Cited by 39Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsMethodologies in Health Research and PracticeHealth Education and Validation

Principle-Based Concept Analysis Methodology Using a Phased Approach With Quality Criteria

Open access
Smith, Stephanie, Mörelius, Evalotte·2021·International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/16094069211057995

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

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
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
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