Principle-Based Concept Analysis Methodology Using a Phased Approach With Quality Criteria
Open accessAbstract
The study aimed to provide a detailed description of a process to conduct a phased principle-based concept analysis and to introduce quality criteria assessment for a phased principle-based concept analysis. Concept analysis explores how a concept is described, used and measured in the literature. This conceptual understanding is important to guide translational research to direct the development of evidence-based practice. The principle-based concept analysis is one approach of concept analysis used in published work, but the literature is lacking in articles clearly describing how to conduct it in practice. This article provides a methodology utilising a phased approach and by advancing on previous work; this approach includes a combination of a systematic search, quality criteria and qualitative analysis with principle-based concept analysis. Quality criteria for a phased principle-based concept analysis is introduced to critically assess articles against the four principles: epistemology, pragmatic, linguistic and logical. These improvements to the methodology promote transparency, rigour and replicability. This comprehensive systematic approach will aid future phased principle-based concept analyses and enable future comparisons of concept development, advancement and related concepts to improve the evidence base.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 · Cited by 26,092 · see citing works
Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019) · Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health · doi:10.1080/2159676x.2019.1628806 · Cited by 19,677 · see citing works
Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews
Thomas, J., Harden, A., Oakley, A., Oliver, S., Sutcliffe, K., Rees, R., Brunton, G., & Kavanagh, J. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7446.1010 · Cited by 515 · cited 2× · see citing works
“In other methods of concept analysis which have been advanced, Smith et al. (2020) adapted Rodgers (1989) Evolutionary Method with a systematic integrative review and used a descriptive thematic synthesis (Thomas et al., 2004).”
MethodState of the science of maternal–infant bonding: A principle-based concept analysis
Bicking Kinsey, C., & Hupcey, J. E. (2013) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2012.12.019 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Women’s experiences of their maternity care: a principle-based concept analysis
Beecher, C., Devane, D., White, M., Greene, R., & Dowling, M. (2020) · Women and Birth · doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2019.11.001 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Smith, S., & Mörelius, E.
- Affiliations
- Edith Cowan University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Smith, Stephanie
- Venue
- International Journal of Qualitative Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-01
- Volume
- 20
- ISSN
- 1609-4069 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3214986318
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 6.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Qualitative Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Australasian Journal of Paramedicine (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- phased approach, quality standards, epistemology, pragmatics, linguistic principles, logical principles, translational research, evidence-based practice
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