Rating section | Barron, 2013 [47] | Itzhaky, 2001 [48] | Merkin, 1995 [50] | Rossman, 1999 [51] | Tanabe, 2013 [52] | Zraly, 2011 [53] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.1 Is a qualitative approach appropriate? | Appropriate | Appropriate | Appropriate | Appropriate | Appropriate | Appropriate |
1.2 Is the study clear in what it seeks to do? | Clear | Mixed | Mixed | Unclear | Clear | Mixed |
2.1 How defensible/rigorous is the research design/methodology? | Defensible | Defensible | Not defensible | Not defensible | Defensible | Defensible |
3.1 How well was the data collection carried out? | Appropriate | Appropriate | Inadequately reported | Inadequately reported | Appropriate | Appropriate |
4.1 Is the context clearly described? | Clear | Clear | Unclear | Unclear | Clear | Clear |
4.2 Were the methods reliable? | Reliable | Reliable | Unreliable | Unreliable | Unreliable | Unreliable |
5.1 Are the data ‘rich’? | Rich | Not sure/not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Rich | Rich |
5.2 Is the analysis reliable? | Reliable | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Unreliable | Reliable |
5.3 Are the findings convincing? | Convincing | Not convincing | Not convincing | Convincing | Convincing | Convincing |
5.4 Are the conclusions adequate? | Adequate | Adequate | Adequate | Adequate | Adequate | Adequate |
6.1 Was the study approved by an ethics committee? | Yes | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Yes | Yes |
6.2 Is the role of the researcher clearly described? | Clear | Not clear | Not clear | Not reported | Clear | Clear |
As far as can be ascertained from the paper, how well was the study conducted? | ++ | + | – | – | ++ | ++ |