Table 5.

Cross walk of similarities and differences across Kahn et al. and our two framework levels.

Khan et al.’s framework categories	Level 1 Revised Khan et al. DQ framework categories comparison	Level 2 New framework categories comparison
Conformance: Do Data Values Adhere to Specified Standards and Formats?	Kept this wording	Changed this from Conformance to Coherence in Level 2, kept most of the wording except changed Formats to Gold Standards
Value Conformance	– Kept this wording and the two definitions in this section – Changed this to be a field level data quality requirement, rather than the global DQ requirement as in Khan et al. – Did not change anything else apart from adding validation requirements	– Kept this wording and the two definitions in this section – Changed this to be a field level data quality requirement, rather than the global DQ requirement as in Khan et al. – Did not change anything else apart from adding validation requirements
Relational Conformance	– Kept this wording and the two definitions in this section – Changed this to be a table level data quality requirement, rather than the global DQ requirement as in Khan et al. – Removed “c. Changes to the data model or data model versioning.” From the Framework, this is due to the fact that at the table and field levels of the database there is no version control in the same way there is with paper forms. The version numbering is for the front end of the system that accesses the data information and stores the information in the database behind – Added that the source system table should have Created and Updated Dates, which does give version control on the data added to the database or changed in the database from a front end application by a user – Added 4 new definitions to handle the aspects of the extracted source table context that were not captured in Khan et al.	Did not keep this in Level 2
Computational Conformance	– Kept this wording and the one definition in this section – Changed this to be a field level data quality requirement, rather than the global DQ requirement in Khan et al. – Did not change anything else apart from adding validation requirements	– Kept this wording and the one definition in this section – Changed this to be a field level data quality requirement, rather than the global DQ requirement in Khan et al. – Did not change anything else apart from adding validation requirements
Completeness: Are Data Values Present?	– Kept this wording and the two definitions in this section – Changed this to be a field level data quality requirement, rather than the global DQ requirement in Khan et al.	– Kept this wording and the two definitions in this section – Changed this to be a field level data quality requirement, rather than the global DQ requirement in Khan et al.
Plausibility: Are Data Values Believable?	Kept this wording	Kept this wording
Uniqueness Plausibility	– Kept this wording and the one definition in this section Though updated the wording slightly on this characteristic from what it was originally – Changed this to be a table level data quality requirement, rather than the global DQ requirement in Khan et al.	– Kept the wording for Uniqueness but changed from Plausibility to Compatibility. Kept the one definition in this section. Though updated the wording slightly on this characteristic from what it was originally – Changed this to be a table level data quality requirement, rather than the global DQ requirement in Khan et al.
Atemporal Plausibility	– Kept this wording and the four definitions in this section – Changed this to be a field level data quality requirement, rather than the global DQ requirement in Khan et al.	– Kept the wording for Uniqueness but changed from Plausibility to Compatibility. Kept the one definition in this section Though updated the wording slightly on this characteristic from what it was originally – Changed this to be a field level data quality
Temporal Plausibility	– Kept this wording and the three definitions in this section. – Changed this to be a table level data quality requirement, rather than the global DQ requirement in Khan et al. – Changed this to be a table level data quality requirement, rather than the global DQ requirement in Khan et al.	– Kept the wording for Uniqueness but changed from Plausibility to Compatibility. Kept the one definition in this section. Though updated the wording slightly on this characteristic from what it was originally – Changed this to be a table level data quality requirement, rather than the global DQ requirement in Khan et al.
New level 1 and level 2 Sections added
Not in Khan et al.	Data warehouse context characteristics	Research question context framework
	Source system name and table name context characteristics	Source system table assessment framework
	Table name data quality framework characteristics	Source system table name framework characteristics
		Data coherence added to the source table name framework
	Field name context characteristics	Source system field assessment framework characteristics
	Field name data quality framework characteristics	Source system field name framework characteristics
	Field name data quality framework overall results documented	Field name data quality framework overall results documented
	Table data quality framework overall results documented	Table data quality framework overall results documented