World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
30
Citations
5492
World Ranking
11312
National Ranking
5908

David P. McCabe 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 David P. McCabe 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: 344 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: 34 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 701–705 publications: 5 scientists 706+ publications: 100 scientists
31 publications 706+

This scientist: 50 publications — 1st percentile

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

The last bar groups every scientist with 706 publications or more.

David P. McCabe 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 David P. McCabe 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: 559 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: 87 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: 79 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: 30 D-Index — 1st percentile

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

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

Overview

David P. McCabe was affiliated with Colorado State University in the United States during their academic career.

While specific details about their recent publications and research output are not provided, the lack of listed papers, co-authors, publication venues, fields of study, and topics suggests that publicly available bibliometric data on their work is limited or not documented in accessible databases.

There are no records of book publications or awards associated with David P. McCabe.

Given the information provided, it can be stated that McCabe engaged in academic activity at Colorado State University but detailed insights into their research focus, collaborative networks, and areas of expertise cannot be drawn from the available data.

David P. McCabe is deceased, which should be considered when discussing their academic legacy or referencing their contributions.

Best Publications

  • The Relationship Between Working Memory Capacity and Executive Functioning: Evidence for a Common Executive Attention Construct

    David P. McCabe;Henry L. Roediger Iii;Mark A. McDaniel;David A. Balota

  • Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning.

    David P. McCabe;Alan D. Castel

  • Effects of healthy aging and early stage dementia of the Alzheimer's type on components of response time distributions in three attention tasks.

    Chi-Shing Tse;David A. Balota;Melvin J. Yap;Janet M. Duchek

  • The effect of warnings on false memories in young and older adults.

    David P. McCabe;Anderson D. Smith

  • The Role of Covert Retrieval in Working Memory Span Tasks: Evidence from Delayed Recall Tests.

    David P. McCabe

  • Illusions of competence and overestimation of associative memory for identical items: evidence from judgments of learning.

    Alan D. Castel;David P. McCabe;Henry L. Roediger

  • Memory Efficiency and the Strategic Control of Attention at Encoding: Impairments of Value-Directed Remembering in Alzheimer's Disease

    Alan D. Castel;David A. Balota;David P. McCabe

  • Item-specific processing reduces false memories.

    David P. Mccabe;Alison G. Presmanes;Chuck L. Robertson;Anderson D. Smith

  • Aging reduces veridical remembering but increases false remembering: Neuropsychological test correlates of remember–know judgments

    David P. McCabe;Henry L. Roediger;Mark A. McDaniel;David A. Balota

  • The Development of Memory Efficiency and Value-Directed Remembering across the Life Span: A Cross-Sectional Study of Memory and Selectivity.

    Alan D. Castel;Kathryn L. Humphreys;Steve S. Lee;Adriana Galván

  • The Influence of fMRI Lie Detection Evidence on Juror Decision‐Making

    David P. McCabe;Alan D. Castel;Matthew G. Rhodes

  • Handedness is related to memory via hemispheric interaction: evidence from paired associate recall and source memory tasks.

    Keith B. Lyle;David P. McCabe;Henry L. Roediger

  • The Dark Side of Expertise: Domain-Specific Memory Errors

    Alan D. Castel;David P. McCabe;Henry L. Roediger;Jeffrey L. Heitman

  • Temporal–contextual processing in working memory: Evidence from delayed cued recall and delayed free recall tests

    Vanessa M. Loaiza;David P. McCabe

  • Are survival processing memory advantages based on ancestral priorities

    Nicholas C. Soderstrom;David P. McCabe

  • The Interplay between Value and Relatedness as Bases for Metacognitive Monitoring and Control: Evidence for Agenda-Based Monitoring.

    Nicholas C. Soderstrom;David P. McCabe

  • The influence of instructions and terminology on the accuracy of remember–know judgments

    David P. McCabe;Lisa D. Geraci

  • Sequential learning models for the Wisconsin card sort task: Assessing processes in substance dependent individuals

    Anthony J. Bishara;John K. Kruschke;Julie C. Stout;Antoine Bechara

  • Executive functions and extraversion

    Alana M. Campbell;Deana B. Davalos;David P. McCabe;Lucy J. Troup

  • The influence of levels of processing on recall from working memory and delayed recall tasks.

    Vanessa M. Loaiza;David P. McCabe;Jessie L. Youngblood;Nathan S. Rose

Frequent Co-Authors

Matthew G. Rhodes
Matthew G. Rhodes Colorado State University
Henry L. Roediger
Henry L. Roediger Washington University in St. Louis
Alan D. Castel
Alan D. Castel University of California, Los Angeles
David A. Balota
David A. Balota Washington University in St. Louis
Mark A. McDaniel
Mark A. McDaniel Washington University in St. Louis
Jeffrey D. Karpicke
Jeffrey D. Karpicke Purdue University West Lafayette
Joel Myerson
Joel Myerson Washington University in St. Louis
Steve S. Lee
Steve S. Lee University of California, Los Angeles
Julie C. Stout
Julie C. Stout Monash University
Valérie Camos
Valérie Camos University of Fribourg

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

For students interested in studying Psychology in the USA, exploring online degrees can open the door to a variety of rewarding career pathways. One of the fastest-growing fields is substance abuse counseling, where professionals provide crucial support to individuals struggling with addiction and mental health challenges.

Career journeys differ depending on location and local requirements. For example, if you are curious about how to become a substance abuse counselor in Stockton, you’ll find guidance on state-specific education and licensure standards. Similarly, understanding substance abuse counselor requirements in Tampa or substance abuse counselor requirements in Toledo can help you prepare the right academic and practical experience.

Certification processes can differ widely. For those interested in relocating or working in Arizona, it's important to be aware of Tucson substance abuse counselor certification requirements before choosing a program.

Online degrees in psychology and counseling offer flexible training options tailored to these state-specific needs. With the right preparation, students can pursue meaningful, impactful roles within the field of substance abuse counseling or related mental health careers across the country.

Best Scientists Citing David P. McCabe

Recently Published Articles