{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014814814814814815, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012037037037037037, 'mean_word_length': 5.2485549132947975, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Citation Analysis of Doctoral-Granting Programs in Special Education and Relationships Among Measures of Program Quality

Citation analysis involves compiling the citations of the work of university faculties. It yields an objective and replicable estimate of scholarly productivity and a reliable measure of program reputation. In this study, a citation analysis was conducted for faculties at 81 doctoral-granting special education programs. Citations per faculty over 2 years averaged 7.23; the mode was 0. Rankings of programs based upon citations were closely related to rankings from a reputational survey and a publication count. Subsequently, an analysis was conducted using 37 programs ranked in the top 20 on at least one measure of program quality. Only nominations on a reputation survey proved to be closely related to citations. Stepwise multiple regression indicated that 68% of the variance in nominations could be explained by a combination of three measures. The high predictability of nominations suggests that they are less subjective than previously argued.