World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
32
Citations
5762
World Ranking
10799
National Ranking
5649

Carol M. Woods publication distribution in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Psychology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Carol M. Woods sits on this spectrum.

31–40 publications: 6 scientists 41–50 publications: 52 scientists 51–60 publications: 138 scientists 61–70 publications: 299 scientists 71–80 publications: 461 scientists 81–90 publications: 605 scientists 91–100 publications: 713 scientists 101–110 publications: 736 scientists 111–120 publications: 686 scientists 121–130 publications: 670 scientists 131–140 publications: 644 scientists 141–150 publications: 597 scientists 151–160 publications: 576 scientists 161–170 publications: 477 scientists 171–180 publications: 450 scientists 181–190 publications: 397 scientists 191–200 publications: 343 scientists 201–210 publications: 328 scientists 211–220 publications: 313 scientists 221–230 publications: 283 scientists 231–240 publications: 226 scientists 241–250 publications: 196 scientists 251–260 publications: 201 scientists 261–270 publications: 171 scientists 271–280 publications: 151 scientists 281–290 publications: 139 scientists 291–300 publications: 113 scientists 301–310 publications: 102 scientists 311–320 publications: 100 scientists 321–330 publications: 76 scientists 331–340 publications: 92 scientists 341–350 publications: 85 scientists 351–360 publications: 69 scientists 361–370 publications: 71 scientists 371–380 publications: 63 scientists 381–390 publications: 58 scientists 391–400 publications: 57 scientists 401–410 publications: 43 scientists 411–420 publications: 33 scientists 421–430 publications: 50 scientists 431–440 publications: 41 scientists 441–450 publications: 32 scientists 451–460 publications: 27 scientists 461–470 publications: 28 scientists 471–480 publications: 25 scientists 481–490 publications: 28 scientists 491–500 publications: 20 scientists 501–510 publications: 23 scientists 511–520 publications: 26 scientists 521–530 publications: 17 scientists 531–540 publications: 21 scientists 541–550 publications: 14 scientists 551–560 publications: 16 scientists 561–570 publications: 10 scientists 571–580 publications: 22 scientists 581–590 publications: 9 scientists 591–600 publications: 14 scientists 601–610 publications: 9 scientists 611–620 publications: 11 scientists 621–630 publications: 4 scientists 631–640 publications: 7 scientists 641–650 publications: 5 scientists 651–660 publications: 10 scientists 661–670 publications: 8 scientists 671–680 publications: 8 scientists 681–690 publications: 4 scientists 691–700 publications: 3 scientists 701–704 publications: 4 scientists 705+ publications: 100 scientists
31 publications 705+

This scientist: 50 publications — 1st percentile

1% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 705 publications or more.

Carol M. Woods D-index placement in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Psychology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Carol M. Woods sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 398 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 702 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 671 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 659 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 641 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 671 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 617 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 558 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 495 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 487 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 445 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 390 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 408 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 345 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 325 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 321 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 248 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 290 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 218 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 219 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 215 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 183 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 169 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 132 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 137 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 120 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 112 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 86 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 101 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 83 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 77 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 70 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 78 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 58 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 53 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 57 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 48 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 53 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 46 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 24 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 35 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 27 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 32 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 31 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 22 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 16 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 24 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 18 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 11 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 19 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 10 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 16 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 10 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 12 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 8 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 5 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 12 scientists 144+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 144+

This scientist: 32 D-Index — 6th percentile

6% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 144 D-Index or more.

Overview

Carol M. Woods is affiliated with the University of Kansas in the United States. Their research predominantly focuses on the fields of Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology, with particular emphasis on Molecular Biology, Cancer Research, and Pathology and Forensic Medicine as subfields of study.

The scientist has contributed notably to topics related to DNA Repair Mechanisms, Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics, and Genetic Factors in Colorectal Cancer.

Among their published works are:

  • Somatic mutations in the DNA repairome in prostate cancers in African Americans and Caucasians, 2020, published in Oncogene
  • Anchor Selection Using the Wald Test Anchor-All-Test-All Procedure, 2024, published in UNC Libraries

Carol M. Woods has collaborated frequently with several coauthors, including:

  • Santosh Yadav
  • Muralidharan Anbalagan
  • Melody Baddoo
  • Vinodh Chellamuthu
  • Sudurika Mukhopadhyay

The venues where Woods has published include:

  • Oncogene
  • UNC Libraries

Best Publications

  • More information from fewer questions: the factor structure and item properties of the original and brief fear of negative evaluation scale.

    Thomas L. Rodebaugh;Carol M. Woods;David M. Thissen;Richard G. Heimberg

  • Publication bias in research synthesis: sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions.

