TABLE 1.
Overall frequency of CASP scoring (N = 103)
| Items | Yes, n (%) | Cannot tell, n (%) | No, n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? | 103 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| 2. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? | 65 (63.1) | 38 (36.9) | 0 (0) |
| a) Did the researcher justify the research design (e.g. have they discussed how they decided which method to use)? | 65 (63.1) | 0 (0) | 38 (36.9) |
| 3. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? | 78 (75.7) | 25 (24.3) | 0 (0) |
| a) Did the researcher explain how the participants were selected? | 78 (75.7) | 0 (0) | 25 (24.3) |
| 4. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? | 103 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| a) Was it clear how data were collected (e.g. focus group, semi‐structured interview etc.)? | 103 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| b) Did the researcher justify the methods chosen? | 29 (28.2) | 0 (0) | 74 (71.8) |
| c) Did the researcher make the methods explicit (e.g. for interview method, is there an indication of how interviews are conducted, or did they use a topic guide) | 100 (97.1) | 0 (0) | 3 (2.9) |
| d) Is the form of data clear? (e.g. tape recordings, notes, video) | 97 (94.2) | 1 (1.0) | 5 (4.8) |
| e) Did the researcher discuss saturation of data? | 77 (74.8) | 0 (0) | 26 (25.2) |
| 5. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered? | 63 (61.2) | 0 (0) | 40 (38.8) |
| a) Did the researcher critically examine their own role, potential bias and influence during (i) formulation of the research questions (ii) data collection, including sample recruitment and choice of location? | 63 (61.2) | 0 (0) | 40 (38.8) |
| 6. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? | 101 (98.1) | 2 (1.9) | 0 (0) |
| a) Was approval sought from the ethics committee? | 101 (98.1) | 2 (1.9) | 0 (0) |
| 7. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? | 92 (89.3) | 11 (10.7) | 0 (0) |
| a) Is there an in‐depth description of the analysis process? (i.e. is it clear how categories/themes were derived) | 92 (89.3) | 0 (0) | 11 (10.7) |
| 8. Is there a clear statement of findings? | 103 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| a) Were the findings explicit? | 103 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| b) Did the researcher discuss the credibility of their findings (e.g. triangulation, respondent validation, more than one analyst) | 85 (82.5) | 0 (0) | 18 (17.5) |
| c) Were the findings discussed in relation to the original research question? | 103 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |