Skip to main content
. 2011 Jun 14;11:33. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-11-33

Table 2.

Quality criteria for evaluating studies

Studies Completeness Scientific quality of study design Reliability of evaluation instrument Score Grading

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Halbach 2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 8 moderate
Madigosky 2006 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 8 moderate
Moskowitz 2007 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 moderate
Anderson 2009 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 10 high
Patey 2009 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 8 moderate
Paxton 2009 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 moderate
Gunderson 2009 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 moderate

1: Is the study purpose easily identified? 2: Are objectives congruent with intervention and evaluation? 3: Is study design appropriate for question? 4: Is study design described in sufficient detail to be replicated? 5: Are teaching methods described in enough detail to replicate? 6: Are statistical tests described? 7: Are raters blinded with respect to group assignment? 8: Is there a similar comparison group? 9: Are confounding variables controlled-for by design or analyses? 10: Has power analysis been conducted to determine sample size? 11: Is the course design assessed? 12: Are long term effects assessed? 13: Is reliability of instruments reported? 14: Is validity of instruments reported? Rating scale: Yes = 1; NO = 0