    Jack L. Vevea;Carol M. Woods

  • Careless Responding to Reverse-Worded Items: Implications for Confirmatory Factor Analysis

    Carol M. Woods

  • The Reverse of Social Anxiety Is Not Always the Opposite: The Reverse-Scored Items of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale Do Not Belong

    Thomas L. Rodebaugh;Carol M. Woods;Carol M. Woods;Richard G. Heimberg;Richard G. Heimberg

  • The Anxiety Sensitivity Index - Revised: Psychometric properties and factor structure in two nonclinical samples.

    Brett J Deacon;Jonathan S Abramowitz;Carol M Woods;David F Tolin

  • Relationship between obsessive beliefs and obsessive-compulsive symptoms

    David F. Tolin;Carol M. Woods;Jonathan S. Abramowitz

  • Association between Protestant religiosity and obsessive–compulsive symptoms and cognitions

    Jonathan S. Abramowitz;Brett J. Deacon;Carol M. Woods;David F. Tolin

  • The factor structure and screening utility of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale.

    Thomas L. Rodebaugh;Carol M. Woods;Richard G. Heimberg;Michael R. Liebowitz

  • Evaluation of MIMIC-Model Methods for DIF Testing With Comparison to Two-Group Analysis.

    Carol M. Woods

  • Disgust sensitivity and obsessive-compulsive symptoms in a non-clinical sample

    David F. Tolin;Carol M. Woods;Jonathan Stuart Abramowitz

  • Empirical Selection of Anchors for Tests of Differential Item Functioning

    Carol M. Woods

  • The Langer-Improved Wald Test for DIF Testing With Multiple Groups: Evaluation and Comparison to Two-Group IRT

    Carol M. Woods;Li Cai;Mian Wang

  • An item response theory analysis of DSM-IV personality disorder criteria across younger and older age groups.

    Steve Balsis;Marci E. J. Gleason;Carol M. Woods;Thomas F. Oltmanns

  • Testing for Nonuniform Differential Item Functioning With Multiple Indicator Multiple Cause Models

    Carol M. Woods;Kevin J. Grimm

  • Illustration of MIMIC-Model DIF Testing with the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality

    Carol M. Woods;Thomas F. Oltmanns;Eric Turkheimer

  • Factor Analysis of Scales Composed of Binary Items: Illustration with the Maudsley Obsessional Compulsive Inventory

    Carol M. Woods

  • Overdiagnosis and Underdiagnosis of Personality Disorders in Older Adults

    Steve Balsis;Carol M. Woods;Marci Elizabeth Joy Gleason;Thomas F. Oltmanns

  • Are Compulsive Checkers Impaired in Memory? A Meta‐Analytic Review

    Carol M. Woods;Jack L. Vevea;Dianne L. Chambless;Ute J. Bayen

  • Cross-ethnic measurement equivalence of measures of depression, social anxiety and worry.

    James P. Hambrick;Thomas L. Rodebaugh;Steve Balsis;Carol M. Woods

  • Differential Item Functioning of Pathological Gambling Criteria: An Examination of Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Age

    Paul Sacco;Luis R. Torres;Renee M. Cunningham-Williams;Carol Woods

Frequent Co-Authors

Thomas L. Rodebaugh
Thomas L. Rodebaugh Washington University in St. Louis
Richard G. Heimberg
Richard G. Heimberg Temple University
David F. Tolin
David F. Tolin Yale University
Jonathan S. Abramowitz
Jonathan S. Abramowitz University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Thomas F. Oltmanns
Thomas F. Oltmanns Washington University in St. Louis
Dianne L. Chambless
Dianne L. Chambless University of Pennsylvania
Franklin R. Schneier
Franklin R. Schneier Columbia University
Eric Turkheimer
Eric Turkheimer University of Virginia
Gail Steketee
Gail Steketee Boston University
Brett J. Deacon
Brett J. Deacon University of Wollongong

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Exploring psychology opens doors to a wide range of rewarding careers. Many students interested in mental health and human behavior also consider social work as a related field. Social work emphasizes practical problem-solving, community engagement, and direct client support—skills highly valued across healthcare, education, and government sectors.

Online degrees make it possible to pursue these careers while balancing work, family, or other commitments. Students in the Northeast can explore the best online social work degree programs in the Northeast, which offer accredited options tailored to the region’s needs. Those in New Hampshire can find specialized information about the top online social work programs in New Hampshire. Similarly, students based in Ohio may be interested in the top online social work degrees in Ohio.

For learners in Texas, there are numerous choices among the top online social work programs in Texas. Each of these pathways can lead to fulfilling roles in counseling, healthcare, case management, or policy advocacy—a perfect complement to foundational psychology studies.

Best Scientists Citing Carol M. Woods

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles