. 1 A list of the 50 most productive authors based on productivity score was compiled. Tables 1 and 2 display each list and allow a comparison of the two methods. Results and Discussion Table 1 displays the top 50 authors based on productivity score. The top-ranked author was Melissa Bray (11.724), followed closely by Thomas Kratochwill (11.503) and Thomas Kehle (10.889), respectively. The score of the 50th most productive author, Terry Stinnett, was 3.202. Of the 10 most productive authors from the Little (1997) study, only one, Stephen Elliot, remained in the top 10 for the following 10-year period. Still, 7 of the top 10 authors on Little s list remained in the top 50 in the present study, with five (Stephen Elliott, Frank Gresham, E. Scott Huebner, LeAdelle Phelps, and Edward Shapiro) in the top 20. Thomas Kratochwill, Susan Sheridan, Kenneth Merrell, Timothy Keith, and George DuPaul were on Little s list, but not in the top 10, and all advanced to the top 10 in the present study. Melissa Bray received her Ph.D. in 1997, which explains her absence from Little s list of top-producing authors. Bray also was the top-ranking author in terms of number of articles authored with 39 articles (see Table 2). She was followed by Thomas Kehle (38) and Christopher Skinner (29), respectively. The two largest gaps in the list were between Kehle and Skinner (9 articles) and between the fourth- and fifth-ranked authors, Kratochwill and Elliott (7 articles). There are 51 individuals on the list instead of 50 because 6 authors shared the rank of 46 with 8 publications each. The list rank ordered by number of publications also is highly comparable to that of Davis et al. (2005), who examined author productivity by number of articles authored from 1991 2003. Sixteen of the 20 authors on the Davis et al. list were on the present list. Furthermore, 81% of those authors are in the top 20 on the present list. With respect to the highest ranked authors, the two lists created in this study provided similar outcomes. All top 10 authors according to number of articles published were accounted for in the top 13 slots on the list rank ordered by productivity score; however, in the middle and latter sections of the lists, the differences emerge. There are a total of 24 authors that the lists do not share in common. There are 12 authors ranked by productivity score who are not included on the list measuring number of articles; conversely, there are 12 authors that made the top 50 for number of articles published who did not rank in terms of productivity score. These differences are most pronounced toward the end of the lists. Sixty-seven percent of those authors present on only one of the two lists were ranked 32 or higher. In other words, of the authors ranked by number of publications who are not ranked by productivity, 67% are in the latter portion of the list (i.e., ranked 32 or higher). Similarly, 67% of the authors ranked by productivity score, but not by number of publications, are ranked 32 or higher. Thus, it appears that for those authors who are the highest producers overall, differences in scoring methodology appear irrelevant. These authors are producing so much that either technique will indicate their high rate of productivity. On the other hand, for almost a quarter of the authors 1 We thank M. Cecil Smith for providing us with a listing of the points that corresponded to author placement and number of authors.

740 Roberts et al. Table 1 Top 50 Most Productive Authors Based on Productivity Scoring Method Rank Author Productivity score 1 Bray, Melissa A. 11.724 2 Kratochwill, Thomas R. 11.503 3 Kehle, Thomas J. 10.889 4 Sheridan, Susan M. 8.750 5 Skinner, Christopher H. 8.195 6 Merrell, Kenneth W. 7.281 7 Hintze, John M. 7.051 8 Keith, Timothy Z. 6.940 9 DuPaul, George J. 6.821 10 Elliott, Stephen N. 6.813 11 Demaray, Michelle K. 6.332 12 Eckert Tanya L. 6.139 13 Witt, Joseph C. 6.099 14 Shapiro, Edward S. 6.081 15 Huebner, E. Scott 6.004 16 Gresham, Frank M. 5.971 17 Phelps, LeAdelle 5.771 18 Noell, George 5.752 19 Fantuzzo, John 5.338 20 Malecki, Christine K. 5.256 21 Stoiber, Karen C. 5.243 22 Zhou, Zheng 5.112 23 McDermott, Paul 5.058 24 Frisby, Craig L. 5.000 25 Stormont, Melissa 4.963 26 McIntosh, David E. 4.932 27 Watkins, Marley W. 4.847 28 Pianta, Robert C. 4.800 29 Reschly, Daniel J. 4.716 30 Fagan, Thomas 4.674 31 Watson, T. Steuart 4.434 32 Gredler, Gilbert R. 4.400 33 Chafouleas, Sandra M. 4.388 34 Gilman, Rich 4.348 35 Power, Thomas J. 4.216 36 Christenson, Sandra L. 4.197 37 Canivez, Gary L. 4.146 38 Kingery, Paul M. 4.086 39 Doll, Beth 3.965 40 Oakland, Thomas 3.947 41 Fuchs, Lynn S. 3.839 42 Braden, Jeffery P. 3.811 43 Knoff, Howard M. 3.790 44 Curtis, Michael J. 3.738 45 Jimerson, Shane R. 3.717 46 Soutter, Alison 3.600 47 Furlong, Michael 3.592 48 Bolen, Larry M. 3.335 49 Jacob-Timm, Susan 3.211 50 Stinnett, Terry A. 3.202

