ArticleJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2015
Visualizing the qualitative: making sense of written comments from an evaluative satisfaction survey.
Article in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anticipated Determinants and Strategies Supporting Same-Day HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Implementation During Emergency Care Encounters in Kenya: A Qualitative Study.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2026Article
- Turn-Key Protocols for Food Safety Culture Improvement: A Narrative on Theory and Best Practice.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Improving diversity, equity, and inclusion in chiropractic education and profession: Report from three 2020-2021 summit meetings.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2024Article
- Standardized approach to extract candidate outcomes from literature for a standard outcome set: a case- and simulation study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Toward Shared Decision-Making in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Article
- An exploration of medical student attitudes towards older persons and frailty during undergraduate training.European geriatric medicine · 2021Article
- A Measurement Equivalence Study of the Family Bondedness Scale: Measurement Equivalence Between Cat and Dog Owners.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSatisfaction surveys are common in the field of health education, as a means of assisting organizations to improve the appropriateness of training materials and the effectiveness of facilitation-presentation. Data can be qualitative of which analysis often become specialized. This technical article aims to reveal whether qualitative survey results can be visualized by presenting them as a Word Cloud.
methodsQualitative materials in the form of written comments on an agency-specific satisfaction survey were coded and quantified. The resulting quantitative data were used to convert comments into "input terms" to generate Word Clouds to increase comprehension and accessibility through visualization of the written responses.
resultsA three-tier display incorporated a Word Cloud at the top, followed by the corresponding frequency table, and a textual summary of the qualitative data represented by the Word Cloud imagery. This mixed format adheres to recognition that people vary in what format is most effective for assimilating new information.
conclusionThe combination of visual representation through Word Clouds complemented by quantified qualitative materials is one means of increasing comprehensibility for a range of stakeholders, who might not be familiar with numerical tables or statistical analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.