World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
62
Citations
20715
World Ranking
3180
National Ranking
1807

Mark B. Powers 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 Mark B. Powers 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: 177 publications — 61st percentile

61% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Mark B. Powers 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 Mark B. Powers 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: 62 D-Index — 72nd percentile

72% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Mark B. Powers is affiliated with Baylor University Medical Center in the United States. Their research spans significant areas within medicine and psychology, with a strong focus on clinical psychology and related subfields.

The main fields of study for this researcher include:

  • Medicine
  • Psychology

Within these broader fields, their work specializes in subfields such as:

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Neurology
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Health
  • Applied Psychology

Their research topics address a variety of contemporary issues, particularly related to mental health and neurological processes. The primary topics explored are:

  • COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Vagus Nerve Stimulation Research
  • SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Among recent publications by Mark B. Powers, several articles stand out, reflecting collaborations and investigations into psychological and public health challenges heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • Consensus statement on the problem of terminology in psychological interventions using the internet or digital components (2020, Internet Interventions)
  • Anxiety sensitivity, COVID-19 fear, and mental health: results from a United States population sample (2021, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy)
  • Income Differences and COVID-19: Impact on Daily Life and Mental Health (2021, Population Health Management)
  • Resilience, coping, and distress among healthcare service personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021, BMC Psychiatry)
  • Integrating virtual realities and psychotherapy: SWOT analysis on VR and MR based treatments of anxiety and stress-related disorders (2021, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy)

Frequent co-authors contributing to these works include:

  • Ann Marie Warren
  • Monica Bennett
  • Briget da Graca
  • Megan E. Douglas
  • Jamie R. Pogue

The venues where Mark B. Powers has published most often reflect an interdisciplinary engagement with both clinical psychology and medical research, including:

  • Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
  • Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings
  • Population Health Management
  • Rehabilitation Psychology
  • Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications

Best Publications

  • A Meta-Analytic Review of Psychosocial Interventions for Substance Use Disorders

    Lissa Dutra;Georgia Stathopoulou;Shawnee L. Basden;B.A. Teresa M. Leyro

  • A meta-analytic review of prolonged exposure for posttraumatic stress disorder

    Mark B. Powers;Jacqueline M. Halpern;Michael P. Ferenschak;Seth J. Gillihan

  • Virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis

    Mark B. Powers;Paul M.G. Emmelkamp

  • Exercise interventions for mental health: A quantitative and qualitative review

    Georgia Stathopoulou;Mark B. Powers;Angela C. Berry;Jasper A. J. Smits

  • Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: A Meta-Analytic Review

    Mark B. Powers;Maarten B. Zum Vörde Sive Vörding;Paul M.G. Emmelkamp

  • Cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety and related disorders: A meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials.

    Joseph K. Carpenter;Leigh A. Andrews;Sara M. Witcraft;Sara M. Witcraft;Mark B. Powers;Mark B. Powers

  • Virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety and related disorders: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    Emily Carl;Aliza T Stein;Andrew Levihn-Coon;Jamie R Pogue

  • A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Clinically Relevant Mental and Physical Health Problems

    Jacqueline G.L. A-Tjak;Michelle L. Davis;Nexhmedin Morina;Mark B. Powers

  • Cognitive-behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a meta-analysis of treatment outcome and moderators

    Bunmi O. Olatunji;Michelle L. Davis;Mark B. Powers;Jasper A.J. Smits

  • Psychological approaches in the treatment of specific phobias: a meta-analysis.

    Kate B. Wolitzky-Taylor;Jonathan D. Horowitz;Mark B. Powers;Michael J. Telch

  • LET'S GET PHYSICAL: A CONTEMPORARY REVIEW OF THE ANXIOLYTIC EFFECTS OF EXERCISE FOR ANXIETY AND ITS DISORDERS

    Gordon J. G. Asmundson;Mathew G. Fetzner;Lindsey B. DeBoer;Mark B. Powers

  • Reducing anxiety sensitivity with exercise.

    Jasper A.J. Smits;Angela C. Berry;David Rosenfield;Mark B. Powers

  • Behavioral couples therapy (BCT) for alcohol and drug use disorders: A meta-analysis

    Mark B. Powers;Ellen Vedel;Paul M.G. Emmelkamp

  • Psychometric properties of the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale for DSM-5 (PDS-5).

    Edna B. Foa;Carmen P. McLean;Yinyin Zang;Jody Zhong

  • Multiple organ carcinogenicity of 1,3-butadiene in B6C3F1 mice after 60 weeks of inhalation exposure

    JE Huff;RL Melnick;HA Solleveld;JK Haseman

  • Mechanism of change in cognitive-behavioral treatment of panic disorder: evidence for the fear of fear mediational hypothesis.

    Jasper A. J. Smits;Mark B. Powers;Yongrae Cho;Michael J. Telch

  • The efficacy of cognitive-behavioral interventions for reducing anxiety sensitivity: A meta-analytic review

    Jasper A.J. Smits;Angela C. Berry;Candyce D. Tart;Mark B. Powers

  • Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy vs Risperidone for Augmenting Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial

    Helen Blair Simpson;Helen Blair Simpson;Edna B. Foa;Michael R. Liebowitz;Jonathan D. Huppert;Jonathan D. Huppert

  • Disentangling the effects of safety-behavior utilization and safety-behavior availability during exposure-based treatment: a placebo-controlled trial.

    Mark B. Powers;Jasper A. J. Smits;Michael J. Telch

  • Threat reappraisal as a mediator of symptom change in cognitive-behavioral treatment of anxiety disorders: A systematic review.

    Jasper A. J. Smits;Kristin Julian;David Rosenfield;Mark B. Powers

  • Exposure Therapy for Anxiety: Principles and Practice

    Michelle Davis;Mark Powers

Frequent Co-Authors

Jasper A. J. Smits
Jasper A. J. Smits The University of Texas at Austin
David Rosenfield
David Rosenfield Southern Methodist University
Michael J. Zvolensky
Michael J. Zvolensky University of Houston
Paul M. G. Emmelkamp
Paul M. G. Emmelkamp University of Amsterdam
Michael J. Telch
Michael J. Telch The University of Texas at Austin
Edna B. Foa
Edna B. Foa University of Pennsylvania
Bess H. Marcus
Bess H. Marcus Brown University
Monnica T. Williams
Monnica T. Williams University of Ottawa
Per Carlbring
Per Carlbring Stockholm University
Carmen P. McLean
Carmen P. McLean Stanford 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

Exploring a career in psychology opens the door to a wide range of online degree programs and professional paths. Many students pursue specialized roles, such as a Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT), which require distinct educational and certification steps depending on the state or city.

For example, those interested in practicing in Oklahoma should review the Tulsa mft education requirements. If you're looking at opportunities on the East Coast, check out the Virginia Beach mft certification requirements or the distinct Washington DC mft education requirements. For those in Kansas, learning how to become an mft in Wichita provides a clear pathway.

Most states require a master’s degree in psychology or a closely related field, supervised clinical hours, and passage of national or state board exams. By understanding the specific requirements where you plan to practice, you can tailor your online education and career planning for long-term success in the field.

Best Scientists Citing Mark B. Powers

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles