World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Psychology 55 4433 4103 2466 2232 214 10156

Matthew K. Burns publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Matthew K. Burns between 1999 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Matthew K. Burns published across 27 years, from 1999 to 2025, averaging 9.4 papers a year. Output peaked at 16 publications in 2013. 24 of the 255 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1999 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 16. Peak 16 publications in 2013. 1999: 2 publications 2000: 3 publications 2001: 4 publications 2002: 7 publications 2003: 4 publications 2004: 7 publications 2005: 13 publications 2006: 10 publications 2007: 11 publications 2008: 12 publications 2009: 14 publications 2010: 7 publications 2011: 12 publications 2012: 9 publications 2013: 16 publications 2014: 8 publications 2015: 10 publications 2016: 13 publications 2017: 11 publications 2018: 10 publications 2019: 10 publications 2020: 8 publications 2021: 7 publications 2022: 11 publications 2023: 12 publications 2024: 10 publications 2025: 14 publications
1999 2025

255 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Matthew K. Burns: publications per year, 1999 to 2025
Year Publications
1999 2
2000 3
2001 4
2002 7
2003 4
2004 7
2005 13
2006 10
2007 11
2008 12
2009 14
2010 7
2011 12
2012 9
2013 16
2014 8
2015 10
2016 13
2017 11
2018 10
2019 10
2020 8
2021 7
2022 11
2023 12
2024 10
2025 14
Total 255
Download as CSV

Matthew K. Burns 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 Matthew K. Burns sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600
Bar chart with 69 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 31–40 to 705+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 736. Most scientists, 736, have 101–110 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 705 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 211–220 publications, is where this scientist sits. 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
31–40 publications 705+

This scientist: 214 publications — 73rd percentile

73% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Psychology scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 11,416 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
31–40 6
41–50 52
51–60 138
61–70 299
71–80 461
81–90 605
91–100 713
101–110 736
111–120 686
121–130 670
131–140 644
141–150 597
151–160 576
161–170 477
171–180 450
181–190 397
191–200 343
201–210 328
211–220 313 214
221–230 283
231–240 226
241–250 196
251–260 201
261–270 171
271–280 151
281–290 139
291–300 113
301–310 102
311–320 100
321–330 76
331–340 92
341–350 85
351–360 69
361–370 71
371–380 63
381–390 58
391–400 57
401–410 43
411–420 33
421–430 50
431–440 41
441–450 32
451–460 27
461–470 28
471–480 25
481–490 28
491–500 20
501–510 23
511–520 26
521–530 17
531–540 21
541–550 14
551–560 16
561–570 10
571–580 22
581–590 9
591–600 14
601–610 9
611–620 11
621–630 4
631–640 7
641–650 5
651–660 10
661–670 8
671–680 8
681–690 4
691–700 3
701–704 4
705+ 100
Download as CSV

Matthew K. Burns 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 Matthew K. Burns sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600
Bar chart with 58 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30–31 to 144+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 702. Most scientists, 702, have 32–33 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 144 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 54–55 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 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
30–31 D-Index 144+

This scientist: 55 D-Index — 63rd percentile

63% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Psychology scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 11,416 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30–31 398
32–33 702
34–35 671
36–37 659
38–39 641
40–41 671
42–43 617
44–45 558
46–47 495
48–49 487
50–51 445
52–53 390
54–55 408 55
56–57 345
58–59 325
60–61 321
62–63 248
64–65 290
66–67 218
68–69 219
70–71 215
72–73 183
74–75 169
76–77 132
78–79 137
80–81 120
82–83 112
84–85 86
86–87 101
88–89 83
90–91 77
92–93 70
94–95 78
96–97 58
98–99 53
100–101 57
102–103 48
104–105 53
106–107 46
108–109 24
110–111 35
112–113 27
114–115 32
116–117 31
118–119 22
120–121 16
122–123 24
124–125 18
126–127 11
128–129 19
130–131 10
132–133 16
134–135 10
136–137 12
138–139 8
140–141 5
142–143 12
144+ 98
Download as CSV

Overview

Matthew K. Burns is affiliated with the University of Missouri in the United States. Their academic work spans multiple areas primarily within psychology and social sciences, focusing extensively on developmental and educational psychology as well as education, statistics and probability, clinical psychology, and artificial intelligence.

Their research predominantly addresses topics related to reading and literacy development, cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills, child and adolescent psychosocial and emotional development, disability education and employment, educational and psychological assessments, behavioral and psychological studies, and parental involvement in education.

Matthew K. Burns has contributed to numerous publications, with frequent appearances in the following venues:

  • Psychology in the Schools
  • School Psychology
  • Learning Disability Quarterly
  • Assessment for Effective Intervention
  • Journal of Learning Disabilities

Frequent co-authors include:

  • McKinzie D. Duesenberg-Marshall
  • Monica E. Romero
  • Kathrin E. Maki
  • Courtenay A. Barrett
  • Daniel B. Hajovsky

Some of their recent papers are as follows:

  • Evaluating components of the active view of reading as intervention targets: Implications for social justice, 2023, School Psychology
  • Comparison of Reading Growth Among Students With Severe Reading Deficits Who Received Intervention to Typically Achieving Students and Students Receiving Special Education, 2020, Journal of Learning Disabilities

Their research often intersects with practical educational challenges and intervention strategies, reflecting an interest in both the cognitive and social dimensions of learning. The scholar's work includes examining evidence-based interventions for chronic absenteeism, as reflected in related papers authored by other colleagues in the field, indicating a broader engagement with educational psychology issues.

