Author-level bibliometrics are one way to measure scholarly contributions. Such metrics are often calculated from journals indexed in the Web of Science TM . Google Scholar more comprehensively reflects the contributions of special education scholars by including many more social science and education journals. The current study analyzed 348 publicly available Google Scholar profiles of special education faculty at 213 U.S. universities to explore currently available measures (i.e., citation counts, h-index, i10-index). Using descriptive statistics, quartile distributions, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), we identified several significant differences across variables based on academic rank and Carnegie classification with medium to large effect sizes. Currently reported metrics (i.e., citation counts, h-index, i10-index) advantaged scholars with higher academic rank and those working at universities with a greater amount of research activity. Suggestions are offered to support career development.

Purpose To systematically review the misrepresentations and misapplications of Johnson’s typology of violence in the empirical research on intimate partner violence (IPV). Method We systematically review and critically evaluate conceptual and methodological errors in the peer-reviewed, empirical IPV research that tests Johnson’s typology, published 1995 to March 31, 2021. Findings Thirty-four studies meeting our inclusion criteria were deemed to be conceptual misrepresentations and/or methodological misapplications in testing Johnson’s typology, to varying degrees. Conclusions Direct tests of Johnson’s typology and related assumptions are necessary for evaluating the validity and utility of the typology. However, errors in conceptualization and/or operationalization ultimately preclude fair testing of the typology, whether study findings refute or support its use. Our review of the literature suggests that a sizeable amount of empirical evidence is flawed, hindering potential theoretical advances, and provides insight to the ongoing impasse between feminist and family violence scholars regarding the validity and utility of Johnson’s typology.

Purpose: To assess the state of empirical research on Johnson's typology of violence. Method: Using the PRISMA Statement guidelines, we systematically review and critically evaluate peer-reviewed, empirical research studies testing Johnson's typology, published 1995 to March 31, 2021. Findings: Forty-four studies tested Johnson's typology using accurate conceptualization and operationalization of the typology. Findings from included studies provided overwhelming support for Johnson's typology, with only few exceptions. Conclusions: Direct tests of Johnson's assumptions are necessary for revising and strengthening the utility of the typology. Future research should carefully attend to the conceptual definitions of Johnson's typology and integrate explicit testing of assumptions throughout study designs.