CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 319Methodologies in Health Research and PracticeQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsHealth Education and Validation

Rodgers’ evolutionary concept analysis-a valid method for developing knowledge in nursing science

Tofthagen, Randi, Fagerstrøm, Lisbeth M.·2010·Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences
DOI 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00845.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In nursing science, concept development is a necessary prerequisite for meaningful basic research. Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis is a method for developing knowledge in nursing science. The purpose of this article is to present Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis as a valid scientific method. A brief description of the evolutionary process, from data collection to data analysis, with the concepts' context, surrogate and related terms, antecedents, attributes, examples and consequences, is presented. The phases used in evolutionary concept analysis are illustrated with eight actual studies (1999-2009) from nursing research. The strength of the method is that it is systematic, with a focus on clear-cut phases during the analysis process, and that it can contribute to clarifying, describing and explaining concepts central to nursing science by analysing how a chosen concept has been used both within the discipline itself and other health sciences. While an interdisciplinary perspective which stresses the similarities and dissimilarities of how a concept is used in various disciplines can increase knowledge of a concept, it is important to clarify the specific with the discipline. Nursing research should focus on the unambiguous use of concepts, for which Rodgers' method constitutes a possible method. The importance of using quality criteria to determine the inclusion of material should, however, be emphasised in the continued development of the method.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00845.x

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tofthagen, R., & Fagerstrøm, L. M.
Affiliations
Lovisenberg Diakonale Høgskole (NO)
ORCID
Tofthagen, Randi
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-11-11
Volume
24
Issue
s1
Pages
21-31
ISSN
  • 0283-9318 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-6712
DOI
10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00845.x
OpenAlex
W1730782518
Cited by
319
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12
FWCI
7.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences (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
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
concept development, nursing science, interdisciplinary perspectives, nursing knowledge development
MeSH terms
Nursing, Knowledge

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