护理教育反思专题分析中的人文洞察与人工智能比较

IF 1.9
Alison H Davis, Gloria Giarratano, Tina Gunaldo
{"title":"护理教育反思专题分析中的人文洞察与人工智能比较","authors":"Alison H Davis, Gloria Giarratano, Tina Gunaldo","doi":"10.3928/01484834-20250414-01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A limitation in the advancement of interprofessional education is the large number of resources needed for student learning evaluation. Reflective assignments are used in interprofessional education for students to reexamine their learning while reflecting on past professional practice and their aims to incorporate interprofessional collaboration into future practice. However, analyzing the meaning of these reflections is time consuming.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using a qualitative descriptive design, this study reviewed the outputs of traditional independent coding and theming by humans versus computer-generated coding and theming by a large language model to evaluate interprofessional reflections.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Study results indicate that currently, outputs of large language models are not identical to a human team for reflexive thematic qualitative analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Large language models provide one method to efficiently review large data sets. However, there are limitations to these models. Large language models should be used in conjunction with other evaluation methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":94241,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of nursing education","volume":" ","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Human Insight and AI in Thematic Analysis of Nursing Education Reflections.\",\"authors\":\"Alison H Davis, Gloria Giarratano, Tina Gunaldo\",\"doi\":\"10.3928/01484834-20250414-01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A limitation in the advancement of interprofessional education is the large number of resources needed for student learning evaluation. Reflective assignments are used in interprofessional education for students to reexamine their learning while reflecting on past professional practice and their aims to incorporate interprofessional collaboration into future practice. However, analyzing the meaning of these reflections is time consuming.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using a qualitative descriptive design, this study reviewed the outputs of traditional independent coding and theming by humans versus computer-generated coding and theming by a large language model to evaluate interprofessional reflections.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Study results indicate that currently, outputs of large language models are not identical to a human team for reflexive thematic qualitative analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Large language models provide one method to efficiently review large data sets. However, there are limitations to these models. Large language models should be used in conjunction with other evaluation methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94241,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of nursing education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of nursing education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20250414-01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of nursing education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20250414-01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:跨专业教育发展的一个限制是学生学习评价所需的资源过多。反思性作业用于跨专业教育,让学生在反思过去的专业实践的同时重新审视自己的学习,并将跨专业合作纳入未来的实践。然而,分析这些反射的含义是非常耗时的。方法:采用定性描述设计,本研究回顾了传统的人类独立编码和主题与计算机生成的编码和主题的大型语言模型的输出,以评估专业间的反思。结果:研究结果表明,目前,大型语言模型的输出与人类团队进行反身性主题定性分析的结果并不相同。结论:大型语言模型提供了一种有效审查大型数据集的方法。然而,这些模型也有局限性。大型语言模型应该与其他评估方法结合使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Human Insight and AI in Thematic Analysis of Nursing Education Reflections.

Background: A limitation in the advancement of interprofessional education is the large number of resources needed for student learning evaluation. Reflective assignments are used in interprofessional education for students to reexamine their learning while reflecting on past professional practice and their aims to incorporate interprofessional collaboration into future practice. However, analyzing the meaning of these reflections is time consuming.

Method: Using a qualitative descriptive design, this study reviewed the outputs of traditional independent coding and theming by humans versus computer-generated coding and theming by a large language model to evaluate interprofessional reflections.

Results: Study results indicate that currently, outputs of large language models are not identical to a human team for reflexive thematic qualitative analysis.

Conclusion: Large language models provide one method to efficiently review large data sets. However, there are limitations to these models. Large language models should be used in conjunction with other evaluation methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信