World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
30
Citations
6237
World Ranking
11290
National Ranking
5898

Stephen Stark 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 Stephen Stark 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: 98 publications — 19th percentile

19% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Stephen Stark 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 Stephen Stark 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: 30 D-Index — 1st percentile

1% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Stephen Stark is affiliated with the University of South Florida in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on psychological measurement, statistical modeling, and the development of testing methodologies within the field of psychology.

The scientist has contributed extensively to the area of psychometric methodologies and testing, with research also covering advanced statistical modeling techniques, cognitive abilities and testing, statistical methods and Bayesian inference, clinical trials, personality traits, and economic and environmental valuation.

Among their recent papers are:

  • The Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Forced-Choice Format Character Measure: Testing the Thurstonian IRT Approach (2020, Journal of Personality Assessment)
  • Detecting DIF in Multidimensional Forced Choice Measures Using the Thurstonian Item Response Theory Model (2020, Organizational Research Methods)
  • Adaptive vocational interest diagnostic: Informing and improving the job assignment process (2020, Military Psychology)
  • Examining personality for the selection and classification of soldiers: Validity and differential validity across jobs (2020, Military Psychology)
  • Modeling Multidimensional Forced Choice Measures with the Zinnes and Griggs Pairwise Preference Item Response Theory Model (2021, Multivariate Behavioral Research)

Frequent publication venues for their work include:

  • Applied Psychological Measurement
  • Military Psychology
  • Organizational Research Methods
  • Behavior Research Methods
  • PsycTESTS Dataset

Their research spans several subfields:

  • Management Science and Operations Research
  • Statistics and Probability
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Computer Networks and Communications

Frequently collaborating researchers include:

  • Seang-Hwane Joo
  • Philseok Lee
  • Naidan Tu
  • Christopher D. Nye
  • Fritz Drasgow

The work of Stephen Stark is situated mainly within psychology, tallying fourteen publications. Their contribution to psychometric methodologies and testing totals twenty publications, reflecting a primary focus on measurement techniques in psychological assessment.

Best Publications

  • THE STRUCTURE OF CONSCIENTIOUSNESS: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION BASED ON SEVEN MAJOR PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRES

    Brent W. Roberts;Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Stephen Stark;Lewis R. Goldberg

  • Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: toward a unified strategy.

    Stephen Stark;Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Fritz Drasgow

  • Fitting Item Response Theory Models to Two Personality Inventories: Issues and Insights

    Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Stephen Stark;Kim Yin Chan;Fritz Drasgow

  • Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring?

    Stephen Stark;Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Fritz Drasgow;Bruce A. Williams

  • An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales

    Walter C. Borman;Daren E. Buck;Mary Ann Hanson;Stephan J. Motowidlo

  • Job satisfaction as mediator: An assessment of job satisfaction's position within the nomological network

    Marcus Crede;Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Stephen Stark;Reeshad S. Dalal

  • Effects of the testing situation on item responding : Cause for concern

    Stephen Stark;Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Kim Yin Chan;Wayne C. Lee

  • An IRT Approach to Constructing and Scoring Pairwise Preference Items Involving Stimuli on Different Dimensions: The Multi-Unidimensional Pairwise-Preference Model

    Stephen Stark;Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Fritz Drasgow

  • Openness to Experience: its lower level structure, measurement, and cross-cultural equivalence.

    Sang Eun Woo;Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Andrew Longley;Zhi-Xue Zhang

  • A lexical investigation of the lower-order structure of conscientiousness.

    Brent W. Roberts;Tim Bogg;Kate E. Walton;Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko

  • Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: Toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures

    Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Stephen Stark;Fritz Drasgow;Brent W. Roberts

  • Examining the effects of differential item (functioning and differential) test functioning on selection decisions: when are statistically significant effects practically important?

    Stephen Stark;Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Fritz Drasgow

  • 75 Years After Likert: Thurstone Was Right!

    Fritz Drasgow;Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Stephen Stark

  • Toward standardized measurement of sexual harassment: Shortening the SEQ-DoD using item response theory.

    Stephen Stark;Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Anita R. Lancaster;Fritz Drasgow

  • An investigation of appearance motives for tanning: The development and evaluation of the Physical Appearance Reasons For Tanning Scale (PARTS) and its relation to sunbathing and indoor tanning intentions.

    Guy Cafri;J. Kevin Thompson;Megan Roehrig;Patricia van den Berg

  • From ABLE to TAPAS: A New Generation of Personality Tests to Support Military Selection and Classification Decisions

    Stephen Stark;Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Fritz Drasgow;Christopher D. Nye

  • Cultural Intelligence as a Mediator of Relationships Between Openness to Experience and Adaptive Performance

    T. Oolders;Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Stephen Stark

  • Adaptive Testing With Multidimensional Pairwise Preference Items Improving the Efficiency of Personality and Other Noncognitive Assessments

    Stephen E. Stark;Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Fritz Drasgow;Leonard A. White

  • Validity of six openness facets in predicting work behaviors: a meta-analysis.

    Sang Eun Woo;Oleksandr S Chernyshenko;Stephen E Stark;Gabriella Conz

  • Individual differences, their measurement, and validity

    Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko;Stephen Stark;Fritz Drasgow

  • Development of the Tailored Adaptive Personality Assessment System (TAPAS) to Support Army Personnel Selection and Classification Decisions

    Fritz Drasgow;Stephen Stark;Oleksandr S Chernyshenko;Christopher D Nye

Frequent Co-Authors

Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko
Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko Nanyang Technological University
Fritz Drasgow
Fritz Drasgow University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Louis Tay
Louis Tay Purdue University West Lafayette
Tammy D. Allen
Tammy D. Allen University of South Florida
Brent W. Roberts
Brent W. Roberts University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
James Rounds
James Rounds University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Chi-Yue Chiu
Chi-Yue Chiu Chinese University of Hong Kong
J. Kevin Thompson
J. Kevin Thompson University of South Florida
Marina A. Bornovalova
Marina A. Bornovalova University of South Florida
John M. Ferron
John M. Ferron University of South Florida

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

Psychology graduates have a wide array of career opportunities available, often beyond traditional clinical roles. Many choose to pursue online degrees in counseling, behavioral health, or social work to enhance their employability and flexibility. Each U.S. state has specific education and licensure requirements for becoming a social worker, a popular career path for psychology majors.

For example, knowing the degree needed to be a social worker in Florida is crucial for anyone wanting to work in that state. Similarly, understanding the Georgia minimum degree requirement for social workers helps ensure you meet local standards.

If you’re considering relocating, it’s important to verify requirements like the Hawaii education requirements for social workers or the Idaho education requirements for social workers. Understanding these details early allows you to plan the right educational pathway and streamline your journey toward a fulfilling career in mental health or social services.

Best Scientists Citing Stephen Stark

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles