A valid taxonomy legitimizes the elements that make up the taxonomy and increases trust in its generalizability and predictability. There is a concern that the NANDA Taxonomy is not a valid taxanomic structure. Despite on-going work to validate individual nursing diagnoses, there is little research that focuses on validation of groups of diagnoses (taxons) within the NANDA taxonomy. This last article in a series of four will familiarize the readers with why, what, and how a taxonomy of nursing diagnoses can be validated. This article highlights assessment of the validity and reliability of a taxonomy, compares the process of taxonomic validation to the research process, and explores examples of validation design
AnastasiA. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
4.
BallG. (1970). Classification analysis. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.
5.
Carroll-JohnsonR. (ed). In press. Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the tenth conference. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
6.
ChenH.DharV. (1990). User misconceptions of information retrieval systems. International Journal of Man Machine Studies32(16), 673–693.
7.
ChurchA.KatigbakM. (1989). Internal, external and self-report structure of personality in a non-western culture: An investigation of cross-language and cross-cultural generalizability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57857–872.
8.
DeGruijterJ.McBratneyA. (1988). A modified fuzzy k-means method for predictive classification. In BockH. (ed)., Classification and related methods of data analysis (pp. 97–104). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
9.
DeVellisR. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
DeweP.GuestD. (1990). Methods of coping with stress at work: A conceptual analysis and empirical study of measurement issues. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 135–150.
11.
DreherM. (1990). Ethnographic methods as differentiated from phenomenology. Research methods for validating nursing diagnoses (pp. 78–97). St. Louis, MO: NANDA.
EisenbeisR. (1977). Pitfalls in the application of discriminant analysis in business, finance, and economics. The Journal of Finance, 32, 875–900.
14.
HolmesR. (1991). Categories of play: A kindergartner's view. Play and Culture, 4, 43–50.
15.
KerlingerF. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3d ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
16.
KerrM.FitzpatrickJ. (1990). Qualitative research methodologies: Synthesis and recommendations. Research methods for validating nursing diagnoses (pp. 114–120). St. Louis, MO: NANDA.
17.
KerrM. (1991). Validation of taxonomy. In Carroll-JohnsonR. (ed)., Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the ninth conference (pp. 6–13). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
18.
KnaflK. (1990). Concept development. Research methods for validating nursing diagnoses (pp. 37–63). St. Louis, MO: NANDA.
19.
MarshH. (1989). Confirmatory factor analyses of multitrait-multi-method data: Many problems and a few solutions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 335–361.
20.
MeehlP. (1986). Diagnostic taxons as open concepts: Metatheoretical and statistical questions about reliability and construct validity in the grind strategy of nosological revision. In MillonT.KlermanG. (eds)., Contemporary directions in psychopathology (pp. 215–32, New York: Guilford.
21.
MoreyI., (1988). The categorical representation of personality disorder: A cluster analysis of DSM-III-R personality features. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 314–321.
22.
NiemannH. (1988). Classification-new challenges to an old problem. In BockH. (ed)., Classification and related methods of data analysis (pp. 33–44). New York: Elsevier.
NunnallyJ. (1978). Psychometric theory (2d ed.). New YorkMcCraw-Hill.
25.
PerryJ. (1990). Challenges in validating personality disorders: Beyond description, Journal of Personality Disorders, 4, 273–289.
26.
PrentkeyR.KnightIt.RosenbergR. (1988). Validation analyses on a taxonomic system for rapists: Disconfirmation and sexual aggression: Current perspectives. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 528, 21–40.
27.
RaymondM. (1989). Applications of multidimensional scaling to research in the health professions. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 12, 379–408.
28.
RudyT.TurkD.ZakiH.CurtinH. (1989). An empirical taxonometric alternative to traditional classification of temporomandibular disorders. Pain, 36, 311–320.
29.
SokalR. (1988). Unsolved problems in numerical taxonomy. In BockH. (ed)., Classification and related methods of data analysis (pp. 15–56). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
30.
SokalR.UytterschautH.RosingF.SchwidetskyI. (1987). A classification of European skulls from three time periods. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 74, 1–20.
31.
SpitzerR.WilliamsJ. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3d rd. revised). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
32.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Grounded theory's applicability to nursing diagnostic research. Research methods for validating nursing diagnoses (pp. 4–24). St. Louis, MO: NANDA.
33.
ThomasM. (1990). Grounded theory and nursing diagnosis: Response to Strauss. Research methods for validating nursing diagnoses (pp. 25–36). St. Louis, MO: NANDA.
34.
TurkD.RudyT. (1988). Toward an empirically derived taxonomy of chronic pain patients: Integration of psychological assessment data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 233–238.
