Lara Fenton1, Heidi Lauckner2, Robert Gilbert3. 1. School of Health and Human Performance, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 2. School of Occupational Therapy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 3. School of Health Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this research note is to reflect on the effectiveness of the QATSDD tool for its intended use in critical appraisals of synthesis work such as integrative reviews. METHODS: A seven-member research team undertook a critical appraisal of qualitative and quantitative studies using the QATSDD. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: We believe that the tool can spur useful dialogue among researchers and increase in-depth understanding of reviewed papers, including the strengths and limitations of the literature. To increase the clarity of the process, we suggest further definition of the language in each indicator and inclusion of explicit examples for each criterion. We would also like to see the authors outline clear parameters around the use of the tool, essentially stating that the tool should be used in synthesis work for studies of mixed methods or work that includes qualitative and quantitative research informed by a positivist paradigm. In the context of an appropriate team composition, the tool can be a useful mechanism for guiding people who are coming together to discuss the merits of studies across multiple methodologies and disciplines.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this research note is to reflect on the effectiveness of the QATSDD tool for its intended use in critical appraisals of synthesis work such as integrative reviews. METHODS: A seven-member research team undertook a critical appraisal of qualitative and quantitative studies using the QATSDD. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: We believe that the tool can spur useful dialogue among researchers and increase in-depth understanding of reviewed papers, including the strengths and limitations of the literature. To increase the clarity of the process, we suggest further definition of the language in each indicator and inclusion of explicit examples for each criterion. We would also like to see the authors outline clear parameters around the use of the tool, essentially stating that the tool should be used in synthesis work for studies of mixed methods or work that includes qualitative and quantitative research informed by a positivist paradigm. In the context of an appropriate team composition, the tool can be a useful mechanism for guiding people who are coming together to discuss the merits of studies across multiple methodologies and disciplines.
Authors: Maria R Dahm; William Cattanach; Maureen Williams; Jocelyne M Basseal; Kelly Gleason; Carmel Crock Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Mohd Amierul Fikri Mahmud; Mohd Hatta Abdul Mutalip; Noor Aliza Lodz; Eida Nurhadzira Muhammad; Norzawati Yoep; Mohd Hazrin Hashim; Faizah Paiwai; Jayanthi Rajarethinam; Joel Aik; Nor Asiah Muhammad Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Yea Lu Tay; Nurul Salwana Abu Bakar; Ruzimah Tumiran; Noor Hasidah Ab Rahman; Noor Areefa Ameera Mohd Ma'amor; Weng Keong Yau; Zalilah Abdullah Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-12-06