Table 4.
Quality appraisal of mixed-method study.
| Egan 2017 (1) a | Egan 2017 (2) b | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there congruity between the stated philosophical perspective and the research methodology? | Y | Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? | U |
| Is there congruity between the research methodology and the research question or objectives? | Y | Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? | Y |
| Is there congruity between the research methodology and the methods used to collect data? | Y | Was the exposure measured validly and reliably? | Y |
| Is there congruity between the research methodology and the representation and analysis of data? | Y | Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition? | Y |
| Is there congruity between the research methodology and the interpretation of results? | Y | Were confounding factors identified? | Y |
| Is there a statement locating the researcher culturally or theoretically? | U | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | U |
| Is the influence of the researcher on the research, and vice versa, addressed? | N | Were the outcomes measured validly and reliably? | Y |
| Are participants, and their voices, adequately represented? | U | Was an appropriate statistical analysis used? | Y |
| Is the research ethical according to current criteria, and is there evidence of ethical approval? | Y | ||
| Do the conclusions drawn in the research report flow from the analysis or interpretation of the data? | Y | ||
| Total out of 10 | 8.0 | Total out of 8 | 7.0 |
Y : yes; N : no; U : unclear.
a
Egan 2017 (1) considers the qualitative arm of the study.
b
Egan 2017 (2) considers the quantitative arm of the study.