1479-5868-8-112-s1.xls

7/25/2019 1479-5868-8-112-s1.xls

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1479-5868-8-112-s1xls 1/10

Quality assessment tool for s

Quality indicator:

Aims

Aims and research questions are explicitly stated

Preconceptions

Sampling procedure

Recruitment strategy: how?

Recruitment strategy: by whom?

Explicit justification of sampling strategy

Sampling strategy reflects the study purpose

Sample size proided or can be estimated

!nformed consent "parental or child#

Anonymity and confidentiality

Ethical approal$reiew

%ender of child participants

Age of child participants or school year

Socioeconomic bac&ground of child participants

Ethnic bac&ground of child participants

Appendix to 'r(lner et al) *eterminants of fruit an!nt , -eha .utr +hys Act /011) "See also table /

2ualitatie approach appropriate to answerresearch questions

Explicit theoretical framewor& or literature reiewand$or pre3study beliefs

!nformation on how theory is used ".A if notheoretical framewor&#

Explicit sampling strategy of field sites and$or ofchildren

.on3participation described$response rate ".A ifoluntary sample#

Sampling$data collection continued until point ofdata saturation

Ethical concerns: explicit statementabout……

Sample characteristics: Explicit andsufficient description of……

4ther study3specific characteristics of childparticipants

7/25/2019 1479-5868-8-112-s1.xls


ata collection

Explicit rationale for data collection method

!nteriew setting described

!nteriewer described "who?5 how many?#

!nterview guide

!nteriew guide used

Analysis

Reliability$consistency#

Explicit information of audiotaping of interiews

6ommunicatie alidity

Analyst described "who?5 how many?#

6lear description of analytical method?

"indings# presentation of findings

6lear presentation of findings

Sufficient inclusion of quotes to support findings

*ata collection method "e)g) focus groups5obserations# stated

*ata collection methods adequate to answerresearch questions

.o) of focus groups5 interiews5 obserations

proidedSize of focus groups described or aerage canbe estimated

6omposition of child focus groups$interiewsdescribed

Explicit rationale for focus group$interiewcomposition

*uration of interiews5 focus groups5obserations described

!f yes: +artly described "&ey questions#? 75 fullydescribed? 77

Explicit information of transcription of interiews75 erbatim: 77

Explicit analytical approach "data3based ortheory3based#

Analytical procedures appropriate to theresearch questions

Explicit rationale for choice of analytical

proceduresSampling strategy$ child focus groupcomposition is used in analysis

Authors8 oices can always be distinguishedfrom informants8 oices

6lear description of selection and edition ofquotes

*ifferent child participants9 iews can bedistinguished

he stated conclusion is supported by thefindings

7/25/2019 1479-5868-8-112-s1.xls


Releance: ;indings$conclusions illuminate theresearch questions

7/25/2019 1479-5868-8-112-s1.xls


!nternal validity

Researcher$analyst triangulation

<ethod triangulation

Source triangulation

heory triangulation

+eer debriefing$audit trail

<ember chec&s$respondent alidation

Attention to negatie or deiant cases

External validity

iscussion

*iscussion of limitations of qualitatie study

Pragmatic validity

$he quality assessment tool is inspired by the

*escription of alidity and pilottesting of appliedinstruments$guides

Explicit strategies for validating presentedfindings

*iscussion of transferability "applicability offindings in other contexts#

Explicit reflections on selection bias$non3response of children

Adequate attention to preious &nowledge andwhat the study adds

;indings proide new insight on potentialdeterminants of fruit and egetables

*iscussion of implications for research andpractice

Quantitative quality score: $otal no% of qualityrequirements met

Qualitative quality score evaluated byreviewers &': high( ): medium( *: low+

Abbreviations: , indicates -yes( information inumber( SEP0 socioeconomic position%

;ade SA: 1ommunicating and 2udging the qua

arden A5 %arcia ,5 4lier S5 Rees R5 Shepherd ,public health research% J Epidemiol Community

7/25/2019 1479-5868-8-112-s1.xls


<alterud ': Qualitative research: standards( c

7/25/2019 1479-5868-8-112-s1.xls


stematic review of qualitative studies

escription:

Are aims and research questions explicitly stated in the manuscript?

Is information provided on hom recruited the participants e!"! pro#ect staff$ school teachers?

Do the authors provide the rationale for their choice of samplin" strate"y?

Does the samplin" strate"y reflects the study purpose?

%as informed content sou"ht and "ranted from children and&or parents?

%ere participants' anonymity and confidentiality ensured?

%as approval from an appropriate ethics committee received?

d egetable consumption among children and adolescents: a reiew of the literature) +art !!: qualitatie studies)in the paper#

Reviewer judgement: Are qualitative methods appropriate to anser the research questions (or do quantitativemethods seem more appropriate?)

Are the theoretical perspectives&ideas$ empirical *ac+"round and pre,study *eliefs&hypotheses used for dataanalysis and interpretation made explicit?

Do the authors explain ho they use their theoretical frameor+? e!"! to develop intervie "uide$ to cate"oriseresults$ to discuss results

Is the samplin" strate"y clearly stated? e!"! school,$ family, or community,*ased? theoretical samplin"?$chain&sno*all samplin"?$ convenience& pra"matic&volunteer samplin"?$ systematic&criteria,*ased samplin"?$maximum variation samplin"?$ homo"enous samplin"?$ extreme or deviant case samplin"?

Is information provided on ho participants ere recruited e!"! throu"h schools$ households$ quantitativesurveys$ nespapers?

Is information on num*er of participatin" units (e!"! schools) and num*er of students provided or can it *eestimated from information on num*er of focus "roups and num*er of students per focus "roups?

Is non,participation descri*ed - Ho many schools&students ere invited to participate and ho many declinedto participate? Are reasons for non,participation provided? NA if volunteer samplin" is used!

%as the samplin" and data collection continued until theoretical saturation &informational redundancy asreached i!e! ne sources of data did not reveal anythin" ne a*out the analytical cate"ories?

%as information provided on the "ender of participants? It is sufficient to +no hether the student sample is"ender,hetero"eneous or homo"eneous! Exact rates are not necessary!

Is information provided on the a"e of participants? It is sufficient to +no hether the student sample is a"e,hetero"eneous or homo"eneous! Exact rates are not necessary!

Is information provided on the .E/ of child participants? It is sufficient to +no hether the student sample is.E/,hetero"eneous or homo"eneous! Exact rates are not necessary!

Is information provided on the ethnic *ac+"round of child participants- It is sufficient to +no hether the studentsample is ethnic,hetero"eneous or homo"eneous! Exact rates are not necessary!

If the sample possesses certain study specific,characteristics$ have they *een reported? E!"! dia*etic children$children in and outside a youth "ardenin" pro"ram

7/25/2019 1479-5868-8-112-s1.xls


Do the authors provide the rationale for their choice of methods for data collection

Are the num*ers of focus "roups$ intervies$ and&or ethno"raphic o*servation sessions provided?

Is the duration of the intervies&focus "roups&o*servations descri*ed?

Has an intervie&discussion "uide&questionin" route& chec+list *een used in the study?

Are the discussions&intervies audio,taped? (versus *ein" *ased on intervieers memories&notes)

Is information provided on ho did the analysis and ho many?

Do the authors provide the rationale for their choice of analytical procedures?

Has a clear presentation of findin"s *een provided?

Can e distin"uish authors' voices from informants' voices?

Are the findin"s supported and enriched *y adequate use of quotes&ori"inal data?

Is information provided on ho the authors have selected quotes and ho the quotes have *een edited?

Do the findin"s support the stated conclusion?

Are the methods for data collection descri*ed? e!"! focus "roup$ face,to,face intervies$ ethno"raphico*servations &o*servational fieldor+

Reviewer judgement: Are the selected data collection methods adequate to anser the research questions?

Is the si0e of the focus "roups descri*ed or can the avera"e si0e *e estimated from num*er of focus "roups andsample si0e?

Is the composition of focus "roups&intervies descri*ed in detail? e!"! are the "roups mixed *y "ender?$ a"e? Are the face,to,face intervie conducted individually?

Do the authors provide the rationale for their choice of focus "roup composition? e!"! hy it is "ender,homo"eneous or a"e,hetero"eneous

Is the settin" here the intervies& focus "roups are carried out descri*ed? e!"! at school$ in classroom$ instudents home

Is information provided on ho and ho many conducted the intervies? N1 this information mi"ht *e found inthe author contri*ution section in paper!

