MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017994899 · doi:10.1177/1468794105056924

Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond

2005· article· en· W2017994899 on OpenAlexaff
Lee D. Butterfield, William A. Borgen, Norman E. Amundson, Asa-Sophia Maglio

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchSociologyFocus groupEpistemologySocial scienceAnthropologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has now been 50 years since Flanagan (1954) published his classic article on the critical incident technique (CIT) - a qualitative research method that is still widely used today. This article reviews the origin and evolution of the CIT during the past 50 years, discusses CIT’s place within the qualitative research tradition, examines the robustness of the method, and offers some recommendations for using the CIT as we look forward to its next 50 years of use. The focus of this article is primarily on the use of the CIT in counselling psychology, although other disciplines are touched upon.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.030
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.427 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1,012
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative ResearchSame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207