3.7.3 ConQual 'Summary of Findings'

CONQual (Note: the output Summary of Findings table from the CONQual process should be presented after the review Abstract)

In ConQual, each paper is initially ranked from High to Very Low – qualitative papers are ranked as High, while text and opinion papers are ranked Low (Munn et al. 2014). From this starting point, each paper is then graded for Dependability, and then Credibility as per the schema below. ConQual Score Calculation:

1. Initial Ranking scale for qualitative studies

   1. High

   2. Moderate

   3. Low

   4. Very Low

Assign a pre-ranking of papers, using the following schema:

–      High for qualitative studies

–      Low for expert opinion

Dependability

The ranking per paper moves up or down (or stays the same) depending on the Dependability Score as follows:

4-5 ‘yes’ responses, the paper remains unchanged

2-3 ‘yes’ responses: move down 1 level

0-1 ‘yes’ responses: move down 2 levels

The Dependability score is based on the following specific questions from the critical appraisal scores for included studies related to the appropriateness of the conduct of the research with research aims and purpose:

1. Is there congruity between the research methodology and the research question or objectives?

2. Is there congruity between the research methodology and the methods used to collect data?

3. Is there congruity between the research methodology and the representation and analysis of data?

4. Is there a statement locating the researcher culturally or theoretically?

5. Is the influence of the researcher on the research, and vice-versa, addressed?

Credibility

• Assign a level of credibility to the synthesised finding by cross checking how many findings of what type were included in the categories associate with the synthesized finding:

–      Unequivocal (U) – relates to evidence beyond reasonable doubt which may include findings that are matter of fact, directly reported/observed and not open to challenge.

–      Credible (C) – those that are, albeit interpretations, plausible in light of data and theoretical framework. They can be logically inferred from the data. Because the findings are interpretive they can be challenged.

–      Not Supported (NS) – when 1 nor 2 apply and when most notably findings are not supported by the data

• Rank according to the following scoring rubric for each synthesised finding:

                All unequivocal findings: remains unchanged.

                mix of unequivocal/credible findings: downgraded one (-1).

                credible/not supported findings: downgraded three (-3).

                *table is modified from source

Please note: For JBI qualitative reviews not-supported findings should not be included in the meta-aggregative process.

With the ConQual Score established for each synthesised finding, the Summary of Findings table can now be completed. Cite Munn et al. 2014 when integrating ConQual.

Summary of Findings Table