Matthew K. Burns's dedication to exploring developmental and educational topics is marked by steady publication activity and collaboration across a well-defined network of researchers. Their contributions touch on multiple domains that influence student learning outcomes, including psychosocial development and assessment methodologies.

Best Publications

  • Reported Prevalence of Evidence-Based Instructional Practices in Special Education

    Matthew K. Burns;James E. Ysseldyke

  • Meta-Analytic Review of Responsiveness-To- Intervention Research: Examining Field-Based and Research-Implemented Models

    Matthew K. Burns;James J. Appleton;Jonathan D. Stehouwer

  • Evaluating Educational Interventions: Single-Case Design for Measuring Response to Intervention

    T. Chris Riley-Tillman;Matthew K. Burns

  • Implementing Response-to-Intervention in Elementary and Secondary Schools: Procedures to Assure Scientific-Based Practices

    Matthew K. Burns;Kimberly A. Gibbons

  • Meta-analysis of acquisition and fluency math interventions with instructional and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction

    Matthew K. Burns;Robin S. Codding;Christina H. Boice;G. Lukito

  • A Meta-analysis of Prereferral Intervention Teams: Student and Systemic Outcomes

    Matthew K Burns;Todd Symington

  • Reading at the Frustration, Instructional, and Independent Levels: The Effects on Students’ Reading Comprehension and Time on Task

    Megan A. Treptow;Matthew K. Burns;Jennifer J. McComas

  • Handbook of response to intervention : the science and practice of assessment and intervention

    Shane R. Jimerson;Matthew K. Burns;Amanda M. VanDerHeyden

  • Meta-Analysis of Mathematic Basic-Fact Fluency Interventions: A Component Analysis

    Robin S. Codding;Matthew K. Burns;Gracia Lukito

  • Handbook of response to intervention : the science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support

    Shane R. Jimerson;Matthew K. Burns;Amanda M. VanDerHeyden

  • Ethical and legal issues associated with using response-to-intervention to assess learning disabilities.

    Matthew K. Burns;Susan Jacob;Angela R. Wagner

  • Assessing the Instructional Level for Mathematics: A Comparison of Methods.

    Matthew K. Burns;Amanda M. VanDerHeyden;Cynthia L. Jiban

  • Does the timing of grade retention make a difference? Examining the effects of early versus later retention

    Benjamin Silberglitt;Shane R. Jimerson;Matthew K. Burns;James J. Appleton

  • Relationship of reading fluency assessment data with state accountability test scores: A longitudinal comparison of grade levels

    Benjamin Silberglitt;Matthew K. Burns;Na'im H. Madyun;Kathryn E. Lail

  • Using incremental rehearsal to increase fluency of single-digit multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation

    Matthew K. Burns

  • Comparison of Existing Responsiveness-To-Intervention Models to Identify and Answer Implementation Questions

    Matthew K. Burns;James E. Ysseldyke

  • Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention

    Matthew K. Burns;Barbara V. Senesac

  • Using Curriculum-Based Assessment and Curriculum-Based Measurement to Guide Elementary Mathematics Instruction: Effect on Individual and Group Accountability Scores.

    Amanda M. VanDerHeyden;Matthew K. Burns

  • Handbook of response to intervention

    Shane R. Jimerson;Matthew K. Burns;Amanda M. VanDerHeyden

  • School Psychology Research: Combining Ecological Theory and Prevention Science

    Matthew K. Burns

Frequent Co-Authors

Amanda M. VanDerHeyden
Amanda M. VanDerHeyden University of California, Santa Barbara
Shane R. Jimerson
Shane R. Jimerson University of California, Santa Barbara
James E. Ysseldyke
James E. Ysseldyke University of Minnesota
T. Chris Riley-Tillman
T. Chris Riley-Tillman University of Missouri
Kristen L. McMaster
Kristen L. McMaster University of Minnesota
Robert J. Volpe
Robert J. Volpe Northeastern University
Theodore J. Christ
Theodore J. Christ University of Minnesota
Stanley L. Deno
Stanley L. Deno University of Minnesota
Edward S. Shapiro
Edward S. Shapiro Lehigh University
Amy M. Briesch
Amy M. Briesch Northeastern 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

Studying psychology in the USA opens the door to a range of online degrees and diverse career opportunities. One of the most in-demand roles is substance abuse counseling, where professionals help individuals recover from addiction and rebuild their lives. Pursuing this career often requires specialized education, state licensure, and supervised experience.

Many online psychology programs now offer concentrations in addiction studies, counseling, or clinical psychology, making it easier to gain the qualifications needed for these roles. For more specific insights, the Chesapeake substance abuse counselors education requirements and Chula Vista substance abuse counselors education requirements outline regional differences in training and credentials.

Local regulations vary, so understanding requirements in different cities, such as when becoming a substance abuse counselor in Chicago or learning how to become a substance abuse counselor in Cincinnati, is essential. With flexible online degree options and growing demand, a psychology background can lead to rewarding careers in counseling, social services, and mental health.

Best Scientists Citing Matthew K. Burns

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles