Table 2 Assessment of studies’ quality based on QATSDD method

Study

Explicit theoretical framework

Statement of aims/objectives in main body of report

Clear description of research setting

Evidence of sample size considered in terms of analysis

Rapresentative sample of target group of a resonable size

Description of procedure for data collection

Rationale for choice of data collection tool(s)

Detailed recruitment data

Statistical assessment of reliability and validity of measurement tool(s)*

Fit between stated research question and method of data collection*

Fit between stated research question and method of analysis

Good justification for analythical method selected

Evidence of user involvement in design

Strenghts and limitations critically discussed

QATSDD Total Score

% QATSDD Total Score

D’Souza et al. 2008 [52]

3

3

1

0

1

3

1

3

0

3

2

0

0

2

22

52.38%

Matchar et al. 2008 [48]

3

3

3

3

2

3

1

3

0

3

2

2

0

2

30

71.43%

Sauro et al. 2008 [11]

2

3

3

0

1

3

2

3

0

2

2

1

1

2

25

59.52%

Grazzi et al. 2009 [67]

1

3

2

0

2

2

1

2

0

2

0

0

0

1

16

38.10%

Gunreben-Stempfle et al. 2009 [12]

2

2

3

0

1

3

2

3

1

2

2

3

0

2

26

61.90%

Holroyd et al. 2009 [60]

2

1

1

0

1

3

2

2

1

3

2

3

0

1

22

52.38%

Fritsche et al. 2010 [53]

2

2

3

3

2

3

2

3

1

3

2

2

0

3

31

73.81%

Gaul et al. 2011 [13]

2

2

3

0

1

3

0

3

0

2

2

2

1

2

23

54.76%

Hedborg and Muhr 2011 [14]

2

3

3

3

1

3

2

3

2

3

2

3

2

2

34

80.95%

Abdoli et al. 2012 [54]

3

3

2

0

2

3

0

2

0

3

2

3

0

1

24

57.14%

Bembalgi et al. 2012 [65]

2

3

2

3

2

3

3

2

1

3

2

3

0

2

31

73.81%

Ezra et al. 2012 [23]

2

2

3

0

1

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

1

19

45.24%

Mo’tamedi et al. 2012 [61]

3

3

3

0

2

3

3

2

3

3

2

3

0

2

32

76.19%

Ruehlman et al. 2012 [50]

3

3

2

0

1

3

1

3

1

3

2

3

2

3

30

71.43%

Wallasch et al. 2012 [15]

2

2

3

0

1

3

2

2

1

2

2

2

0

1

23

54.76%

Study

Explicit theoretical framework

Statement of aims/objectives in main body of report

Clear description of research setting

Evidence of sample size considered in terms of analysis

Rapresentative sample of target group of a resonable size

Description of procedure for data collection

Rationale for choice of data collection tool(s)

Detailed recruitment data

Statistical assessment of reliability and validity of measurement tool(s)*

Fit between stated research question and method of data collection*

Fit between stated research question and method of analysis

Good justification for analythical method selected

Evidence of user involvement in design

Strenghts and limitations critically discussed

QATSDD Total Score

% QATSDD Total Score

Slavin-Spenny et al. 2013 [69]

3

3

2

3

1

3

2

3

3

3

2

2

0

2

32

76.19%

Cathcart et al. 2014 [55]

3

2

2

0

1

3

2

3

3

3

2

2

0

1

27

64.29%

Day et al. 2014 [63]

3

3

3

0

1

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

0

2

31

73.81%

Martin et al. 2014 [66]

3

2

1

2

1

3

2

2

3

2

2

2

0

2

27

64.29%

Christiansen et al. 2015 [56]

3

3

3

3

1

3

2

3

3

2

2

2

0

3

33

78.57%

Cousins et al. 2015 [68]

3

3

2

3

1

3

2

3

1

3

2

2

0

2

30

71.43%

Bakhshani et al. 2016 [64]

3

3

3

0

1

3

2

3

3

3

2

2

0

1

29

69.05%

Rausa et al. 2016 [51]

3

3

3

3

1

3

2

3

3

3

2

2

0

2

33

78.57%

Smitherman et al. 2016 [57]

3

3

1

0

1

3

2

3

3

3

2

2

0

2

28

66.67%

Grazzi et al. 2017 [59]

3

3

3

0

2

3

2

3

2

2

2

2

0

2

29

69.05%

Krause et al. 2017 [49]

1

3

3

0

1

3

0

3

0

2

2

2

0

2

22

52.38%

Wachholtz et al. 2017 [58]

3

3

3

3

1

3

1

1

3

3

2

2

0

2

30

71.43%

Minen et al. 2019 [62]

2

3

2

0

1

1

1

1

3

2

2

1

3

2

24

57.14%

MEAN

2.50

2.68

2.43

1.04

1.25

2.86

1.61

2.57

1.57

2.61

1.93

1.96

0.39

1.86

27.25

Standard Deviation

0.64

0.55

0.74

1.43

0.44

0.45

0.88

0.63

1.29

0.50

0.38

0.88

0.83

0.59

4.62