Cited by 144Methodologies in Health Research and PracticeQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education Studies

Concept Analysis: Examining the State of the Science

Hupcey, Judith E., Penrod, Janice·2005·Research and Theory for Nursing Practice

Abstract

As methods for analyzing concepts have proliferated in nursing, a critical methodological issue has arisen. Analytic techniques for examining conceptual meaning have incorporated varied strategies for advancing the concept under the rubric of concept analysis, concept development, and theory building. The authors argue that this evolution has created methodological confusion. Following a discussion of a conceptualization of concepts and concept-theory-truth linkages, methods of concept analysis are critiqued in terms of the purpose and the nature of the findings produced by analyses using both traditional and emergent methods. The authors argue that concept analysis is a process of strategic examination of the scientific literature that results in an integrated perspective of the state of the science, or what is known about the concept. In contrast, concept advancement refers to techniques that emphasize the synthesis of new or deeper knowledge that is relevant to the discipline. The authors conclude that disentangling concept analysis from techniques for concept advancement is critical to enhancing the utility of concept-based research in nursing.

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 · 10.1891/rtnp.19.2.197.66801

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
Hupcey, J. E., & Penrod, J.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
Research and Theory for Nursing Practice
Published
2005-06
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
197-208
ISSN
  • 0889-7182 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-6577
  • 1945-7286
OpenAlex
W2073440269
Cited by
144
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research and theory for nursing practice (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, concept development, theory development, conceptual meaning, state of science, nursing research methodology
MeSH terms
Concept Formation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Nursing Theory, Philosophy, Nursing, Research Design, Science, Nursing Research, Models, Nursing, Evidence-Based Medicine, 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