Table 2.
Assessment of Study Quality Using the McMaster University Critical Appraisal Tool for Quantitative Studies.
| Schwartz et al34 | Hinrichs et al35 | Blanchard et al30 | Carmeli and Bartoletti31 | Hyatt et al32 | Lacey et al33 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study purpose | ||||||
| Was the purpose clearly stated? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Literature | ||||||
| Was relevant background literature reviewed? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Design | ||||||
| Is the study design appropriate to study aims? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| No biases present? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample | ||||||
| Was the sample described in detail? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Was sample size justified? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Outcomes | ||||||
| Were the outcome measures reliable? | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Were the outcome measures valid? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Intervention | ||||||
| Intervention was described in detail? | 1 | 0 | NA | 0 | NA | 0 |
| Contamination was avoided? | 1 | 0 | NA | 0 | NA | 0 |
| Co-intervention was avoided? | 1 | 0 | NA | 0 | NA | 0 |
| Results | ||||||
| Results were reported in terms of statistical significance? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | 0 |
| Were the analysis method(s) appropriate? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Clinical importance was reported? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Drop-outs were reported? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Conclusion and implications | ||||||
| Conclusions were appropriate given study methods and results | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 13/16 | 8/16 | 10/13 | 9/16 | 9/12 | 10/16 |
Abbreviation: NA, not applicable.