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 75 1781 1602 102 97 266 21311

Theo G. van Tilburg publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Theo G. van Tilburg between 1984 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Theo G. van Tilburg published across 42 years, from 1984 to 2025, averaging 8.3 papers a year. Output peaked at 18 publications in 2014. 13 of the 348 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1984 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 18. Peak 18 publications in 2014. 1984: 1 publication 1985: 3 publications 1986: 0 publications 1987: 3 publications 1988: 0 publications 1989: 3 publications 1990: 5 publications 1991: 3 publications 1992: 4 publications 1993: 0 publications 1994: 0 publications 1995: 7 publications 1996: 8 publications 1997: 12 publications 1998: 12 publications 1999: 10 publications 2000: 5 publications 2001: 2 publications 2002: 10 publications 2003: 7 publications 2004: 9 publications 2005: 10 publications 2006: 9 publications 2007: 15 publications 2008: 10 publications 2009: 3 publications 2010: 16 publications 2011: 10 publications 2012: 11 publications 2013: 15 publications 2014: 18 publications 2015: 9 publications 2016: 8 publications 2017: 13 publications 2018: 18 publications 2019: 15 publications 2020: 16 publications 2021: 17 publications 2022: 11 publications 2023: 7 publications 2024: 4 publications 2025: 9 publications
1984 2025

348 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Theo G. van Tilburg: publications per year, 1984 to 2025
Year Publications
1984 1
1985 3
1986 0
1987 3
1988 0
1989 3
1990 5
1991 3
1992 4
1993 0
1994 0
1995 7
1996 8
1997 12
1998 12
1999 10
2000 5
2001 2
2002 10
2003 7
2004 9
2005 10
2006 9
2007 15
2008 10
2009 3
2010 16
2011 10
2012 11
2013 15
2014 18
2015 9
2016 8
2017 13
2018 18
2019 15
2020 16
2021 17
2022 11
2023 7
2024 4
2025 9
Total 348
Download as CSV

Theo G. van Tilburg 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 Theo G. van Tilburg 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, 261–270 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: 266 publications — 83rd percentile

83% 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
221–230 283
231–240 226
241–250 196
251–260 201
261–270 171 266
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

Theo G. van Tilburg 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 Theo G. van Tilburg 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, 74–75 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: 75 D-Index — 85th percentile

85% 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
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 75
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

Theo G. van Tilburg is a researcher affiliated with Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Their academic work primarily spans across social sciences, psychology, and health professions, with a particular emphasis on health disparities, aging, and psychological well-being. The scholar's research activities show a focus on health outcomes and societal factors affecting older populations.

The main fields of study in which they have contributed include:

  • Social Sciences
  • Psychology
  • Health Professions

Their detailed subfields of study incorporate:

  • Health
  • General Health Professions
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Social Psychology
  • Demography

The research topics Theo G. van Tilburg frequently addresses cover a range of social and health-related areas, such as:

  • Health disparities and outcomes
  • Intergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
  • Employment and Welfare Studies
  • Health, psychology, and well-being
  • Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Aging and Gerontology Research
  • COVID-19 and Mental Health

Their publication record includes numerous contributions to respected academic venues. Frequent publication outlets include:

  • The Journals of Gerontology Series B (7 publications)
  • BMJ Open (2 publications)
  • The Gerontologist (2 publications)
  • Tijdschrift voor Gerontologie en Geriatrie (2 publications)
  • Arabixiv (OSF Preprints) (1 publication)

Recent notable papers authored or co-authored by Theo G. van Tilburg include:

  • "Loneliness and Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Study Among Dutch Older Adults," 2020, The Journals of Gerontology Series B
  • "Social, Emotional, and Existential Loneliness: A Test of the Multidimensional Concept," 2020, The Gerontologist

Other relevant recent works associated with their research interests, though authored by collaborators, contextualize the field in which they work:

  • "manual De Jong GIerveld Loneliness Scale," 2023, Arabixiv (OSF Preprints)
  • "The Impact of COVID-19 Measures on Well-Being of Older Long-Term Care Facility Residents in the Netherlands," 2020, Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
  • "Consensus statement: loneliness in older adults, the 21st century social determinant of health?," 2020, BMJ Open

Theo G. van Tilburg frequently collaborates with several researchers in their field, including:

  • Tineke Fokkema
  • Martijn Huisman
  • Bianca Suanet
  • Marjolein Visser
  • Dorly J. H. Deeg

Best Publications

  • A 6-Item Scale for Overall, Emotional, and Social Loneliness: Confirmatory Tests on Survey Data

    Jenny De Jong Gierveld

  • The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: tested on data from 7 countries in the UN Generations and Gender Surveys

    Jenny De Jong Gierveld;Theo Van Tilburg

  • Loneliness and Social Isolation

    Jenny de Jong Gierveld;Theo van Tilburg;Pearl A. Dykstra

  • Feelings of loneliness, but not social isolation, predict dementia onset: results from the Amsterdam Study of the Elderly (AMSTEL)

    Tjalling Jan Holwerda;Dorly J H Deeg;Aartjan T F Beekman;Theo G van Tilburg

  • Major and minor depression in later life: a study of prevalence and risk factors

    Aartjan T.F. Beekman;Dorly J.H Deeg;Theo van Tilburg;Jan H. Smit

  • Loneliness and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A study among Dutch older adults.

