{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02665350444225074, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02566633761105627, 'mean_word_length': 5.2592592592592595, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of two schema for classifying nursing research.

To examine trends in nursing research during the last five years of the 1980s and to test the reliability and validity of two taxonomic schemes to classify nursing research, 811 abstracts from three years of a national nursing research conference (Council of Nurse Researchers, 1983, 87, 89) were reviewed and classified independently by three investigators. Taxonomies were research topics as categorized in the Sigma Theta Tau International Directory of Nurse Researchers (STT) and the Classification of Nursing-Related Dissertations (DISSER). More than half of abstracts addressed clinical topics, and clinical research topics increased significantly over time (p less than .001). At least two of the three raters agreed on coding for 62.8 percent of abstracts with STT schemes, 70.9 percent with DISSER scheme (p less than .01). Additional testing and standardization of taxonomies for nursing research is needed to improve reliability and validity.