Skip to main content

Table 2 Overall scores of the methodological quality of the included studies

From: What is actually measured in process evaluations for worksite health promotion programs: a systematic review

First author (Year) Methodological quality assessment criterion – effect evaluations Methodological quality assessment criterion – process evaluation
  V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 Validity score (V) in % T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 Validity score (T) in %
Driessen et al. (2010, 2011)** + + +/- +/- + + + + 87,5 + + + + +/- + + + + 94,4
Groeneveld et al. (2010, 2011)* + N/A + +/- + +/- N/A + 83,3 - + + + - + + N/A + 75
French et al. (2010)* +/- + +/- N/A + N/A +/- + 75 - N/A - - - +/- +/- N/A - 14,3
Dishman & Wilson et al. (2009, 2010) + +/- +/- - + - +/- + 56,25 + + + + + + + + + 100
Yap et al. (2009, 2010)* N/A N/A + + + N/A N/A + 100 - - - - - - N/A + - 12,5
Gilson et al. (2007, 2008) + N/A + - +/- - - + 50 - - + - - +/- N/A +/- - 25
Goetzel, DeJoy, Wilson et al. (2007, 2009-2011)a *** N/A +/- +/- - + N/A +/- + 75 + + + +/- + + + + - 83,3
Lemon, Estabrook et al. (2010-2011) +/- + +/- + + - - + 62,5 + + + + + + + + + 100
Andersen et al. (2011) + N/A + + + + + + 100 - - +/- - - - + N/A + 31,25
Haukka, Pehkonen et al. (2009,2010) + - + + + N/A - + 71,4 - + + + +/- + + + + 83,3
Sorensen, Hunt et al. (2005, 2007) - + + +/- +/- - - + 50 - + + + - + + + - 66,67
Beresford et al. (2000, 2001, 2010)* - + + - + - - + 50 - + + +/- +/- + + N/A + 75
Sorensen, Hunt et al. (2007, 2010) - N/A + + + - - +/- 50 - - +/- - - +/- +/- N/A +/- 25
Steenhuis et al. (2004) - +/- +/- - + - - + 37,5 - - - +/- - - N/A - +/- 12,5
Sorenson, Quintiliani et al. (2010) _ + + + +/- - - + 56,25 - + + - - + + N/A + 62,5
Stoddard, Hunt et al. (2003, 2005) - + + N/A + - - +/- 50 - + +/- +/- - + + N/A - 50
Volpp, Kim et al. (2009, 2011) + - + + + - - + 62,5 +/- - +/- - +/- + + + + 61,1
Hasson et al. (2005, 2010) + - + + + - - + 62,5 + - + - + + + N/A +/- 68,75
Vermeer et al. (2011) +/- - - +/- +/- - - + 31,25 + + + + + + + + - 88,89
Strijk et al. (2011, 2012) + + + +/- + + + + 93,75 + + + + +/- + + N/A - 81,25
Verweij et al. (2011, 2012) + - + + + + + + 87,5 + + + + + + + + + 100
Jorgensen et al. (2011, 2012) + - + - + +/- + + 68,75 + - + + +/- - + N/A - 56,25
  1. aControlled trial.
  2. *two effect articles scored together.
  3. **two process evaluations scored together.
  4. ***three effect articles scored together and 2 implementation articles scored together.
  5. N/A, not applicable. +, positive. +/-, not sufficient; -, negative. All trials are randomized trials except for the trials indicated with a superscript ‘a’. The maximum score for methodological quality of effect evaluations is 8 (based on validity section V1-V8). The maximum score for methodological quality of process evaluation is 9 (based on section T1-T9).