Development of definitions for taxonomy II.
In the process of placing diagnoses into Taxonomy I, certain inconsistencies became apparent. Inadequate definition of both diagnoses and human response patterns, lack of defining characteristics, and inconsistency in the levels of abstraction within the taxonomic hierarchy made the task of assigning a diagnosis to a taxonomic pattern difficult. Ambiguity in the definitions of the nine patterns resulted in ambiguity in the basic foundation, which affected the entire structure. The Taxonomy Committee, before evaluating the current structure, had to make the following decisions regarding the current human response patterns: (1) Should the nine human response patterns be retained for further taxonomic work? and (2) If they are retained, what should be the first step in examining Taxonomy I-Revised? This second article in a series of four will familiarize the readers with the process and decisions by which Taxonomy II of the North American Nursing Diagnosis Association (NANDA) is evolving through the work of the Taxonomy Committee. This article also will identify the specific problems encountered in the development of Taxonomy I and Taxonomy I-Revised, and describe the steps establishing the validity of the process of formation of the nine human response patterns.
Kerr
M E
ME
Hoskins
L M
LM
Fitzpatrick
J J
JJ
Warren
J J
JJ
Avant
K C
KC
Carpenito
L J
LJ
Hurley
M E
ME
Jakob
D
D
Lunney
M
M
Mills
W C
WC
D002965:Classification / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D009733:Nursing Diagnosis / Q000145:classification* / Q000592:standards; D009742:Nursing Theory; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012956:Societies, Nursing; D009626:Terminology as Topic