Productivity 741 Table 2 Top 50 Most Productive Authors Based on Number of Articles Rank Author No. of articles 1 Bray, Melissa A. 39 2 Kehle, Thomas J. 38 3 Skinner, Christopher H. 29 4 Kratochwill, Thomas R. 26 5 Elliot, Stephen N. 19 6 Sheridan, Susan M. 19 7 Hintze, John M. 18 8 Eckert, Tanya L. 17 8 Witt, Joseph C. 17 10 Merrell, Kenneth W. 16 11 DuPaul, George J. 15 11 Fantuzzo, John 15 11 Noell, George 15 11 Shapiro, Edward S. 15 15 Huebner, E. Scott 14 15 McDermott, Paul 14 15 Watson, T. Steuart 14 15 Zhou, Zheng 14 19 Phelps, LeAdelle 13 19 Theodore, Lea 13 21 Chafouleas, Sandra M. 12 21 Demaray, Michelle K. 12 21 Gresham, Frank M. 12 21 Keith, Timothy Z. 12 21 McIntosh, David E. 12 21 Watkins, Marley W. 12 27 Clark, Elaine 11 27 Jenson, William R. 11 27 Malecki, Christine K. 11 27 Stoiber, Karen C. 11 31 Bolen, Larry M. 10 31 Fuchs, Lynn S. 10 31 Martens, Brian K. 10 31 Power, Thomas J. 10 35 Akin-Little, Angeleque 9 35 Daly III, Edward J. 9 35 Furlong, Michael 9 35 Glutting, Joseph J. 9 35 Jimerson, Shane R. 9 35 Little, Stephen G. 9 35 Nastasi, Bonnie K. 9 35 Oakland, Thomas 9 35 Stinnett, Terry A. 9 35 Vanderheyden, Amanda M. 9 35 Christenson, Sandra L. 9 46 Curtis, Michael J. 8 46 Ehrhaardt, Kirstal E. 8 46 Gilman, Rich 8 46 Kingery, Paul M. 8 46 Pianta, Robert C. 8 46 Stormont, Melissa 8

742 Roberts et al. in the present study, the criterion used to measure productivity is crucial. So which method is better? Which set of 12 authors should be excluded from a list of the most productive? To answer this question, one must ask which is more valued: collaboration or individual contribution? Supporters of collaboration might argue that inherently the field of school psychology is collaborative. In practice, school psychologists are trained to be effective collaborators within and across professions. Based on the finding that that the average number of authors per article is increasing (Roberts et al., 2006), it appears as though research in the field is becoming more collaborative, reflecting this training. Furthermore, to learn to be competent professional researchers, graduate students rely upon professors to guide them in research. To this end, a collaborative model may be ideal. Although some might assert that greater ideas come from collaborative work, others might argue that individual contribution should be rewarded. Honoring individual contribution encourages researchers to initiate ideas and take more responsibility in research efforts. Those more inclined toward independent research also may believe that working alone or with one or two others facilitates faster production of research than does a large research team. Acknowledging that there are multiple approaches to publishing and research, it appears imperative that studies of productivity also apply multiple methods of measurement. By analyzing productivity in two different ways, the present study has demonstrated that for the small group of individuals who are the most productive, choice of productivity measure is relatively inconsequential; however, for the majority of authors, the determination of those who are productive lies in the choice of measurement. By simply using a method that awards points for authorship position and independent research, we are ignoring many highly productive, yet highly collaborative, professionals. Many of these authors may be those upon whom we are relying to train graduate students, our future professionals, and mentor junior faculty members (Roberts et al., 2006). On the other hand, the portion of authors included on the list of top authors by productivity score yet not ranked by number of articles may represent those individuals who, through relatively independent work, make significant contributions to the field. Based on the results of the present study, it appears that future studies of productivity in the field of school psychology would be best served to include and analyze multiple methods of productivity measurement. Limitations Although the present study expands upon previous research by examining and emphasizing multiple methods of author-productivity measurement, it excludes those authors who do not produce high volumes of research yet still significantly contribute to the literature. Like the old cliché, sometimes less is more; a greater number of articles does not necessarily amount to a greater contribution. There are many researchers in the field of school psychology who, though they do not publish often, produce high-quality publications of great importance. Furthermore, there are many school psychology researchers who embody the notion of cross-disciplinary collaboration and, accordingly, publish in journals outside the field. The valuable work of these scholars was not accounted for in this study. Hence, the field would further benefit from future examinations of author contribution that examine quality in addition to and separate from quantity, and include additional journals outside the field of school psychology to further capture collaborative efforts. References Carper, R., & Williams, R.L. (2004). Article publications, journal outlets, and article themes for current faculty in APAaccredited school psychology programs: 1995 1999. School Psychology Quarterly, 19, 141 165. Davis, K., Zanger, D., Gerrard-Morris, A., Roberts, G., & Robinson, D.H. (2005). Productivity of school psychologists in school psychology journals, 1991 2003. The School Psychologist, 59, 129 133.

Productivity 743 Howard, G.S., Cole, D.A., & Maxwell, S.E. (1987). Research productivity in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist, 42, 975 986. Little, S.G. (1997). Graduate education of the top contributors to the school psychology literature: 1987 1995. School Psychology International, 18, 15 27. Roberts, G., Gerrard-Morris, A., Zanger, D., Davis, K.S., & Robinson, D.H. (2006). Trends in female authorships, editorial board memberships, and editorships in school psychology journals from 1991 2004. The School Psychologist, 60, 5 10. Skinner, C.H., Robinson, S.L., Brown, C.S., & Cates, G.L. (1999). Female publication patterns in School Psychology Review, Journal of School Psychology, and School Psychology Quarterly from 1985 1994. School Psychology Review, 28, 76 83.