Group concept mapping for health professions education scholarship

IF 3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Susan C. Mirabal, Darcy A. Reed, Yvonne Steinert, Cynthia R. Whitehead, Scott M. Wright, Sean Tackett
{"title":"Group concept mapping for health professions education scholarship","authors":"Susan C. Mirabal,&nbsp;Darcy A. Reed,&nbsp;Yvonne Steinert,&nbsp;Cynthia R. Whitehead,&nbsp;Scott M. Wright,&nbsp;Sean Tackett","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10331-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>While explicit conceptual models help to inform research, they are left out of much of the health professions education (HPE) literature. One reason may be the limited understanding about how to develop conceptual models with intention and rigor. Group concept mapping (GCM) is a mixed methods conceptualization approach that has been used to develop frameworks for planning and evaluation, but GCM has not been common in HPE. The purpose of this article is to describe GCM in order to make it more accessible for HPE scholars. We recount the origins and evolution of GCM and summarize its core features: GCM can combine multiple stakeholder perspectives in a systematic and inclusive manner to generate explicit conceptual models. Based on the literature and prior experience using GCM, we detail seven steps in GCM: (1) brainstorming ideas to a specific “focus prompt,” (2) preparing ideas by removing duplicates and editing for consistency, (3) sorting ideas according to conceptual similarity, (4) generating the point map through quantitative analysis, (5) interpreting cluster map options, (6) summarizing the final concept map, and (7) reporting and using the map. We provide illustrative examples from HPE studies and compare GCM to other conceptualization methods. GCM has great potential to add to the myriad of methodologies open to HPE researchers. Its alignment with principles of diversity and inclusivity, as well as the need to be systematic in applying theoretical and conceptual frameworks to practice, make it a method well suited for the complexities of contemporary HPE scholarship.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 5","pages":"1809 - 1823"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-024-10331-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While explicit conceptual models help to inform research, they are left out of much of the health professions education (HPE) literature. One reason may be the limited understanding about how to develop conceptual models with intention and rigor. Group concept mapping (GCM) is a mixed methods conceptualization approach that has been used to develop frameworks for planning and evaluation, but GCM has not been common in HPE. The purpose of this article is to describe GCM in order to make it more accessible for HPE scholars. We recount the origins and evolution of GCM and summarize its core features: GCM can combine multiple stakeholder perspectives in a systematic and inclusive manner to generate explicit conceptual models. Based on the literature and prior experience using GCM, we detail seven steps in GCM: (1) brainstorming ideas to a specific “focus prompt,” (2) preparing ideas by removing duplicates and editing for consistency, (3) sorting ideas according to conceptual similarity, (4) generating the point map through quantitative analysis, (5) interpreting cluster map options, (6) summarizing the final concept map, and (7) reporting and using the map. We provide illustrative examples from HPE studies and compare GCM to other conceptualization methods. GCM has great potential to add to the myriad of methodologies open to HPE researchers. Its alignment with principles of diversity and inclusivity, as well as the need to be systematic in applying theoretical and conceptual frameworks to practice, make it a method well suited for the complexities of contemporary HPE scholarship.

Abstract Image

为卫生专业教育学术研究绘制小组概念图。
虽然明确的概念模型有助于为研究提供信息,但在许多卫生专业教育(HPE)文献中却没有提及。原因之一可能是人们对如何有意、严谨地开发概念模型的理解有限。小组概念图(GCM)是一种混合方法概念化方法,已被用于制定规划和评估框架,但 GCM 在 HPE 中并不常见。本文旨在介绍 GCM,使 HPE 学者更容易理解。我们叙述了 GCM 的起源和演变,并总结了其核心特征:GCM 能够以系统和包容的方式将多个利益相关者的观点结合起来,从而生成明确的概念模型。根据文献和之前使用 GCM 的经验,我们详细介绍了 GCM 的七个步骤:(1) 根据特定的 "重点提示 "集思广益,(2) 通过删除重复内容和编辑一致性来准备想法,(3) 根据概念相似性对想法进行排序,(4) 通过定量分析生成点图,(5) 解释聚类图选项,(6) 总结最终概念图,以及 (7) 报告和使用概念图。我们提供了来自 HPE 研究的示例,并将 GCM 与其他概念化方法进行了比较。GCM 具有巨大的潜力,可以为 HPE 研究人员提供更多的方法。它符合多样性和包容性原则,而且在将理论和概念框架应用于实践时需要系统性,这使其成为一种非常适合当代 HPE 学术研究复杂性的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信