Is the intervie "uide fully descri*ed in the paper e!"! presented in ta*le (2 points$ 33)$ or partly descri*ed e!"!only +ey questions&+ey topics (4 point$ 3)!

Are the discussions&intervies transcri*ed (4 point$ 3) or transcri*ed ver*atim (2 points$ 33) so the evidence can*e inspected independently and analy0ed *y others? (versus *ein" *ased on intervieers memories&notes)

Are the methods used to analyse data clearly descri*ed? e!"! "rounded theory$ constant comparative methods$ phenomenolo"ical analysis$ content analysis

Is information provided on hether the themes and concepts are derived from the data (data,*ased analysis) orfrom the theoretical frameor+&intervie (theory,*ased analysis)?

Reviewer judgement: Are the analytical procedures related to&appropriate to the research questions?

Do the authors use the samplin" strate"y & focus "roup composition in the analysis? E!"! to examine a"e,$"ender,$ .E/ or ethnic differences?

Are readers a*le to differ *eteen different informants5 information? e!"! *eteen findin"s *ased on students'reports versus on parents' or school staffs5 report?

7/25/2019 1479-5868-8-112-s1.xls


Are the findin"s relevant ith respect to the aim of the study? Does the conclusion anser the researchquestions?

7/25/2019 1479-5868-8-112-s1.xls


Have the authors applied any of the strate"ies *elo for validatin" presented findin"s?

Have data$ concepts&constructs and interpretation *een chec+ed ith respondents?

Do the authors discuss selection *ias in relation to the interpretation of data?

Can the results *e used *y other?

following papers:

Is information provided on the validity of the applied instruments&"uides? Have the authors ensured that thequestions are meanin"ful to the a"e "roup e!"! throu"h pilot studies$ *y involvin" experts and&or *y developin"and ad#ustin" the instrument concurrently durin" the study?

Have the codin" strate"ies$ findin"s and interpretation of data *een cross,chec+ed *y to or more independentresearchers$ at team meetin"s$ or at supervision sessions?

Have the research question *een examined from different an"les to "ive a comprehensive picture of the phenomenon of interest *y com*inin" different data collection methods e!"! focus "roups and fieldo*servations?

Have the research question *een examined from different an"les to "ive a comprehensive picture of the phenomenon of interest *y com*inin" different data sources e!"! parents$ staff and students?

Have the research question *een examined from different an"les to "ive a comprehensive picture of the phenomenon of interest *y applyin" different theoretical perspectives durin" analysis?

Have the researchers exposed their rationale and methodolo"ical considerations to an experienced prota"onist playin" the devil's advocate! Can a peer understand the rationale of analysis?

Did the investi"ator "ive evidence of see+in" out o*servations that mi"ht have contradicted or modified theanalysis and the hypotheses? Have the researcher reported the ne"ative cases and tried to explain hy thedata vary?

Do the researchers discuss if the study findin"s are li+ely to *e transfera*le to other settin"s or ith othersu*#ects?

Reviewer judgement: Is adequate account ta+en of previous +noled"e and hat the study adds?

Reviewer judgement: Do the findin"s provide ne insi"hts?

Do the authors provide a *alanced discussion of practical$ methodolo"ical$ and theoretical limitations andstren"ths of the study?

.ummation of num*ers of 3! NA is also counted as a yes to do #ustice to the studies! Lac+ of information is notvieed as a methodolo"ical limitation if the criterion is not applica*le in a study!

6he revieer5s su*#ective #ud"ement of the scientific quality of the study *ased on the revie of methodolo"icalissues and the revieer5s scholarly experience ,similar to a peer,revie&referee process!

provided-( .A indicates that the criterion is not applicable or relevant for the study% ./0 notabene( .o%0

ity of qualitative research: the need for a new language% J Hum Nutr Diet /00=5 1>: 1=31@

5 -runton %5 4a&ley A: Applying systematic review methods to studies of people-s views: an example fromHealth /00@5 34: B@3C00

7/25/2019 1479-5868-8-112-s1.xls


allenges( and guidelines) Lancet /0015 =DC: @C=3@CC)

1479-5868-8-112-s1.xls

Documents