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

Wierenga, Debbie; Engbers, Luuk H; Van Empelen, Pepijn; Duijts, Saskia; Hildebrandt, Vincent H; Van Mechelen, Willem

doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-1190

BMC Public Health

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

^aControlled trial.
*two effect articles scored together.
**two process evaluations scored together.
***three effect articles scored together and 2 implementation articles scored together.
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).

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcpublichealth@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com