CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 683Methodologies in Health Research and PracticeQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsEducational Research and Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Distinctions Between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework

Varpio, Lara, Paradis, Elise, Uijtdehaage, Sebastian, Young, Meredith·2020·Academic Medicine
DOI 10.1097/acm.0000000000003075
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Health professions education (HPE) researchers are regularly asked to articulate their use of theory, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks in their research. However, all too often, these words are used interchangeably or without a clear understanding of the differences between these concepts. Further problematizing this situation is the fact that theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework are terms that are used in different ways in different research approaches. In this article, the authors set out to clarify the meaning of these terms and to describe how they are used in 2 approaches to research commonly used in HPE: the objectivist deductive approach (from theory to data) and the subjectivist inductive approach (from data to theory). In addition to this, given that within subjectivist inductive research theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework can be used in different ways, they describe 3 uses that HPE researchers frequently rely on: fully inductive theory development, fully theory-informed inductive, and theory-informing inductive data analysis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000003075

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Grant, 2014, Understanding, selection, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”, Adm Issues J: Connect Educ Pract Res, 4, 12

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 683

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Varpio, L., Paradis, E., Uijtdehaage, S., & Young, M.
Affiliations
  • Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Varpio, Lara
ORCID
Venue
Academic Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2019-11-12
Volume
95
Issue
7
Pages
989-994
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/acm.0000000000003075
OpenAlex
W2983904256
Cited by
681
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 117 · 2025: 130 · 2024: 118 · 2023: 136 · 2022: 103 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 1
FWCI
49.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
theory, theoretical framework, conceptual framework, health professions education research
MeSH terms
Concept Formation, Health Occupations, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Research Design, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review