Skip to main content

Table 1 Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist

From: Physical education Teachers’ and public health Nurses’ perception of Norwegian high school Students’ participation in physical education – a focus group study

No. item Guide questions/Description Response
Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity
Personal Characteristics
1. Inter viewer/facilitator Which author/s conducted the interview or focus group? EA, THS, CSO and GR conducted the focus groups.
2. Credentials What were the researcher’s credentials? E.g. PhD, MD EA: MD, PhD. THS: MSc, PhD. SB: MSc, PhD. CSO: MSc
GR: MSc, PhD
3. Occupation What was their occupation at the time of the study? EA: Public health officer, THS: Associate professor, SB: Professor, CSO: Physiotherapist, GR: Associate professor
4. Gender Was the researcher male or female? Female: THS, CSO, GR. Male: EA, SB
5. Experience and training What experience or training did the researcher have? The group of researchers had experience with qualitative and quantitative research methods based on several previous research projects.
Relationship with participants
6. Relationship established Was a relationship established prior to study commencement? The PE teachers initiated the contact with the researchers based on their interest of trying out a new PE model.
7. Participant knowledge of the interviewer What did the participants know about the researcher? e.g. personal goals, reasons for doing the research The participants knew that members of the research group were interested in adolescent health.
8. Interviewer characteristics What characteristics were reported about the inter viewer/facilitator? e.g. Bias, assumptions, reasons and interests in the research topic The interviewers represented different professions. Medicine (EA), nutrition science (THS), sports science (SB), physiotherapy (CSO) and nursing science (GR).
Domain 2: study design
Theoretical framework
9. Methodological orientation and Theory What methodological orientation was stated to underpin the study? e.g. grounded theory, discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenology, content analysis Systematic Text Condensation represents a hermeneutic phenomenological approach. Self-determination theory was used as a theoretical framework of the study.
Participant selection
10. Sampling How were participants selected? e.g. purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball We invited all PE teachers in high schools in Kristiansand municipality and public health nurses in high schools in Kristiansand and Mandal municipality to take part in the study by purposeful sampling.
11. Method of approach How were participants approached? e.g. face-to-face, telephone, mail, email The participants were approached by email.
12. Sample size How many participants were in the study? Information is given in the methods chapter.
13. Non-participation How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons? Public health nurses and PE teachers from one high school were not able to participate due to other obligations. No one refused to participate.
14. Setting of data collection Where was the data collected? e.g. home, clinic, workplace The interviews took place at regular meetings at the schools.
15. Presence of non-participants Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers? No.
16. Description of sample What are the important characteristics of the sample? e.g. demographic data, date Both male and female PE teachers participated. Only female public health nurses worked at the high schools.
Data collection
17. Interview guide Were questions, prompts, guides provided by the authors? Was it pilot tested? The interview guide is enclosed with the manuscript.
18. Repeat interviews Were repeat inter views carried out? If yes, how many? Information is provided in the methods chapter.
19. 19. Audio/visual recording Did the research use audio or visual recording to collect the data? The interviews were audiotaped.
20. Field notes Were field notes made during and/or after the inter view or focus group? Short field notes were made after the interviews.
21. Duration What was the duration of the inter views or focus group? The duration of the interviews were 60–90 min.
22. Data saturation Was data saturation discussed? Data saturation was discussed and considered sufficient to perform the analysis.
23. Transcripts returned Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction? The transcripts were not returned to the participants, but the preliminary findings were presented to and discussed with the participants.
Domain 3: analysis and findings
Data analysis
24. Number of data coders How many data coders coded the data? Two researchers (EA and GR) coded the data.
25. Description of the coding tree Did authors provide a description of the coding tree? The headlines and subtitles in the results presentation represent the final coding tree.
26. Derivation of themes Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data? Themes were derived from the data.
27. Software What software, if applicable, was used to manage the data? We used NVivo® for Mac version 10.2.1 to assist analysis.
28. Participant checking Did participants provide feedback on the findings? Yes, as reported in the methods chapter.
29. Quotations presented Were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes/findings? Was each quotation identified? e.g. participant number Yes. Gender and profession identified the participants.
30. Data and findings consistent Was there consistency between the data presented and the findings? Yes.
31. Clarity of major themes Were major themes clearly presented in the findings? Yes.
32. Clarity of minor themes Is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes? Several diverse cases and minor themes are described in the results chapter.
  1. Developed from:
  2. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2007. Volume 19, Number 6: pp. 349 – 357