Table 3.
Methodological appraisal of included reports (n = 26)
| Topics/question | Yes (n) | No (n) | Unclear (n) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adherence between philosophical stance/theory and sample/methodology | |||
| Purpose and question related to theory or philosophical stance | 25 (96%) | – | 1 (4%) |
| Participants | |||
| Sample appropriate to answer the question | 24 (92%) | – | 2 (8%) |
| Recruitment method appropriately chosen and implemented | 13 (50%) | – | 13 (50%) |
| Serious shortcomings affecting reliability | 2 (8%) | 20 (77%) | 4 (15%) |
| Data collection | |||
| Serious shortcomings in data collection affecting reliability | 1 (4%) | 16 (61%) | 9 (35%) |
| Analysis | |||
| Analysis appropriate and carried out in an appropriate manner | 22 (85%) | – | 4 (15%) |
| Researchers reflexive when interpreting data | 7 (27%) | 1 (4%) | 18 (69%) |
| Interpretations validated | 15 (58%) | 5 (19%) | 6 (23%) |
| Serious shortcomings in analysis affecting reliability | 1 (4%) | 22 (85%) | 3 (11%) |
| Researchers | |||
| Researchers have any relationship with the participants | 1 (4%) | 7 (27%) | 18 (69%) |
| Researchers handled their preconceptions in an acceptable way | 8 (31%) | 1 (4%) | 17 (65%) |
| Researchers independent of financial or others conditions | 13 (50%) | 1 (4%) | 12 (46%) |
| Serious shortcomings affecting reliability | 2 (8%) | 15 (57%) | 9 (35%) |
| Coherence | |||
| Majority of the data used in the analysis | 25 (96%) | – | 1 (4%) |
| Conflicting data handled appropriately | – | – | 26 (100%) |
| Collected data support the findings | 25 (96%) | – | 1 (4%) |
| Serious weaknesses that can lead to a lack of coherence | – | 24 (92%) | 2 (8%) |
| Sufficient data | |||
| Number of participants large enough | 22 (85%) | – | 4 (15%) |
| Form of data collection allows opportunity for rich data | 25 (96%) | – | 1 (4%) |