PURPOSE. This philosophical inquiry examined similarity using the concept analysis methodology by Walker and Avant (2005).
DATA SOURCES. Data were obtained from Google, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and PubMed using keywords “similarity,”“concept analysis,” and “similarity concept analysis.”
DATA SYNTHESIS. Various definitions, uses, and defining attributes of similarity were identified; model cases were presented along with antecedents, consequences, and empirical referents.
CONCLUSIONS. The concept analysis of similarity identified five defining attributes, antecedents, consequences, and different ways to measure the concept.
IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE. Representing nursing care involves similarity and when applied can promote or enhance shared understanding.
Alliance for Nursing Informatics. (2009). Alliance for Nursing Informatics statement to the National Committee for Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS) hearings on “meaningful use” of health information technology. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from http://www.himss.org/content/files/NCVHS_ANIMeaningfulUse050409.pdf
American Nurses Association. (2010). ANA recognized terminologies that support nursing practice. Retrieved September 9, 2010 from http://www.nursingworld.org/Terminologies
6.
BennerP. (1984). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
7.
BennerP.TannerC.CheslaC. (1996). Expertise in nursing practice. Caring, clinical judgment, and ethics. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
8.
BerthonP.PittL.CampbellC. (2009). Does brand meaning exist in similarity or singularity. Journal of Business Research, 62, 359–361.
9.
ChiM.FeltovichP.GlaserR. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.
10.
ClarkH.BrennanS. (1991). Grounding in communication. InResnickL.LevineJ.TeasleyS. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp.127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
11.
CosettiM.CulangD.KotlaS.O'BrienP.EberlD.HannanF. (2008). Unique transgenic animal model for hereditary hearing loss. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 117(11), 827–833.
12.
CroftW.CruseD. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Executive Order No. 13335, 69, 84, 24059. (2004). Incentives for the use of health information technologies and establish the position of the national health information technology coordinator. Retrieved June 16, 2009 from http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/pdf/04-10024.pdf
14.
FalanS. (2007). Similarity discernment in general and nursing representations. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(2), 1–233. (UMI No. 3253265).
15.
FalanS. (2010). Using similarity theory to examine inconsistencies in nursing communication. Communications of the ICISA, 11(1), 1–27.
16.
FalanS. (2010). Identifying nursing concepts: Are we similar?International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications, 21(3), 108–115.
17.
HayesB.TaplinJ. (1995). Similarity-based and knowledge-based processes in category learning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 7, 383–410.
18.
HayesB.TaplinJ.LongstaffM. (2002). Prior knowledge and exemplar similarity in category learning: Further evidence for their integration. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14(4), 549–571.
19.
HeitE. (1994). Models of the effects of prior knowledge on category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1264–1282.
20.
HeitE. (1998). Influences of prior knowledge on selective weighting of category members. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(3), 712–731.
21.
High Points Learning. (2009). Definition of similar figures. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://www.icoachmath.com
22.
Institute of Medicine. (1999). To err is human: Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23.
KeenanG.FalanS.HeathC.TrederM. (2003). Establishing competency in the use of North American nursing diagnosis, nursing outcomes classification, and nursing interventions classification terminology. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 11(2), 183–198.
24.
LevinR.LunneyM.Krainovich-MillerB. (2004). Improving diagnostic accuracy using an evidence-based nursing model. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications, 15(4), 114–122.
25.
LinE.MurphyG. (2001). Thematic relations in adults' concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130(1), 3–28.
26.
LoJ.CoxD.MingusT. (2006). A conceptual-based curricular analysis of the concept of similarity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, TBA, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/1/5/5/1/pages115514/p115514-1.php
27.
LoganB.EllisB.BerenzweigA. (2003). Toward evaluation of techniques for music similarity. SIGIR-Workshop on the evaluation of music information retrieval systems. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2003/HPL-2003-159.pdf
28.
LunneyM.DelaneyC.DuffyM.MoorheadS.WeltonJ. (2005). Advocating for standardized nursing languages in electronic health records. Journal of Nursing Administration, 35(1), 1–3.
29.
MaasM.JohnsonM.MoorheadS.ReedD.SweeneyS. (2003). Evaluation of the reliability and validity of nursing outcomes classification patient outcomes and measures. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 11(2), 97–117.
30.
MartonF. (2006). Sameness and difference in transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 499–535.
31.
MedinD.GoldstoneR.GentnerD. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100(2), 254–278.
32.
MedinD.LynchE.ColeyJ. (1997). Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead to Rome?Cognitive Psychology, 32(1), 49–96.
33.
MoorheadS.JohnsonM.MaasM.ReedD. (2003). Testing the nursing outcomes classification in three clinical units in a community hospital. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 11(2), 171–181.
34.
MulderI.SwaakJ.KesselsJ. (2002). Assessing group learning and shared understanding in technology-mediated interaction. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 35–47.
ProffittJ.ColeyJ.MedinD. (2000). Expertise and category-based induction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26(4), 811–828.
37.
RipsL. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. InVosniadouS.OrtonyA. (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp.21–59). New York: Cambridge University Press.
RoschE.LloydB. (1978). Cognition and categorization. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
40.
SmithL. (1989). From global similarities to kinds of similarities: The construction of dimension in development. InVosniadouS.OrtonyA. (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp.146–178). New York: Cambridge University Press.
TverskyA.GatiI. (2004). Studies of similarity. InShafirE. (Ed.), Preference, belief, and similarity (pp.75–95). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
43.
WalkerL.AvantK. (2005). Strategies for theory construction in nursing (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
44.
WeedsJ.WeirD. (2003). A general framework for distributional similarity. Theoretical issues in natural language processing. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 10, 81–88. New Jersey: Association for Computational Linguistics.
