ArticleHumanities & social sciences communications2025
Evaluating transdisciplinary methods: a new scale for measuring knowledge integration.
Article in Humanities & social sciences communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A transdisciplinary framework for chronic illness and chronic pain: a sequential qualitative meta-synthesis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transdisciplinary research presents a promising approach to addressing complex societal challenges by integrating scientific and experiential knowledge in joint learning processes. Transdisciplinary methods are crucial for supporting knowledge integration by enabling actors from within and outside academia to evaluate their expertise, share insights, and co-create innovative solutions. Despite growing interest in transdisciplinary methods, their effectiveness remains under-researched, mainly due to a lack of standardized instruments to measure their contribution to knowledge integration. This gap is particularly significant given that the usefulness of transdisciplinary methods depends on knowledge integration as a multidimensional, iterative process that fosters learning without predetermined outcomes. In this study, a novel scale was developed and tested empirically to assess the contribution of transdisciplinary methods to knowledge integration. The scale development process involved a systematic review of 48 literature sources, which synthesized over 300 statements into 34 items. These items were tested in workshops with 71 participants using two different transdisciplinary methods: transdisciplinary scenario building and serious game development. The participants represented expertise from three academic disciplines and experiential knowledge from the dairy and meat supply chains as well as game development. Exploratory factor analysis revealed two distinct dimensions of knowledge integration: a socio-emotional factor and a cognitive-communicative factor. This finding resulted in a refined 25-item scale. The scale was then employed to compare the two transdisciplinary methods, thereby providing an instrument for comparative analysis of their respective contributions to knowledge integration. The article also underscores the scale's limitations and offers recommendations for future scale refinement. By improving the methodological basis for measuring transdisciplinary methods, this research contributes to the ongoing improvement of transdisciplinary research.
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.