World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Award Badge
Psychology
Singapore
2026

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
85
Citations
23862
World Ranking
1197
National Ranking
2

Filip Lievens 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 Filip Lievens 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: 292 publications — 87th percentile

87% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Filip Lievens 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 Filip Lievens 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: 85 D-Index — 90th percentile

90% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2026 - Research.com Psychology in Singapore Leader Award
  • 2025 - Research.com Psychology in Singapore Leader Award
  • 2023 - Research.com Psychology in Singapore Leader Award
  • 2022 - Research.com Psychology in Singapore Leader Award

Overview

Filip Lievens is affiliated with Singapore Management University in Singapore. Their research intersects psychology and business disciplines, focusing primarily on the domains of organizational behavior and human resource management. Their work spans multiple subfields, including organizational behavior and human resource management, social psychology, clinical psychology, public health, environmental and occupational health, as well as sociology and political science.

The scholar's investigation covers several key topics in the behavioral and management sciences. These include employer branding and e-HRM, personality traits and psychology, medical education and admissions, emotional intelligence and performance, gender diversity and inequality, social and intergroup psychology, and job satisfaction and organizational behavior.

Filip Lievens has published extensively in recognized journals, with frequent contributions to the following venues:

  • Journal of Applied Psychology
  • International Journal of Selection and Assessment
  • Academy of Management Proceedings
  • Personnel Psychology
  • Journal of Research in Personality

Among recent papers, notable works include:

  • "Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range." (2021, Journal of Applied Psychology)
  • "Killing The Cat? A Review of Curiosity at Work." (2021, Academy of Management Annals)
  • "What's on job seekers' social media sites? A content analysis and effects of structure on recruiter judgments and predictive validity." (2020, Journal of Applied Psychology)
  • "Employer and internal branding research: a bibliometric analysis of 25 years." (2022, Journal of Product & Brand Management)
  • "Work Effort: A Conceptual and Meta-Analytic Review." (2022, Journal of Management)

Filip Lievens has collaborated repeatedly with several coauthors, indicating an active role in academic collaboration. Frequent coauthors include:

  • Paul R. Sackett
  • Philipp Schäpers
  • Charlene Zhang
  • Christoph N. Herde
  • Christopher M. Berry

The researcher's published output reflects a sustained focus on the evaluation and understanding of workplace behavior, personnel selection methods, and the psychological factors influencing organizational outcomes. This includes meta-analytic reviews and empirical studies addressing validity in personnel selection, workplace curiosity, social media impacts on job recruitment processes, branding in employment contexts, and conceptual work effort analysis.

Best Publications

  • The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company's attractiveness as an employer.

    Filip Lievens;Scott Highhouse

  • Measuring Attraction to Organizations

    Scott Highhouse;Filip Lievens;Evan F. Sinar

  • Response Rates in Organizational Science, 1995–2008: A Meta-analytic Review and Guidelines for Survey Researchers

    Frederik Anseel;Filip Lievens;Eveline Schollaert;Beata Choragwicka

  • How Are We Doing After 30 Years? A Meta-Analytic Review of the Antecedents and Outcomes of Feedback-Seeking Behavior

    Frederik Anseel;Adam S. Beatty;Winny Shen;Filip Lievens

  • Medical students' personality characteristics and academic performance: a five‐factor model perspective

    Filip Lievens;Pol Coetsier;Filip De Fruyt;Jan De Maeseneer

  • Employer branding in the Belgian Army: The importance of instrumental and symbolic beliefs for potential applicants, actual applicants, and military employees

    Filip Lievens

  • Employer image and employer branding: What we know and what we need to know

    Filip Lievens;Jerel E. Slaughter

  • Organizational Attractiveness for Prospective Applicants: A Person-Organisation Fit Perspective

    Filip Lievens;Christoph Decaesteker;Pol Coetsier;Jo Geirnaert

  • Examining the relationship between employer knowledge dimensions and organizational attractiveness: An application in a military context

    Filip Lievens;Greet Van Hoye;Bert Herman Schreurs

  • Situational judgment tests: A review of recent research

    Filip Lievens;Helga Peeters;Eveline Schollaert

  • Networking as a job search behaviour: A social network perspective

    Greet Van Hoye;Edwin A. J. van Hooft;Filip Lievens

  • Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback

    Frederik Anseel;Filip Lievens;Eveline Schollaert

  • The Validity of Interpersonal Skills Assessment via Situational Judgment Tests for Predicting Academic Success and Job Performance.

    Filip Lievens;Paul R. Sackett

  • Tapping the grapevine: A closer look at word-of-mouth as a recruitment source.

    Greet Van Hoye;Filip Lievens

  • Predicting cross-cultural training performance: the validity of personality, cognitive ability, and dimensions measured by an assessment center and a behavior description interview.

    Filip Lievens;Michael M. Harris;Etienne Van Keer;Claire Bisqueret

  • Recent trends and challenges in personnel selection

    Filip Lievens;Karen van Dam;Neil Anderson

  • A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity.

    Filip Lievens;Wilfried De Corte;Eveline Schollaert

  • Personality scale validities increase throughout medical school.

    Filip Lievens;Deniz S. Ones;Stephan Dilchert

  • Large-scale investigation of the role of trait activation theory for understanding assessment center convergent and discriminant validity.

    Filip Lievens;Christopher S. Chasteen;Eric Anthony Day;Neil D. Christiansen

  • Individual differences and their measurement : a review of 100 years of research

    Paul R. Sackett;Filip Lievens;Chad H. Van Iddekinge;Nathan R. Kuncel

  • Confirmatory factor analysis and invariance of an Organizational Citizenship Behaviour measure across samples in a Dutch-speaking context

    Filip Lievens;Frederik Anseel

Frequent Co-Authors

Paul R. Sackett
Paul R. Sackett University of Minnesota
Cornelius J. König
Cornelius J. König Saarland University
Martin Kleinmann
Martin Kleinmann University of Zurich
Filip De Fruyt
Filip De Fruyt Ghent University
Neil Anderson
Neil Anderson University of Bradford
Peter Bamberger
Peter Bamberger Tel Aviv University
Herman Aguinis
Herman Aguinis George Washington University
Chad H. Van Iddekinge
Chad H. Van Iddekinge Florida State University
Jesús F. Salgado
Jesús F. Salgado University of Santiago de Compostela
Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko
Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko Nanyang Technological University

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

Pursuing a degree in Psychology opens up diverse online and offline career pathways, including roles in mental health, counseling, human resources, education, and social work. One fast-growing specialization is substance abuse counseling, where professionals provide essential support to individuals dealing with addiction and substance use disorders.

The requirements and pathways for becoming a substance abuse counselor in Anaheim can differ significantly from those in other cities. For instance, becoming a substance abuse counselor in Anchorage involves understanding Alaska’s unique licensing and training demands, whereas becoming a substance abuse counselor in Arlington means meeting Virginia’s specific education and certification standards.

Many states require candidates to have a bachelor’s degree or higher in Psychology or related fields, along with supervised work experience and state licensure. Those interested should review the Atlanta substance abuse counselors education requirements as a guideline for what is expected in large metropolitan areas. Exploring different locations and their rules can help you find the right online degree and career path in this rewarding field.

Best Scientists Citing Filip Lievens

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles