World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Nathalie Aelterman

Nathalie Aelterman

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Psychology 36 9411 8795 136 128 78 7145

Nathalie Aelterman publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Nathalie Aelterman between 2010 and 2023, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Nathalie Aelterman published across 14 years, from 2010 to 2023, averaging 6 papers a year. Output peaked at 15 publications in 2019. 3 of the 84 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2010 to 2023. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 15. Peak 15 publications in 2019. 2010: 2 publications 2011: 2 publications 2012: 2 publications 2013: 7 publications 2014: 8 publications 2015: 8 publications 2016: 13 publications 2017: 6 publications 2018: 7 publications 2019: 15 publications 2020: 5 publications 2021: 6 publications 2022: 2 publications 2023: 1 publication
2010 2023

84 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Nathalie Aelterman: publications per year, 2010 to 2023
Year Publications
2010 2
2011 2
2012 2
2013 7
2014 8
2015 8
2016 13
2017 6
2018 7
2019 15
2020 5
2021 6
2022 2
2023 1
Total 84
Download as CSV

Nathalie Aelterman 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 Nathalie Aelterman 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, 71–80 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: 78 publications — 8th percentile

8% 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 78
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
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

Nathalie Aelterman 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 Nathalie Aelterman 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, 36–37 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: 36 D-Index — 19th percentile

19% 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 36
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
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

Nathalie Aelterman is affiliated with Ghent University in Belgium and has contributed extensively to the fields of psychology and social sciences, with a particular focus on social psychology and developmental and educational psychology. Their research spans areas such as motivation and self-concept in sports, youth development and social support, and education, achievement, and giftedness.

The main topics addressed in their work include:

  • Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Youth Development and Social Support
  • Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies

Aelterman's publication record features research in several peer-reviewed journals. Notable papers include:

  • The role of teachers' motivation and mindsets in predicting a (de)motivating teaching style in higher education: a circumplex approach (2020), published in Motivation and Emotion
  • Fostering student engagement with motivating teaching: an observation study of teacher and student behaviours (2020), published in Research Papers in Education
  • Adopting the Situation in School Questionnaire to Examine Physical Education Teachers' Motivating and Demotivating Styles Using a Circumplex Approach (2021), published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
  • Why Do Sport Coaches Adopt a Controlling Coaching Style? The Role of an Evaluative Context and Psychological Need Frustration (2020), published in The Sport Psychologist
  • Understanding shifts in students' academic motivation across a school year: the role of teachers' motivating styles and need-based experiences (2022), published in European Journal of Psychology of Education

Frequent publication venues for Aelterman's work include:

  • Motivation and Emotion
  • Research Papers in Education
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
  • European Journal of Psychology of Education
  • The Sport Psychologist

Collaborations are a significant aspect of Aelterman's research, with repeated co-authorship involving several researchers, notably:

  • Maarten Vansteenkiste
  • Leen Haerens
  • Branko Vermote
  • Wim Beyers
  • Leen Aper

Their work is interdisciplinary, intersecting psychology subfields such as social psychology, experimental and cognitive psychology, and clinical psychology. The research results contribute to understanding motivational processes in educational and sports contexts as well as behavioral health interventions.

Best Publications

  • Do perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education students' motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and dark side of motivation

    Leen Haerens;Nathalie Aelterman;Maarten Vansteenkiste;Bart Soenens

  • Identifying Configurations of Perceived Teacher Autonomy Support and Structure: Associations with Self-Regulated Learning, Motivation and Problem Behavior.

    Maarten Vansteenkiste;Eline Sierens;Luc Goossens;Bart Soenens

  • Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach

    Nathalie Aelterman;Maarten Vansteenkiste;Leen Haerens;Bart Soenens

  • Observing physical education teachers' need-supportive interactions in classroom settings

    Leen Haerens;Nathalie Aelterman;Lynn Van den Berghe;Jotie De Meyer

  • Fostering Personal Meaning and Self-relevance: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Internalization

    Maarten Vansteenkiste;Nathalie Aelterman;Gert-Jan De Muynck;Leen Haerens

  • Students' objectively measured physical activity levels and engagement as a function of between-class and between-student differences in motivation toward physical education.

    Nathalie Aelterman;Maarten Vansteenkiste;Hilde Van Keer;Lynn Van den Berghe

  • Does observed controlling teaching behavior relate to students’ motivation in physical education?

    Jotie De Meyer;Isabel B. Tallir;Bart Soenens;Maarten Vansteenkiste

  • Fostering a need-supportive teaching style: intervention effects on physical education teachers' beliefs and teaching behaviors.

    Nathalie Aelterman;Maarten Vansteenkiste;Lynn Van den Berghe;Jotie De Meyer

  • Different combinations of perceived autonomy support and control: identifying the most optimal motivating style

    L. Haerens;M. Vansteenkiste;A. De Meester;J. Delrue

  • Development and evaluation of a training on need-supportive teaching in physical education: qualitative and quantitative findings

    N. Aelterman;M. Vansteenkiste;H. Van Keer;J. De Meyer

  • Observed need-supportive and need-thwarting teaching behavior in physical education: Do teachers' motivational orientations matter?

    Lynn Van den Berghe;Bart Soenens;Maarten Vansteenkiste;Nathalie Aelterman

  • Within-person profiles of teachers' motivation to teach: Associations with need satisfaction at work, need-supportive teaching, and burnout

    Lynn Van den Berghe;Bart Soenens;Nathalie Aelterman;Greet Cardon

  • Do students with different motives for physical education respond differently to autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching?

    Jotie De Meyer;Bart Soenens;Maarten Vansteenkiste;Nathalie Aelterman

  • Adopting a helicopter-perspective towards motivating and demotivating coaching: A circumplex approach

    Jochen Delrue;Bart Reynders;Gert Vande Broek;Nathalie Aelterman

  • Changing teachers' beliefs regarding autonomy support and structure: The role of experienced psychological need satisfaction in teacher training

    Nathalie Aelterman;Maarten Vansteenkiste;Hilde Van Keer;Leen Haerens

  • Fostering student engagement with motivating teaching: an observation study of teacher and student behaviours

    Miriam Cents-Boonstra;Anna Lichtwarck-Aschoff;Eddie Denessen;Nathalie Aelterman

  • Seeking Stability in Stormy Educational Times: A Need-based Perspective on (De)motivating Teaching Grounded in Self-determination Theory

    Maarten Vansteenkiste;Nathalie Aelterman;Leen Haerens;Bart Soenens

  • Extracurricular school-based sports as a motivating vehicle for sports participation in youth: a cross-sectional study

    An De Meester;An De Meester;Nathalie Aelterman;Greet Cardon;Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij

  • Promoting elementary school students' autonomous reading motivation: Effects of a teacher professional development workshop

    Jessie De Naeghel;Hilde Van Keer;Maarten Vansteenkiste;Leen Haerens

Frequent Co-Authors

Maarten Vansteenkiste
Maarten Vansteenkiste Ghent University
Leen Haerens
Leen Haerens Ghent University
Bart Soenens
Bart Soenens Ghent University
Greet Cardon
Greet Cardon Ghent University
Hilde Van Keer
Hilde Van Keer Ghent University
Eddie Denessen
Eddie Denessen Radboud University
Stijn Van Petegem
Stijn Van Petegem Université Libre de Bruxelles
Athanasios Mouratidis
Athanasios Mouratidis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Johnmarshall Reeve
Johnmarshall Reeve Australian Catholic University
Wim Beyers
Wim Beyers Ghent 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

Considering a degree in Psychology can open the door to diverse online programs and flexible career pathways. Many students now choose online counseling and psychology degrees for their affordability and convenience, allowing them to study while balancing other commitments.

One key factor to consider is cost. For example, students seeking affordable counseling programs in Saint Louis or looking for the cheapest counseling programs in Saint Paul have access to programs designed to minimize student debt.

Those residing in California or Washington can also explore affordable counseling degrees in San Diego or the cheapest counseling degrees in Seattle to further reduce the financial barriers to a rewarding career.

Ultimately, choosing the right online degree helps students enter dynamic roles in mental health, education, or social services. Online programs offer flexible timelines and a broad curriculum, supporting your long-term career growth in the psychology field.

Best Scientists Citing Nathalie Aelterman

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles