Core concept identification in STEM and related domain education: a scoping review of rationales, methods, and outputs

Abstract

Core concepts—fundamental, enduring, and discipline-specific ideas—are essential for enhancing comprehension and facilitating knowledge acquisition for STEM and health-related learners. Since the 1990s, many articles have been published in STEM and health-related domains explaining the need and/or the value of identifying and utilizing core concepts in education. However, little research has explored the reasons for and methods for identifying the core concepts that may be useful to curriculum designers, course coordinators, instructors and assessment specialists in STEM and health sciences faculties. This scoping review examines the research on core concept identification within the context of STEM and Health-related domains of education with three objectives: (1) to describe the rationale for identifying core concepts; (2) to identify the study designs and research approaches employed; and (3) to present key outputs about core concept identification across domains. Using scoping review methodology aligned with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, eligible studies addressing core concept identification with a methodological description of how these concepts were identified for formal education in a STEM or health-related domain were identified through Medline ALL and Scopus database, complemented with backward citation of all included full-text references. Thirty research publications were identified, and data was systematically extracted and analyzed according to the review objectives. The review identified seven rationales for core concept identification, the most common being content prioritization, which addresses the need to identify essential teaching content within expanding knowledge bases. Mixed methods were the predominant research approach (n = 20), with various data collection and analysis methods, most of which are aligned with pragmatic philosophical worldviews, strongly emphasizing expert-driven techniques. These findings provide valuable insights for educators and researchers engaging in core concept identification, offering guidance for methodology selection and implementation while highlighting areas requiring further development in the field.

1 Introduction

Core concepts are the big ideas that are essential to the understanding and practice of a discipline, the mastery of these concepts resulting in enduring understanding and the ability to address novel problems across that discipline (McFarland and Michael, 2020). These core concepts help learners develop appropriate structures for understanding and organizing discipline-specific knowledge; retain key concepts long after specific details are forgotten; solve discipline-specific problems, and transfer learning across different areas of a field (Michael et al., 2017). These concepts have underpinned education for decades, particularly in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM), and health-related fields. Identifying core concepts in education is crucial as they provide a structured framework for organizing knowledge, facilitating deeper understanding, and establishing consistency across disciplines, thereby enhancing the application of learning across various contexts. These big ideas are considered central to a discipline and help in transferring learning beyond rote memorization. The value of core concepts is realized not only in their identification but also in how they are applied and integrated with other active learning strategies.

In STEM education, core concepts have gained prominence for their ability to support the structuring of information into coherent patterns and establish common vocabulary frameworks (Bacon, 1979; D'Avanzo, 2008; Chen et al., 2022). Their implementation streamlines knowledge acquisition by focusing on fundamental ideas rather than overwhelming students with excessive facts, which is particularly important given the rise in disciplinary knowledge explosion (Michael et al., 2017). Research demonstrates that core concepts enhance student learning and comprehension (Wood, 2008; Koba and Tweed, 2009), support curriculum development (Ball, 2023; Barrett et al., 2023), and improve assessment practices (Libarkin and Ward, 2011). When integrated into classroom instruction, these interventions effectively improve students’ “big picture” understanding (Schaefer and Hannah, 2023).For health professionals, core concepts help educators prioritize and benchmark their curriculum, facilitate integration with other disciplines, and improve the application of knowledge to professional contexts like safe prescribing practices (Guilding et al., 2023). They have also been used as a framework to link student learning to program objectives in undergraduate medical education (Averill et al., 2022).

The identification and application of core concepts in education are grounded in several complementary theoretical perspectives. Ausubel’s theory of meaningful learning(Ausubel, 1966; Ausubel, 2012) provides a fundamental foundation, distinguishing between rote and meaningful learning. Learning becomes meaningful when new information integrates into existing cognitive structure, and reorganized or transformed to create desired outcomes or discover relationships. Core concepts, the “big ideas” of a domain serve as cognitive anchors for this integration process. Building on Ausubel’s work, concept mapping(Novak and Cañas, 2008) demonstrates how educators can help students develop mental models and conceptual frameworks to make meaning of new content. This approach supports the paradigm shift from teaching isolated facts to shaping conceptual understanding through Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction (CBCI), where topics, facts, and skills become tools for understanding deeper conceptual structures (Erickson et al., 2017). Core concepts also facilitate transfer of learning—applying knowledge across contexts—which is central to the Understanding by Design framework (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005) commonly used in curriculum development. These theoretical perspectives converge to establish core concepts as pedagogically powerful tools grounded in principles of human learning, supporting the movement from transmitting isolated facts toward developing conceptual understanding and adaptive expertise.

In light of this, educational researchers in various fields have sought to identify and characterize the core concepts within their domains. Many STEM domains—contextualized here as disciplines or fields of knowledge — have identified, selected, and applied these concepts to their educational practice (Gray et al., 2019). However, despite these efforts, few publications describe the methods for identifying these core concepts, and no comprehensive resource exists to guide researchers in this process. Such guidance could save researchers time and effort, potentially enhancing the process, quality, and application of core concepts in education. This is particularly important because developing these core concepts has been reported to be intellectually demanding and time-consuming for educators, who have numerous competing professional endeavors (Mitchell et al., 2017).

A knowledge synthesis of how and why core concepts are identified would be helpful for educators including program directors, curriculum committees, course coordinators, faculty, instructors and assessment specialists embarking on this process. Several scholars who have launched into core concept identification for their domain provide rich and relevant literature reviews in their publications, albeit always focused on the specifics of their domain (McFarland and Michael, 2020; White et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022). A mini-review further advances the STEM education literature by comparing how physiology and neuroscience developed their core concepts, revealing that effective concept identification must consider disciplinary context, implementation challenges, and educational goals while also providing a framework for other STEM fields to develop their core concepts through documented lessons and identified research needs (Schaefer and Michael, 2024). While these reviews offer valuable insights, they do not fully illustrate the broader context of core concept identification within STEM and health-related fields. This scoping review article aims to understand core concept identification, focusing on the rationale, methodologies, and key outcomes across STEM and health-related domains.

2 Methods

2.1 Methodological justification

The frameworks proposed by Munn and colleagues that provides guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach (Munn et al., 2018) and Arksey and O′Malley’s methodological framework for scoping studies were selected as they align with our research needs by focusing on identifying available evidence, clarifying key concepts, examining research methods, and analyzing knowledge gaps---objectives that are central to our review. The framework (Arksey and O'Malley, 2005) comprises six stages: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) applying predetermined criteria to select studies, (4) charting relevant data, and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. We excluded the optional consultation exercise since it was irrelevant to our review.

2.2 Protocol and reporting

This scoping review protocol was guided by the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley, revised by all research team members, and registered prospectively on Open Science Framework (Etukakpan et al., 2024). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was used to guide reporting (Tricco et al., 2018).

2.3 Eligibility criteria

The specific eligibility criteria used to guide the identification and selection of sources of evidence are summarized in Table 1. Studies were included if they aligned with the operational definition of core concepts (i.e., fundamental, enduring, useful, and discipline-specific ideas that underpin a field of knowledge). We focused on studies within STEM and health-related domains that pertained to formal education, defined as institutionalized, intentional and planned through public or recognized private bodies (Schneider, 2013), including primary, secondary, and post-secondary education. To ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant literature, only studies published in English were considered, and no date restrictions were applied.

2.4 Information sources

Prior to database selection, we conducted a preliminary assessment using a predetermined gold-set of articles(Quirk et al., 2024; Nosratzadeh et al., 2025) that met our inclusion criteria as a means to test the search strategy’s sensitivity (ability to identify relevant studies) and specificity (ability to exclude irrelevant studies; Hub, 2025). This step helped identify the most appropriate databases for our review. Relevant studies were identified using two primary electronic databases: Medline(R) ALL via Ovid and Scopus. These databases were chosen because they provided the highest yield of articles from our gold set of articles, demonstrating optimal coverage of our target literature.

2.5 Search strategy

The search strategy focused on three main concepts: (1) core concepts and related synonyms, (2) STEM and health-related domains using an exhaustive list of STEM and health-related domains, and (3) the educational context, using “education” and related synonyms. The search strategy was developed iteratively in consultation with an experienced librarian and refined by testing various combinations of terms across the databases.

The science education literature and recent STEM reform proposals consistently employ several related terms: concepts, core concepts, concept learning, and foundational concepts, which appear throughout discussions across all STEM fields (Michael et al., 2017). This observation necessitated the development of our operational definition of core concepts as fundamental, enduring, useful, and discipline-specific ideas underpinning a field of knowledge to support the identification and selection of studies.

A search log was maintained throughout this process to track details such as the date, time, search terms, and databases used. The final search string (see Supplementary material 1), which yielded the most comprehensive capture of our gold set articles, was implemented for this review on March 1^st, 2024. All search results and citations were imported into EndNote (Version 20, Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, United States) for an initial deduplication process. The deduplicated library was then transferred to Covidence (Covidence, Melbourne, VIC, Australia) systematic review software, where a secondary deduplication process was performed before the screening process.

2.6 Selection of sources of evidence

The evidence selection process involved two stages: Title with abstract and full-text screening. A complete dual review approach (Stoll et al., 2019) was followed, where two independent reviewers, AUE and AKN, screened each title and abstract against the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A third independent reviewer, PJW, resolved conflicts. During the full-text screening, two reviewers (from the pool of co-authors AUE, TA, MW, and KJ) independently assessed each article, documenting reasons for exclusion. A third reviewer (PJW) resolved conflicts at this stage. The search was complemented with backward citation searching of identified full-text publications.

2.7 Data charting process

Data extraction was conducted for all 30 included publications to obtain key study characteristics, such as the citation, country of authors, domain (field of knowledge), and aims/purpose. Subsequent extractions were organized according to the three main research objectives of the scoping review. For each review objective, specific data extraction approaches were implemented:

For review objective 1, AUE conducted a content analysis (Morse, 2008) of the reasoning behind core concept identification, as presented in the background sections of the included publications. Initial coding involved assigning summative words or short phrases to specific text segments that captured the essence of the authors’ reasoning for core concept identification. These coded text segments were extracted from the publications and organized using Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA) and Miro (RealtimeBoard Inc., San Francisco, CA). Following the initial coding, repetitive or consistent patterns in the codes (occurring more than twice in the data) were identified and grouped together (Wolgemuth et al., 2024). These patterns were then consolidated into broader categories, each representing a distinct rationale for core concept identification. This enabled identifying and describing categories as rationales for core concept identification.

For review objective 3, which focused on presenting findings about core concept identification across domains, data was extracted from the results and discussion sections. This included the total number of core concepts identified in each study, examples of these concepts, the format in which they were presented, and any reported practical intentions for the concepts.

3 Results

3.1 Selection of sources of evidence

Figure 1 shows the flow diagram for the selection of evidence. From an initial pool of 3,447 records (3,429 from database searches and 18 from citation searching), 522 duplicates were removed through Endnote and Covidence screening. Of the remaining 2,925 records screened at the title and abstract stage, 85 were selected for the full-text screening phase. During this phase, 55 records were eliminated primarily because they did not focus on core concepts identification (n = 42), had insufficient methodological description (n = 6), were from non-STEM/health disciplines (n = 3), were non-English language publications (n = 2), or did not focus on formal education (n = 2). This resulted in a final selection of 30 publications for inclusion in the review.

Figure 1

3.2 General characteristics of included publications

The review included 30 research publications on core concept identification for formal education in STEM and health-related domains (see Table 2). The publications span diverse domains, with biochemistry and molecular biology, nursing, pharmacology, psychology, and neuroscience each contributing two publications, while 17 other STEM and health-related domains contributed one. For Neuroscience, the most recent and comprehensive publications for neuroscience were included as multiple papers covered the same research (Chen et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023). All included publications were post-secondary school level and peer-reviewed except for one report from a professional organization in plant biology (American Society of Plant, 2011). Supplementary material 2 shows an overview of these 30 included publications.

The geographical distribution of research on core concept identification reveals important patterns in the field. The United States dominates the research landscape, contributing 19 out of 30 publications (63.3%), followed by Australia (including joint work with New Zealand) with 4 publications. Other countries (UK, China, New Zealand) have minimal representation with 1 publication each. One notable international collaboration involved 14 countries, potentially signaling an emerging trend toward global cooperative efforts (White et al., 2022).

3.3 Results for review objective one: rationale for identifying core concepts

The results of content analysis of the background sections from the 30 included publications are shown in Table 3. From this analysis, seven categories of rationales for core concepts identification in STEM and health-related domains emerged. These are content prioritization, conceptual assessment, educational reform, ontological understanding, learning-centric approaches, curriculum design, and resource optimization—spanning from the need to identify essential teaching content within expanding disciplinary knowledge through to optimizing resources to address educational resource constraints. Table 3 presents these categories along with their descriptions, supporting citations, and illustrative examples from the literature. The findings show that these rationales frequently overlap across studies, demonstrating the complex interplay of factors that drive core concept identification across different domains.

3.4 Results for review objective two: research design for identifying core concepts

Table 4 presents a mapping of methodological characteristics found in the core concept identification publications with a focus on the participant types, criteria for core concepts, research frameworks, and the utilization of pilot studies. The findings for criteria for core concepts are organized to highlight those that appeared in three or more instances.

Table 5 maps methodological procedures employed in core concept identification studies across two main phases: candidate identification and candidate refinement. This phase-wise process begins with candidate identification to generate preliminary terms/concepts from participants and documents, followed by candidate refinement to develop and validate the initial list. Various methods are applied individually and/or in combination throughout these phases. Findings revealed that various methods were used in each phase, with expert group techniques and document analysis dominating the identification phase. In contrast, surveys and expert group techniques were prominent in the refinement phase. By examining the combination of methods used across both phases, we identified the underlying research designs, which were predominantly mixed methods approaches, even when not explicitly stated in the original publication. This methodological breakdown offers a view of how researchers identified and validated core concepts for education in their domains.

3.5 Results for review objective three: key outputs with a focus on the number of core concepts, concept format, and intention for practical use

Table 6 presents two key outputs of core concepts across domains: the number of core concepts and their presentation format. Core concepts ranged from 3 to 352 across studies, with most disciplines having fewer than 10 concepts (n = 12). The concepts were primarily presented as terms (n = 21), with fewer studies using statements (n = 7) or hybrid formats (n = 2). These patterns suggest varying approaches to organizing and expressing disciplinary knowledge across fields.

Table 7 shows four primary intended uses for core concepts across domains. Most studies emphasized these concepts as guiding rather than prescriptive resources, with many reporting multiple intended applications. This suggests that core concepts are expected to serve diverse practical purposes in academic fields, from curriculum planning to establishing common frameworks.

4 Discussion

Adopting a scoping review methodology, this review examined 30 publications on core concept identification within STEM and health-related educational domains to highlight the rationale, the research approaches, and key outputs. Figure 2 shows an overview of the findings of this review in the context of the rationale, process, and outputs of core concept identification in STEM and Health-Related Education Domains.

Figure 2

4.1 The rationale for core concepts identification

Core concept identification within formal education in STEM and health-related fields is motivated by a complex interplay of factors, revealed through the analysis of 30 publications as seven distinct categories of rationales (see Table 3). These findings demonstrate the diverse motivations driving researchers’ pursuit of core concept identification in their respective domains.The identification of core concepts is driven mainly by the need to prioritize essential content within expanding knowledge bases of domains (White et al., 2021; White et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023). This includes lacking of existing core concepts (American Society of Plant, 2011; Grunspan et al., 2018; Parekh et al., 2018; Danos et al., 2022), establishing core knowledge (Boneau, 1990), clarifying key concepts (Valiga and Bruderle, 1994), standardizing domain vocabulary (Zechmeister and Zechmeister, 2000), and aligning core concepts with learning objectives in the educational curricula (Tangalakis et al., 2023).

Complementary to this is the learning-centric rationale for identifying core concepts, where developing conceptual frameworks (Zechmeister and Zechmeister, 2000), strengthening conceptual understanding (Rowland et al., 2011; Qian et al., 2023), and addressing students’ misconceptions (Streveler et al., 2003; White et al., 2021) all come together to enhance learning. This rationale aligns with Ausubel’s theory of meaningful learning (Ausubel, 2012), where learning becomes meaningful when new information is intentionally integrated into existing cognitive structures rather than memorized in isolation as facts. Core concepts function as cognitive anchoring points that allow learners to incorporate new knowledge into their existing mental frameworks. When educators identify and emphasize core concepts, they are essentially providing students with the cognitive infrastructure necessary for this integration process, facilitating the development of enduring understanding. This learning-centric rationale for core concepts identification also intersects with pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in that core concept identification precedes PCK application, where establishing the fundamental knowledge structures of the domain will subsequently support teaching and learning approaches (Loewenberg Ball et al., 2008). Ultimately, this connects to the conceptual assessment rationale, where educators require valid tools to measure deeper conceptual understanding rather than mere recall(Streveler et al., 2003; Michael, 2007; Smaill et al., 2008; Michael and McFarland, 2011; Hiatt et al., 2013; Hurwitz et al., 2013; Tansey et al., 2013; White et al., 2021; Horne et al., 2024). These assessment needs reflect the broader challenge of evaluating authentic conceptual understanding across various knowledge dimensions.

The educational reform rationale reflects a paradigm shift toward student-centered learning and conceptual understanding, moving away from traditional rote memorization approaches (Merkel, 2012; Gray et al., 2019; Danos et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023). For instance, in physiology education, the initiative was driven by a broader educational transformation that aimed to move beyond simple memorization toward conceptual understanding, with the specific goal of helping students transfer their learning across different topics (Schaefer and Michael, 2024). This educational reform reason for core concepts identification approach aligns with the paradigm shift in education from teaching isolated facts toward shaping the conceptual mind. When educators identify and teach through concepts, they enable students to move beyond surface-level memorization to a deeper understanding of the transferable principles that organize a domain facilitating students’ ability to see patterns, connections, and relationships between seemingly disparate facts and examples—precisely the kind of cognitive integration that strengthens conceptual understanding and addresses misconceptions (Erickson et al., 2017). The ontological rationale for identifying core concepts is particularly evident in interdisciplinary fields like pharmacology (White et al., 2021), where knowledge’s inherent and underlying nature necessitates careful consideration of content organization and presentation. This rationale acknowledges the unique challenges posed by fields that integrate multiple disciplinary perspectives and knowledge frameworks.

From these categories of rationales and their emerging domains, we posit that a strong disciplinary focus, responding to the unique challenges and epistemological structures of each domain, is at the nucleus of these reasons for identifying core concepts. This aligns with existing literature, as the adoption of core concepts approaches in STEM teaching varies significantly across disciplines, with each field implementing this strategy to meet distinct disciplinary needs (Schaefer and Michael, 2024). Supporting this assertion for instance we see in pharmacology (White et al., 2021) emerged across five rationale categories, reflecting its interdisciplinary roots, nature, and complex knowledge integration challenges, while Neuroscience (Chen et al., 2023) were inherently both content prioritization and educational reforms, responding to its rapidly expanding knowledge base. Chemistry, on the other hand (Qian et al., 2023), focuses on learner-centric approaches to address the challenges of conceptual understanding, which can be peculiar to teaching abstract concepts. Perhaps, these disciplinary differences extend to epistemological structures where systems-focused disciplines like physiology (Michael, 2007) prioritize strategies for assessing the attainment of conceptual understanding. Hence, the rationale for core concept identification responds to discipline-specific needs, with each discipline’s approach appearing tailored to its unique knowledge structures, pace of knowledge evolution, professional requirements, and student learning challenges—reinforcing that core concept identification is fundamentally a discipline-contextualized practice.

4.2 Methods for core concepts identification

There is a clear preference for mixed methods approaches (see Table 5), reflecting a pragmatic worldview that prioritizes practical solutions over strict methodological adherence (Creswell, 2015). This choice aligns well with the rigorous process of core concept identification, which requires integrating and triangulating multiple perspectives and data, enhancing the reliability of the research-driven core concept identification outputs. The identification process typically followed a two-phase approach: an initial candidate concept identification phase followed by a subsequent concept refinement phase. This process aligns with a sequential exploratory design, where qualitative exploration precedes quantitative validation (Fetters et al., 2013), allowing researchers to generate potential core concepts and subject them to rigorous validation. Exploratory methods like document analysis and expert group techniques—discussions, workshops, and initial Delphi rounds—dominated the candidate identification phase (See Table 5). In contrast, surveys and expert group techniques—subsequent Delphi rounds and consultations — were prevalent in the refinement phase, suggesting systematic progression from broad exploration to focused validation of the concepts.

A crucial methodological finding is the predominance of a collection of similar research methods termed expert group techniques, described in previous research publications as techniques that involve group members engaged in a series of collaborative iterations (Ralph and Walker, 2014) and have been used to develop a set of guidelines in the context of health professionals (Skirton et al., 2014). Based on its use in the core concepts identification publications within this review, we operationally define expert group techniques as a collaborative and iterative collection of methods that leverages the collective knowledge of individuals identified as knowledgeable and/or experienced in a subject matter to identify, evaluate, and refine core concepts in that domain. This was employed in 29 of 30 studies, drawing on domain experts, including textbook authors, educators, professionals, and researchers (see Tables 4, 5). This finding shows that core concept identification has relied heavily on the collective judgment of individuals identified as experts to define core disciplinary knowledge, aligning with established practices in educational research (de Villiers et al., 2005; Laughlin et al., 2006; Hakkarainen et al., 2016).

We surmise that the expert group techniques have important elements for researchers to consider in core concept identification. Participant selection criteria may or may not be determined a priori (Streveler et al., 2003; Herman and Loui, 2012; Hurwitz et al., 2013; Grunspan et al., 2018; Parekh et al., 2018; White et al., 2022; Tangalakis et al., 2023), composing mainly of educators, professionals, researchers, and other stakeholders in education (See Table 4). The strategic selection of experts across disciplines reveals important core concept identification methodology insights. While studies have employed various expert profiles—from textbook authors in psychology (Boneau, 1990) to dual-role teacher-researchers in evolutionary biology(Hiatt et al., 2013), the common thread is a balance between theoretical knowledge and practical application expertise. This balanced approach to expert selection appears intentional rather than incidental, suggesting that researchers recognize that effective core concept identification requires both deep disciplinary expertise in the context of knowledge, understanding and experience. The significance of this pattern is particularly evident in recent studies (Chen et al., 2023; Qian et al., 2023), where diverse stakeholder perspectives were deliberately integrated into their core concepts identification work compared to earlier studies, which focused on one education stakeholder. This suggests a growing interest in inclusive expert selection strategies that incorporate theory and practice.

Establishing clear initial goals is essential, though iterative adjustments may occur. Methodological flexibility enables using varied formats and activities suited to specific disciplinary needs. The expert group techniques complement other methods, incorporating robustness into identifying the domain’s core concept.

The methodological approaches to core concept identification require careful consideration, particularly regarding research frameworks and pilot testing of data collection and analysis processes. The absence of theoretical frameworks across all included publications highlights that core concept identification is driven more by pragmatic focus than theoretical concerns. This pragmatic emphasis may limit the development of robust methodological approaches, potentially sacrificing methodological rigor (Morgan, 2007; Tracy, 2010). The limited use of pilot testing (see Table 4) raises concerns about rigor, as piloting is crucial for validating research instruments and procedures, addressing concerns of methodological reliability and verification (Morse et al., 2002; Van Teijlingen and Hundley, 2002). Additionally, while several criteria were used for core concept identification (See Table 4), their inconsistent application in data collection and analysis across publications suggests that more standardized concept evaluation approaches are needed.

4.3 Key outputs of core concepts identification

A core concepts approach to teaching STEM disciplines is increasingly evident with intention to solve different problems in different disciplines (Schaefer and Michael, 2024).The outputs of core concept identification vary in terms of the number of these core concepts, their presenting formats, and their intended use. This striking variation reveals important differences in what constitutes a ‘core’ concept across disciplines. The scope and complexity of different domains clearly influence the quantity of identified core concepts. Digital Logic, an introductory course (Herman and Loui, 2012), features just three core concepts, while Digital Libraries, a broad scientific field (Foster et al., 2012), encompasses over 352. This difference likely reflects both the inherent complexity of these domains and differing approaches to concept granularity across them, presenting that core concepts can be identified at varying levels of a domain such as micro level at a single/ course level through to macro level being the of the domain. Also, the Biological sciences often identify fewer core concepts, typically between 5 and 15 (Michael, 2007; American Society of Plant, 2011; Michael and McFarland, 2011; Merkel, 2012; Gray et al., 2019; Danos et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023). In contrast, health-related fields such as Dietetics (Tweedie et al., 2020) and Nursing (Valiga and Bruderle, 1994; Giddens and Brady, 2007) tend to identify more concepts. Perhaps, these disciplinary differences stem from a combination of pedagogical requirements, domain complexity, and varying philosophical approaches to what constitutes the ‘core’ in each domain. The format of the core concept presentation varied widely. While most studies listed concepts as discrete terms, others used statements or hierarchical formats (see Table 6), reflecting diverse pedagogical needs and disciplinary preferences. Some studies used hierarchical structures (Hott et al., 2002; Merkel, 2012; Hiatt et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2013), suggesting the interconnected nature of core concepts within the domain’s conceptual structure. Core concepts were intended to be used by educators as a guide in curriculum development, teaching and learning improvement, assessment, and standardization (See Table 7). This suggests that core concept identification is largely driven by pedagogical and educational goals rather than theoretical aims. Emphasis on curriculum and assessment development indicates a shift towards structured, evidence-based educational approaches across disciplines.

4.4 Implications

Based on the findings from this scoping review, several implications emerge for enhancing core concept identification in education. Developing standardized protocols and quality criteria for expert group techniques would strengthen methodological rigor and consistency across domains. Establishing clear guidelines for methodological reporting, particularly regarding pilot testing and validation procedures, would improve transparency and reproducibility. The observed variations in core concept identification suggest a need for standardized criteria to guide this process. Moving forward, future research should focus on developing comprehensive methodological guidelines for expert group techniques, providing research frameworks to guide identification efforts, and establishing clear criteria for determining how “core” is a concept for a domain. These developments would effectively advance the identification and validation of core concepts across different domains. Additionally, investigating the relationship between different presentation formats of core concepts and their educational effectiveness would provide valuable insights for pedagogical practice.

4.5 Limitations

The operational definition of core concepts as “fundamental, enduring, useful, and discipline-specific ideas that form the foundation of a field of knowledge” may have limited the scope of our search. While this definition provided our common understanding and supported study selection, it may have excluded studies that explored similar concepts under different terminology. Including only articles published in English may have limited the diversity of studies analysed in this review. However, this criterion was only applied in the final screening phase and resulted in exclusion of only 2 studies. Also, the involvement of multiple reviewers in the full-text review phase may have introduced the potential for varying interpretations of the inclusion criteria; however, reviewer training and using a third independent reviewer to mitigate this concern. The research team published and followed an a priori protocol but made methodological adaptations by modifying the extraction template in response to the unanticipated volume and complexity of data. Although this adaptation enabled more precise data extraction for each research objective, deviating from the original protocol’s single extraction template represents a limitation in terms of protocol adherence.

5 Conclusion

This scoping review synthesizes research on core concepts in STEM and health-related domains, providing valuable insights into the rationales for their identification, methodological approaches, and key outputs. The findings highlight the predominance of expert-driven approaches and the need for more standardized methodological frameworks. Recognizing that core concept development is intellectually demanding and time-consuming, this review provides a valuable resource for educators and researchers to adopt this evidence-based approach.

References

• 1

  American Society of Plant. (2011) ASPB – BSA Core concepts and learning objectives in plant biology for undergraduates. Available at: https://aspb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ASPB-BSA-CoreConcepts.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  ArkseyH.O'MalleyL. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol.8, 19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AusubelD. P. (1966). “Meaningful reception learning and the acquisition of concepts” in Analyses of concept learning. eds. KlausmeierH. J.HarrisC. (New York: Academic Press), 157–175.

  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AusubelD. P. (2012). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view: Springer Science & Business Media. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AverillD.WaiteG. N.SharmaP.MamillapalliS.CarbeC. (2022). Core concepts as a framework to assess the progression of student learning in a Ume curriculum. FASEB J.36:5831. doi: 10.1096/fasebj.2022.36.S1.R5831

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BaconR. S. (1979). Building a curriculum in introductory human geography through core concepts. J. Geogr.78, 152–156. doi: 10.1080/00221347908979974

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BallK. L. (2023). Foundations in physiology: an introductory course using the core concepts. Adv. Physiol. Educ.47, 501–507. doi: 10.1152/advan.00135.2022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BarrettT.JacobS. R.LikesW. (2023). Development of a concept-based curriculum. Teach. Learn. Nurs.18, 330–334. doi: 10.1016/j.teln.2022.06.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BoneauC. A. (1990). Psychological literacy: a first approximation. Am. Psychol.45, 891–900. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.45.7.891

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  ChenA.PhillipsK. A.SchaeferJ. E.SonnerP. M. (2022). The development of core concepts for neuroscience higher education: from beginning to summer virtual meeting satellite session. J. Undergrad. Neurosci. Educ.22, A160–A164. doi: 10.59390/GHOR4737

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  ChenA.PhillipsK. A.SchaeferJ. E.SonnerP. M. (2023). Community-derived core concepts for neuroscience higher education. CBE Life Sci. Educ.22:ar18. doi: 10.1187/cbe.22-02-0018

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  CreswellJ.W. (2015) Revisiting mixed methods and advancing scientific practices Oxford handbooks online. Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry, Oxford Library of Psychology. eds. Hesse-BiberS. N.Burke JohnsonR. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.013.39

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  DanosN.StaabK. L.WhitenackL. B. (2022). The Core concepts, competencies, and grand challenges of comparative vertebrate. Anat. Morphol. Integ. Organ. Biol.4:19. doi: 10.1093/iob/obac019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  D'AvanzoC. (2008). Biology concept inventories: overview, status, and next steps. Bioscience58, 1079–1085. doi: 10.1641/b581111

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  de VilliersM. R.de VilliersP. J. T.KentA. P. (2005). The Delphi technique in health sciences education research. Med. Teach.27, 639–643. doi: 10.1080/13611260500069947

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  EricksonH. L.LanningL. A.FrenchR. (2017). “Chapter 2: the structures of knowledge and process” in Concept-based curriculum and instruction for the thinking classroom. eds. BartlettD. A.IrwinK.TaylorK. E. (Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin, A sage company).

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  EtukakpanA.JankeK.WaldhuberM.AngeloT.WhiteP.J. (2024) Methodological approaches to identifying Core concepts in STEM and health education: A scoping review protocol, Available online at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VTF74 [Accessed March 14].

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Serv. Res.48, 2134–2156. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12117

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  FosterJ.M.SultanM.A.DevaulH.OkoyeI.SumnerT. (2012). “Identifying core concepts in educational resources.” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries. pp. 35–42.

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  GiddensJ. F.BradyD. P. (2007). Rescuing nursing education from content saturation: the case for a concept-based curriculum. J. Nurs. Educ.46, 65–69. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20070201-05

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  GrayJ. P.CurranC. P.FitsanakisV. A.RayS. D.StineK. E.EidemillerB. J. (2019). Society of Toxicology develops learning framework for undergraduate toxicology courses following the vision and change Core concepts model. Toxicol. Sci.170, 20–24. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfz090

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  GrunspanD. Z.NesseR. M.BarnesM. E.BrownellS. E. (2018). Core principles of evolutionary medicine: a Delphi study. Evol. Med. Public Health2018, 13–23. doi: 10.1093/emph/eox025

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  GuildingC.Kelly-LaubscherR.NetereA.BabeyA. M.RestiniC.CunninghamM.et al. (2023). Developing an international concept-based curriculum for pharmacology education: the promise of core concepts and concept inventories. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.13:13. doi: 10.1111/bcp.15985

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  HakkarainenK.HytönenK.MakkonenJ.LehtinenE. (2016). Extending collective practices of doctoral education from natural to educational sciences. Stud. High. Educ.41, 63–78. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2014.914910

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  HermanG.L.LouiM.C. (2012). Identifying the core conceptual framework of digital logic ASEE annual conference and exposition, conference proceedings. Available online at: https://peer.asee.org/identifying-the-core-conceptual-framework-of-digital-logic (Accessed 8 April, 2025)

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  HiattA.DavisG. K.TrujilloC.TerryM.FrenchD. P.PriceR. M.et al. (2013). Getting to Evo-devo: concepts and challenges for students learning evolutionary developmental biology. CBE Life Sci. Educ.12, 494–508. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-11-0203

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  HorneL.ManzanaresA.BabinN.RoyseE. A.ArakawaL.BlavascunasE.et al. (2024). Alignment among environmental programs in higher education: what food-energy-water Nexus concepts are covered in introductory courses?J. Geosci. Educ.72, 86–103. doi: 10.1080/10899995.2023.2187680

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  HottA. M.HuetherC. A.McInerneyJ. D.ChristiansonC.FowlerR.BenderH.et al. (2002). Genetics content in introductory biology courses for non-science majors: theory and practice bioscience52, 1024–1035. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[1024:GCIIBC]2.0.CO;2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  HubA.L. (2025). ACAP library pathfinder: Systematic searching for a review. Available online at: https://libguides.navitas.com/systematic-searching/scoping-gold-sets

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  HurwitzD.S.BrownS.A.IslamM.R.DarathaK. (2013) Mental models of students and practitioners in the development of an authentic assessment instrument for traffic signal engineering ASEE annual conference and exposition, conference proceedings. Available online at: https://peer.asee.org/mental-models-of-students-and-practitioners-in-the-development-of-an-authentic-assessment-instrument-for-traffic-signal-engineering (Accessed 7 April, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  KobaS.TweedA. (2009). Hard-to-teach biology concepts: A framework to deepen student understanding. 1st Edn. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  LaughlinP. R.HatchE. C.SilverJ. S.BohL. (2006). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: effects of group size. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.90, 644–651. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.644

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  LibarkinJ. C.WardE. M. G. (2011). The qualitative underpinnings of quantitative concept inventory questions. Geological Society of America eBooks [Preprint].

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Loewenberg BallD.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching:what makes it Special?J. Teach. Educ.59, 389–407. doi: 10.1177/0022487108324554

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  McArthurA.KlugárováJ.YanH.FlorescuS. (2015). Innovations in the systematic review of text and opinion. JBI Evid. Implement.13, 188–195. doi: 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000060

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  McFarlandJ. L.MichaelJ. A. (2020). Reflections on core concepts for undergraduate physiology programs. Adv. Physiol. Educ.44, 626–631. doi: 10.1152/advan.00188.2019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  MerkelS. (2012). The development of curricular guidelines for introductory microbiology that focus on understanding. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ.13, 32–38. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v13i1.363

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  MichaelJ. (2007) Conceptual assessment in the biological sciences: a National Science Foundation-sponsored workshop. Advances in Physiology Education.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  MichaelJ.CliffW.McFarlandJ.ModellH.WrightA. (2017). “Reforming science education/reforming physiology education” in The Core concepts of physiology: A new paradigm for teaching physiology. eds. MichaelJ.CliffW.McFarlandJ.ModellH.WrightA. (Springer New York: New York, NY), 3–18.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  MichaelJ.McFarlandJ. (2011). The Core principles ("big ideas") of physiology: results of faculty surveys. Adv. Physiol. Educ.35, 336–341. doi: 10.1152/advan.00004.2011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  MitchellI.KeastS.PanizzonD.MitchellJ. (2017). Using 'big ideas' to enhance teaching and student learning teachers and teaching. Theory Pract.23, 596–610. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2016.1218328

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  MorganD. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J. Mixed Methods Res.1, 48–76. doi: 10.1177/2345678906292462

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  MorseJ. M. (2008). Confusing categories and themes. Qual. Health Res.18, 727–728. doi: 10.1177/1049732308314930

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  MorseJ. M.BarrettM.MayanM.OlsonK.SpiersJ. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods1, 13–22. doi: 10.1177/160940690200100202

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  MunnZ.PetersM. D. J.SternC.TufanaruC.McArthurA.AromatarisE. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol.18, 1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  NosratzadehH.BhowmickD.Ríos CarmonaA. B.ThompsonJ.ThaiT.PearsonL.et al. (2025). A scoping review of the design and characteristics of e-bike financial incentives. Transp. Rev.45, 149–171. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2024.2419884

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  NovakJ.D.CañasA.J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Available at: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  ParekhG.DeLatteD.HermanG. L.OlivaL.PhatakD.ScheponikT.et al. (2018). Identifying Core concepts of cybersecurity: results of two Delphi processes. IEEE Trans. Educ.61, 11–20. doi: 10.1109/TE.2017.2715174

