Table 5.
Study name and references | MMATa score (%) | Contextual inquiry | Value specification | Design | Operationalization | Summative evaluation |
Ahtinen, 2013 [26] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | —b | — |
Antypas,2014 [27] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ |
Bengtsson, 2014 [28,29] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
Buccieri, 2015 [30] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — |
Clayman, 2008 [31] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
Cordova, 2015 [32] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
Dabbs, 2009 [33] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ |
Das, 2013 [34] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — |
Davies, 2015 [35,36] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Fennell, 2016 [39,44] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Fonda, 2010 [40,41] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
Goldenberg, 2015 [42,43] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
Heckman, 2015 [45] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ |
Kelders, 2013 [46] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
Lubberding, 2016 [37,38,47] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — |
Meyer, 2007 [48] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Miller, 2015 [49] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ |
Morrison, 2015 [50] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ |
O'Brien, 2016 [51] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
Peute, 2015 [52] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
Revenas, 2015 [53-55] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
Sandlund, 2015 [56] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
Schnall, 2016 [57] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
Skjoth, 2015 [58] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — |
Stinson, 2014 [59] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ |
van Bruinessen, 2014 [60,61] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Widman, 2016 [62] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ |
Winterling, 2016 [63-66] | 100 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ |
Ennis, 2014 [67,69] | 90 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — |
Fleisher, 2014 [68] | 90 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ |
aMMAT: Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 2011.
bNo information.