Skip to main content
Sports Medicine - Open

Table 4 Quality assessment of qualitative studies using SRQR criteria [20].

From: Determinants of Food Choice in Athletes: A Systematic Scoping Review

 

Brief description

Smart et al. [22]

Robins et al. [23]

Long [35]a

Long et al. [24]

Stokes et al. [26]

Eck et al. [33]

Juzwiak [34]

1

Title

   

*

 

*

 

2

Abstract

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

3

Problem formulation

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

4

Purpose / research question

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

5

Qualitative approach/ research paradigm

P

P

*

*

  

*

6

Researcher characteristics/ reflexivity

*

  

*

  

P

7

Context

*

 

*

*

  

*

8

Sampling strategy

*

 

*

*

*

 

*

9

Ethical issues

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

10

Data collection methods

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

11

Data collection instruments / techniques

*

P

*

*

*

*

*

12

Units of study

*

*

*

*

*

*

P

13

Data processing

*

 

*

 

*

*

*

14

Data analysis

*

*

*

*

  

*

15

Techniques to enhance trustworthiness

*

 

*

*

*

 

*

16

Synthesis and interpretation

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

17

Links to empirical data

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

18

Integration with prior work/ implications / transferability/ contribution

*

*

*

*

*

P

*

19

Limitations

*

*

P

*

*

P

*

20

Conflict of interest

   

*

 

*

 

21

Funding

   

*

*

*

*

 

Total score

17.5

10

16.5

20

15

14

18

  1. Bold values indicate total score of quality based on the sum of the number of items that meet the reporting criteria for each study
  2. * = addressed by authors; P = partially addressed by authors
  3. aPhD thesis
  4. 1. Concise description of the nature and topic of the study identifying the study as qualitative or indicating the approach (e.g., ethnography, grounded theory) or data collection methods (e.g., interview, focus group) is recommended
  5. 2. Summary of key elements of the study using the abstract format of the intended publication; typically includes background, purpose, methods, results, and conclusions
  6. 3. Description and significance of the problem/phenomenon studied; review of relevant theory and empirical work; problem statement
  7. 4. Purpose of the study and specific objectives or questions
  8. 5. Qualitative approach (e.g., ethnography, grounded theory, case study, phenomenology, narrative research) and guiding theory if appropriate; identifying the research paradigm (e.g., postpositivist, constructivist/interpretivist) is also recommended; rationale
  9. 6. Researchers’ characteristics that may influence the research, including personal attributes, qualifications/experience, relationship with participants, assumptions, and/or pre-suppositions; potential or actual interaction between researchers’ characteristics and the research questions, approach, methods, results, and/or transferability
  10. 7. Setting/site and salient contextual factors; rationale
  11. 8. How and why research participants, documents, or events were selected; criteria for deciding when no further sampling was necessary (e.g., sampling saturation); rationale
  12. 9. Documentation of approval by an appropriate ethics review board and participant consent, or explanation for lack thereof; other confidentiality and data security issues
  13. 10. Types of data collected; details of data collection procedures including (as appropriate) start and stop dates of data collection and analysis, iterative process, triangulation of sources/methods, and modification of procedures in response to evolving study findings; rationale
  14. 11. Description of instruments (e.g., interview guides, questionnaires) and devices (e.g., audio recorders) used for data collection; if/how the instrument(s) changed over course of the study
  15. 12. Number and relevant characteristics of participants, documents, or events included in the study; level of participation (could be reported in results)
  16. 13. Methods for processing data prior to and during analysis, including transcription, data entry, data management and security, verification of data integrity, data coding, and anonymization/deidentification of excerpts
  17. 14. Process by which inferences, themes, etc., were identified/ developed, including the researchers involved in data analysis; usually references a specific paradigm or approach; rationale
  18. 15. Techniques to enhance trustworthiness and credibility of data analysis (e.g., member checking, audit trail, triangulation); rationale
  19. 16. Main findings (e.g., interpretations, inferences, and themes); might include development of a theory or model, or integration with prior research or theory
  20. 17. Evidence (e.g., quotes, field notes, text excerpts, photographs) to substantiate analytic findings
  21. 18. Short summary of main findings; explanation of how findings and conclusions connect to, support, elaborate on, or challenge conclusions of earlier scholarship; discussion of scope of application/generalizability; identification of unique contribution(s) to scholarship in a discipline or field
  22. 19. Trustworthiness and limitations of findings
  23. 20. Potential sources of influence or perceived influence on study conduct and conclusions; how these were managed
  24. 21. Sources of funding and other support; role of funders in data collection, interpretation, and reporting
Back to article page