    Theo G van Tilburg;Stephanie Steinmetz;Stephanie Steinmetz;Elske Stolte;Henriëtte van der Roest

  • Effects of Social Support and Personal Coping Resources on Mortality in Older Age: The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam

    B.W.J.H. Penninx;T. van Tilburg;D.M.W. Kriegsman;D.J.H. Deeg

  • Changes in Older Adult Loneliness : Results From a Seven-Year Longitudinal Study

    Pearl A. Dykstra;Theo G. van Tilburg;Jenny de Jong Gierveld

  • Cohort Profile: The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam

    Martijn Huisman;Jan Poppelaars;Marleen van der Horst;Aartjan T F Beekman

  • Losing and Gaining in Old Age: Changes in Personal Network Size and Social Support in a Four-Year Longitudinal Study

    T.G. van Tilburg

  • Effects of social support and personal coping resources on depressive symptoms: Different for various chronic diseases?

    B.W.J.H. Penninx;T.G. van Tilburg;A.J.P. Boeke;D.J.H. Deeg

  • Activity in Older Adults Cause or Consequence of Cognitive Functioning? A Longitudinal Study on Everyday Activities and Cognitive Performance in Older Adults

    Marja J. Aartsen;Carolien H. M. Smits;Theo van Tilburg;Kees C. P. M. Knipscheer

  • Attrition in the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam: The effect of differential inclusion in side studies

    Dorly J.H. Deeg;Theo van Tilburg;Johannes H. Smit;Edith D. de Leeuw

  • Living arrangements and social networks of older adults

    C.P.M. Knipscheer;J. de Jong-Gierveld;T.G. van Tilburg;P.A. Dykstra

  • Perceived instrumental support exchanges in relationships between elderly parents and their adult children: Normative and structural explanations

    Karen Klein Ikkink;Theo van Tilburg;Kees C. P. M. Knipscheer

  • Increased risk of mortality associated with social isolation in older men: only when feeling lonely? Results from the Amsterdam Study of the Elderly (AMSTEL)

    Tjalling J. Holwerda;Aartjan T. F. Beekman;Dorly J. H. Deeg;Max L Stek

  • Direct and buffer effects of social support and personal coping resources in individuals with arthritis

    B.W.J.H. Penninx;T. van Tilburg;D.J.H. Deeg;D.M.W. Kriegsman

  • Social network, social support, and loneliness in older persons with different chronic diseases

    Brenda W.J.H. Penninx;Theo van Tilburg;Didi M. W. Kriegsman;A. Joan P. Boeke

  • The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam: cohort update 2016 and major findings.

    Emiel O. Hoogendijk;Dorly J. H. Deeg;Jan Poppelaars;Marleen van der Horst

  • Living arrangements and social networks as interlocking mediating structures

    Kees Knipscheer;Pearl Dykstra;Jenny de Jong Gierveld;Theo van Tilburg

  • Prospective effects of hearing status on loneliness and depression in older persons: Identification of subgroups

    Marieke Pronk;Dorly J H Deeg;Cas Smits;Theo G van Tilburg

  • Explaining the gender gap in the caregiving burden of partner caregivers

    Joukje Swinkels;Theo van Tilburg;Ellen Verbakel;Marjolein Broese van Groenou

  • A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Physical and Cognitive Decline on the Personal Network in Old Age

    Marja J. Aartsen;Theo van Tilburg;Carolien H. M. Smits;Kees C. P. M. Knipscheer

  • Loneliness and self-management abilities in the visually impaired elderly

    Manna A. Alma;Sijrike F. Van der Mei;W. Nathalie Feitsma;Johan W. Groothoff

  • Loneliness among Older Adults in the Netherlands, Italy, and Canada: A Multifaceted Comparison

    Theo van Tilburg;Betty Havens;Jenny de Jong Gierveld

  • Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping options and loneliness: how are they related?

    Eric C. Schoenmakers;Eric C. Schoenmakers;Theo G. van Tilburg;Tineke Fokkema

Frequent Co-Authors

Dorly J. H. Deeg
Dorly J. H. Deeg University of Amsterdam
Martijn Huisman
Martijn Huisman Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Aartjan T.F. Beekman
Aartjan T.F. Beekman Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Marja J. Aartsen
Marja J. Aartsen OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University
Jenny de Jong Gierveld
Jenny de Jong Gierveld Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Pearl A. Dykstra
Pearl A. Dykstra Erasmus University Rotterdam
Marjolein Visser
Marjolein Visser Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Anne-Rigt Poortman
Anne-Rigt Poortman Utrecht University
Aart C. Liefbroer
Aart C. Liefbroer Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

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 an online degree in Psychology can open doors to a variety of specialized career pathways. One popular option is pursuing a career as a speech-language pathologist (SLP), a role that combines knowledge of psychology, linguistics, and communication disorders to help clients improve their communication skills.

The requirements for becoming an SLP vary by state. If you are interested in learning about slp requirements in North Carolina, you will find distinct steps related to education, licensure, and clinical experience. For those wanting to learn how to become a speech language pathologist in North Dakota, the process includes state-specific certification exams and required supervised practice hours.

Similarly, aspiring professionals can explore slp requirements in Ohio, which highlight continuing education and practical experience. For those interested in working in Oklahoma, understanding the Oklahoma speech pathologist certification requirements is essential to meet all state regulations and begin a fulfilling career.

Exploring these career pathways can help you choose the right online degree and prepare for unique state licensure and certification processes across the U.S.

Best Scientists Citing Theo G. van Tilburg

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles