World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
91
Citations
32060
World Ranking
921
National Ranking
51

Medicine

D-Index
93
Citations
32635
World Ranking
10870
National Ranking
429

Robbert Sanderman 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 Robbert Sanderman 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: 517 publications — 97th percentile

97% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Robbert Sanderman 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 Robbert Sanderman 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: 91 D-Index — 92nd percentile

92% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Robbert Sanderman is affiliated with the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Their research primarily spans the fields of psychology and medicine, with a focus on clinical psychology, general health professions, social psychology, applied psychology, and sociology and political science.

The scientist's work includes extensive contributions to topics related to COVID-19 and mental health, digital mental health interventions, family caregiving in mental illness, intergenerational family dynamics and caregiving, psychological well-being and life satisfaction, health disparities and outcomes, and mobile health and mHealth applications.

Recent publications by Robbert Sanderman reflect a focus on the psychological and behavioral impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. These include:

  • Effects of COVID-19 Home Confinement on Eating Behaviour and Physical Activity: Results of the ECLB-COVID19 International Online Survey (2020), published in Nutrients
  • COVID-19 Home Confinement Negatively Impacts Social Participation and Life Satisfaction: A Worldwide Multicenter Study (2020), published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
  • Effects of home confinement on mental health and lifestyle behaviours during the COVID-19 outbreak: Insight from the ECLB-COVID19 multicenter study (2020), published in Biology of Sport
  • Psychological consequences of COVID-19 home confinement: The ECLB-COVID19 multicenter study (2020), published in PLoS ONE
  • Globally altered sleep patterns and physical activity levels by confinement in 5056 individuals: ECLB COVID-19 international online survey (2021), published in Biology of Sport

Their frequent collaborators include Mariët Hagedoorn, Julia E.W.C. van Gemert-Pijnen, Annemarie Braakman-Jansen, Christian Wrede, and Andrea Gaggioli.

Sanderman has published frequently in venues such as the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research), Psychology and Health, and the Journal of Medical Internet Research.

Best Publications

  • Translation, Validation, and Norming of the Dutch Language Version of the SF-36 Health Survey in Community and Chronic Disease Populations

    Neil K. Aaronson;Martin Müller;Peter D.A Cohen;Marie-Louise Essink-Bot

  • Effects of COVID-19 Home Confinement on Eating Behaviour and Physical Activity: Results of the ECLB-COVID19 International Online Survey.

    Achraf Ammar;Michael Brach;Khaled Trabelsi;Hamdi Chtourou

  • Distress in couples coping with cancer: A meta-analysis and critical review of role and gender effects

    Mariet Hagedoorn;Robbert Sanderman;Hilde N. Bolks;Jolanda Tuinstra

  • Effect of moderate or intensive disease management program on outcome in patients with heart failure: Coordinating Study Evaluating Outcomes of Advising and Counseling in Heart Failure (COACH).

    Tiny Jaarsma;Martje H. L. van der Wal;Ivonne Lesman-Leegte;Marie-Louise Luttik

  • Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain

    Eric van Sonderen;Robbert Sanderman;James C. Coyne

  • Psychometric qualities of the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0: a multidimensional measure of general health status.

    Karen I Van der Zee;Robbert Sanderman;Joost W Heyink;Hanneke de Haes

  • Cancer and caregiving: the impact on the caregiver's health

    C Nijboer;R Sanderman;M Triemstra;RJ Spruijt

  • A Reconsideration of the Self-Compassion Scale's Total Score: Self-Compassion versus Self-Criticism

    Angélica López;Robbert Sanderman;Ans Smink;Ying Zhang

  • Determinants of caregiving experiences and mental health of partners of cancer patients.

    C. Nijboer;M. Triemstra;R. Tempelaar;R. Sanderman

  • Couples dealing with cancer : Role and gender differences regarding psychological distress and quality of life

    Mariët Hagedoorn;Bram P. Buunk;Roeline G. Kuijer;Theo Wobbes

  • Type of social support matters for prediction of posttraumatic growth among cancer survivors

    Maya J. Schroevers;Vicki S. Helgeson;Robbert Sanderman;Adelita V. Ranchor

  • COVID-19 Home Confinement Negatively Impacts Social Participation and Life Satisfaction: A Worldwide Multicenter Study.

    Achraf Ammar;Achraf Ammar;Hamdi Chtourou;Omar Boukhris;Khaled Trabelsi

  • Leisure-time physical exercise: Prevalence, attitudinal correlates, and behavioral correlates among young Europeans from 21 countries

    Andrew Steptoe;Jane Wardle;Raymond Fuller;Arne Holte

  • Effects of home confinement on mental health and lifestyle behaviours during the COVID-19 outbreak: Insights from the ECLB-COVID19 multicentre study

    Achraf Ammar;Achraf Ammar;Khaled Trabelsi;Michael Brach;Hamdi Chtourou

  • Measuring both negative and positive reactions to giving care to cancer patients: psychometric qualities of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA)

    C Nijboer;M Triemstra;Robbert Sanderman;G.A M van den Bos

  • Identification and prediction of distress trajectories in the first year after a breast cancer diagnosis.

    Inge Henselmans;Vicki S. Helgeson;Howard Seltman;Jakob de Vries

  • Marital satisfaction in patients with cancer: does support from intimate partners benefit those who need it the most?

    Mariët Hagedoorn;Roeline G. Kuijer;Bram P. Buunk;G. Majella DeJong

  • The importance and impact of social support on outcomes in patients with heart failure: an overview of the literature.

    Marie Louise Luttik;Tiny Jaarsma;Debra Moser;Robbert Sanderman

  • The evaluation of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale: Depressed and Positive Affect in cancer patients and healthy reference subjects

    Maya J. Schroevers;Robbert Sanderman;Eric van Sonderen;Adelita V. Ranchor

  • Mutual reinforcement between neuroticism and life experiences: a five-wave, 16-year study to test reciprocal causation.

    Bertus F. Jeronimus;Harriette Riese;Robbert Sanderman;Johan Ormel

Frequent Co-Authors

Adelita V. Ranchor
Adelita V. Ranchor University Medical Center Groningen
Mariët Hagedoorn
Mariët Hagedoorn University Medical Center Groningen
Maya J. Schroevers
Maya J. Schroevers University Medical Center Groningen
Johan Ormel
Johan Ormel University Medical Center Groningen
James C. Coyne
James C. Coyne University of Groningen
Paul M. G. Emmelkamp
Paul M. G. Emmelkamp University of Amsterdam
Tiny Jaarsma
Tiny Jaarsma Linköping University
Bram P. Buunk
Bram P. Buunk University of Groningen
Dirk J. van Veldhuisen
Dirk J. van Veldhuisen University Medical Center Groningen
Gertrudis I. J. M. Kempen
Gertrudis I. J. M. Kempen Maastricht 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

Interested in expanding your psychology studies or opening up new career options? Online psychology degrees provide flexibility and access to students from diverse backgrounds. Choosing an affordable program can make higher education more accessible while delivering excellent academic value. For those in Missouri, the most affordable online bachelor's in psychology degree programs in St. Louis offer a great starting point for future psychologists and mental health professionals.

Students in other regions can also find cost-effective options, such as the affordable online psychology programs in Georgia and the affordable online psychology programs in Illinois. These programs are designed to accommodate busy schedules and those seeking to advance their education from the comfort of home.

Looking to further specialize or advance your career? California boasts some of the cheapest online psychology master's programs in California, preparing graduates for advanced roles in counseling, research, or academics. Exploring these online pathways can help you make affordable, well-informed decisions about your future in psychology.

Best Scientists Citing Robbert Sanderman

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles