Skip to main content

Table 3 Criteria used for assessing the conceptual richness of sources

From: Opportunities, challenges and concerns for the implementation and uptake of pelvic floor muscle assessment and exercises during the childbearing years: protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis

‘Conceptually rich’ Explanatory but not ‘conceptually rich’ Descriptive
Theoretical concepts are unambiguous and described in sufficient depth to be useful Consideration of the context in which the research took place Limited or no consideration of the context in which the research took place
Relationships between and among concepts are clearly articulated Some attempt to explain anomalous results and findings with reference to context and data No attempt to explain anomalous results and findings with reference to context and data
Concepts sufficiently developed and defined to enable understanding without the reader needing to have first-hand experience of an area of practice Correlations and relationships explained, with use of inferential statistics (quantitative studies) Use of descriptive statistics only (quantitative studies)
Concepts grounded strongly in a cited body of literature   
Concepts are parsimonious (i.e. provide the simplest, but not over-simplified, explanation)