Cited by 148Methodologies in Health Research and PracticeQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education Studies

Enhancing methodological clarity: principle‐based concept analysis

Penrod, Janice, Hupcey, Judith E.·2005·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Aims. The aim of this paper is to operationalize the principle‐based method of concept analysis. Background. While nursing has embraced the use of concept analysis as a valid and significant entrée into an area of research, methodological development has created strategies of inquiry that vary in purpose and in the nature of their findings. Discussion. We propose that, as the primary utility of concept analysis is to determine the existing state of the science so that further work may be strategically and appropriately planned, the method described as principle‐based concept analysis is superior in providing evidence to support subsequent inquiry into the concept of interest. Three problematic issues are discussed in an effort to clarify and procedurally explicate the strategies employed in this approach: selecting disciplinary literatures for inclusion in the analysis; conceptually‐driven sampling issues; and within‐ and across‐discipline analytic techniques. Conclusion. In this form of concept analysis, each principle contributes to an understanding of the strengths and limitations of the present state of the concept in the scientific literature. We believe that this perspective will enable nursing to begin to harness the power of concept analysis for advancing science rather than simply imagining what a concept could be or constructing what we believe it should be.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03405.x

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Penrod, J., & Hupcey, J. E.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-04-12
Volume
50
Issue
4
Pages
403-409
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2110542712
Cited by
148
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Diverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education Studies
Keywords
conceptual analysis, nursing theory development, methodological clarity, sampling strategy, interdisciplinary analysis, nursing knowledge development
MeSH terms
Concept Formation, Humans, Nursing Theory, Review Literature as Topic, Nursing 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