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  PetersS.LiviaA. (2006). Relevant behavioural and social science for medical undergraduates: a comparison of specialist and non-specialist educators. Med. Educ.40, 1020–1026. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02562.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  QianY.WangY.WenJ.WuS.ZhangJ. (2023). One hundred Core concepts in chemistry and upper-secondary school Teachers' and Students' chemistry conceptual structures. J. Balt. Sci. Educ.22, 493–505. doi: 10.33225/jbse/23.22.493

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  QuirkS. E.Koivumaa-HonkanenH.HonkanenR. J.MohebbiM.StuartA. L.HeikkinenJ.et al. (2024). A systematic review of personality and musculoskeletal disorders: evidence from general population studies. Front. Psychol.15:15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1288874

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  RalphE.WalkerK. (2014). The potential of adaptive mentorship: experts’ perspectives. Open J. Soc. Sci.2, 77–86. doi: 10.4236/jss.2014.28013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  RowlandS. L.SmithC. A.GillamE. M.WrightT. (2011). The concept lens diagram: a new mechanism for presenting biochemistry content in terms of "big ideas". Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ.39, 267–279. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20517

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  SchaeferJ.HannahR. (2023). Core concepts intervention was more effective for improving student “big picture” understanding when accompanied by embedded core concept instruction. Physiology38:5796123. doi: 10.1152/physiol.2023.38.S1.5796123

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  SchaeferJ. E.MichaelJ. (2024). Core concepts: views from physiology and neuroscience. Front. Educ.:9. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1470040

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  SchneiderS. L. (2013). “The international standard classification of education 2011” in Class and stratification analysis. ed. Elisabeth BirkelundG. (Leeds, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited), 365–379.

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  SkirtonH.GoldsmithL.JacksonL.LewisC.ChittyL. (2014). Offering prenatal diagnostic tests: European guidelines for clinical practice [corrected]. Eur. J. Hum. Genet.22, 580–586. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2013.205

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  SmaillC.R.RoweG.B.FinkF.K. (2008). A software tool for the web-based delivery and analysis of concept-based diagnostic tests proceedings of 36th European society for engineering education, SEFI conference on quality assessment, Employability and Innovation. Available at: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=1ef9453f1430ca306cdde10d6585fa386d71a8b2

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  StollC. R. T.IzadiS.FowlerS.GreenP.SulsJ.ColditzG. A. (2019). The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews. Res. Synth. Methods10, 539–545. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1369

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  StrevelerR.A.OldsB.M.MillerR.L.NelsonM.A. (2003). Using a Delphi study to identify the most difficult concepts for students to master in thermal and transport science Proceedings of the annual conference of the American Society for Engineering Education.

  • Google Scholar

• 61

  TangalakisK.LexisL.HryciwD. H.TowstolessM.BakkerA. J.BeckettE.et al. (2023). Establishing consensus for the core concepts of physiology in the Australian higher education context using the Delphi method. Adv. Physiol. Educ.47, 419–426. doi: 10.1152/advan.00140.2022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  TanseyJ. T.BairdT.Jr.CoxM. M.FoxK. M.KnightJ.SearsD.et al. (2013). Foundational concepts and underlying theories for majors in "biochemistry and molecular biology". Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ.41, 289–296. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20727

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  TracyS. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qual. Inq.16, 837–851. doi: 10.1177/1077800410383121

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  TriccoA. C.LillieE.ZarinW.O'BrienK. K.ColquhounH.LevacD.et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med.169, 467–473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  TweedieJ.PalermoC.WrightH. H.PellyF. E. (2020). Using document analysis to identify core concepts for dietetics: the first step in promoting conceptual learning. Nurs. Health Sci.22, 675–684. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12712

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  ValigaT. M.BruderleE. (1994). Concepts included in and critical to nursing curricula: an analysis. J. Nurs. Educ.33, 118–124. doi: 10.3928/0148-4834-19940301-07

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Van TeijlingenE.HundleyV. (2002). The importance of pilot studies. Nurs. Standard16, 33–36. doi: 10.7748/ns.16.40.33.s1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  WhiteP. J.DavisE. A.SantiagoM.AngeloT.ShieldA.BabeyA. M.et al. (2021). Identifying the core concepts of pharmacology education. Pharmacol. Res. Perspect.9:e00836. doi: 10.1002/prp2.836

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  WhiteP. J.GuildingC.AngeloT.KellyJ.GormanL.TuckerS.et al. (2022). Identifying the core concepts of pharmacology education: a global initiative. Br. J. Pharmacol.180, 1197–1209. doi: 10.1111/bph.16000

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  WigginsG.McTigheJ. (2005). Understanding by design, Ascd.

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  WolgemuthJ. R.GuyotteK. W.SheltonS. A.SaldañaJ. (2024). An introduction to themeing the data. In Expanding Approaches to Thematic Analysis.United Kingdom: Routlege, Taylor & Francis Group. 11–26. doi: 10.4324/9781003389149-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  WoodW. B. (2008). Teaching concepts versus facts in developmental biology. CBE Life Sci. Educ.7, 10–11. doi: 10.1187/cbe.07-12-0106

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  WrightA.ProvostJ.Roecklein-CanfieldJ. A.BellE. (2013). Essential concepts and underlying theories from physics, chemistry, and mathematics for "biochemistry and molecular biology" majors. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ.41, 302–308. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20728

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  ZechmeisterJ. S.ZechmeisterE. B. (2000). Introductory textbooks and Psychology's Core concepts. Teach. Psychol.27, 6–11. doi: 10.1207/S15328023TOP2701_1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar