Table A1.
Evaluation of papers.
| Schmolck, 2005 | Lešničar, 2003 |
Krbková, 2015 | Fowler, 2013 | Engmann, 2012 | Rezza, 2015 | Czupryna, 2010 | Mickiene, 2001 | Czupryna, 2017 | Karelis, 2011 | Lotric-Furlan, 2017 | Hansson, 2020 | Bogovic, 2018 | Veje, 2016 | Veje, 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | |||||||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 7 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 9 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Score | 16 | 7 | 11 | 9 | 15 | 11 | 8 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 17 | 13 | 15 | 16 | 18 |
|
Overview of Criteria: 1 Question/objective sufficiently described? 2 Study design evident and appropriate? 3 Context for the study clear? 4 Connection to a theoretical framework/wider body of knowledge? 5 Sampling strategy described, relevant and justified? 6 Data collection methods clearly described and systematic? 7 Data analysis clearly described and systematic? 8 Use of verification procedure(s) to establish credibility? 9 Conclusions supported by the results? 10 Reflexivity of the account? |
Answer Options: 2 = Yes 1 = Partial 0 = No |
||||||||||||||