Table A2.

Table to show the scoring guidelines used for the quality appraisal, based on criteria by Alderfer et al. (2010) [25].

		Score Assigned
Quality Criteria	Type of Study	1	2	3
Explicit scientific context and purpose	Qualitative, Quantitative	Poorly done	A rationale but not all clear	All: Clear rationale for study, theoretically and/or empirically based questions/predictions, specified purpose
Methods	Qualitative, Quantitative	Poorly done	Appropriate design and analysis but not enough description for replication	Appropriate design and analysis for question posed, enough description of methods to allow for replication
Measurement reliability	Quantitative	Poorly done	Adequate statistical methods but not always best and interpretation adequate but not always appropriate	Reliable measurement of variables, adequate statistical methods used, appropriate interpretation of results
Statistical power	Quantitative	Not sufficient	Adequate but could be improved.	Statistical power is sufficient
Internal validity	Quantitative	Poorly done	Groups are comparable on most aspects but adequate steps not always taken. Reverse relationship is possible or 3rd variable is possible, but explained in discussion.	Groups are comparable on all aspects aside from IV, and if not adequate steps are taken. Only passage of time occurs between assessments if measured over time. Reverse relationship not possible in correlation design, and not explainable by 3rd variable
Valid measures	Quantitative	Poorly done	Variables are adequately operationalised but some limitations	Variables are appropriately operationalised and measured (results would be the same if other measures were used)
External validity	Quantitative	No evidence that findings can be generalised beyond the study setting	The findings can be generalised but there are some limitations	The findings are generalizable to the target population, real world, and across time periods
Examples	Qualitative	No examples given	Some examples but not always well explained	Examples illustrate conclusions, help reader understand analytic procedure and form possible alternative meanings of the data
Findings framework	Qualitative	No attempt to integrate findings into a framework	Some attempt to integrate findings into a framework but not explained clearly	Findings are integrated into a framework
Author perspective	Qualitative	No attempt to specify theoretical orientation	Authors make some attempt to orient their perspective but not explained fully and/or clearly	Authors specify their theoretical orientation and expectations that might impact the interpretation of data
Reader perspective	Qualitative	Poorly done	Accurate perspective of topic area but not always clear/Understandable account but not always accurate representation of topic area	Accurate, understandable perspective of topic area
Appropriate range	Qualitative	Poorly done	Data is based on more than one situation and has been studied fairly systematically but not there is room for improvement	Data is based on a suitable range of informants and situations and/or the topic has been studied systematically and comprehensively within the specified population or situation
Credibility checks	Qualitative	Poorly done	Some attempt to verify findings but some limitations	Verification of findings with participants, across multiple coders, or through methodological triangulation
Situated sample	Qualitative	No attempt to situate the sample	A weak attempt to situate the sample	Sample is described such that the reader can judge for whom the findings are relevant
Appropriate discussion	Qualitative, Quantitative	Poorly done	Appropriate discussion and largely appropriate conclusion but limitations not fully discussed	Appropriate discussion with limitations notes and conclusion appropriate to data gathered
Contribution to knowledge	Qualitative, Quantitative	Barely	Adequate attempt	Strong attempt. Contributing something new or validating past results