Skip to main content

Table 6 Quality appraisal of included qualitative studies (n = 16)

From: A systematic review of the health and well-being impacts of school gardening: synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence

First author (year)

Wallace criteria

Total # Yes ratings

Overall rating

1

2

2b

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Ahmed (2011) [40]

Y

N

CT

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

10

Moderate

Alexander (1995) [41]

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

P

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

CT

8

Moderate

Anderson (2011) [42]

Y

Y

CT

Y

Y

CT

P

P

N

N

P

Y

P

5

Weak

Block (2012) [24]

Block (2009) [25]

Gibbs (2013) [26]

Townsend (2014) [43]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

P

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

Y

11

Strong

Bowker (2007) [44]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

P

Y

Y

P

Y

Y

Y

P

10

Moderate

Chawla (2014) [11]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

P

Y

Y

Y

Y

P

Y

Y

11

Strong

Chiumento (2012) [12]

Y

P

CT

Y

Y

P

P

P

Y

Y

N

NA

P

5

Weak

Cutter-Mackenzie (2009) [45]

Y

N

CT

Y

Y

P

Y

P

N

Y

Y

Y

P

7

Moderate

Hazzard (2011) [46]

Y

N

CT

Y

P

P

P

P

Y

P

N

N

P

3

Weak

Henryks (2011) [47]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

P

Y

Y

P

NA

P

8

Moderate

Lakin (2008) [48]

Y

N

CT

Y

Y

P

Y

CT

N

P

N

Y

N

5

Weak

Miller (2007) [49]

Y

N

CT

Y

Y

CT

Y

Y

P

P

N

N

N

5

Weak

Ming Wei (2012) [13]

Y

Y

CT

Y

Y

P

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

NA

Y

10

Moderate

Passy (2010) [50]

Y

N

CT

Y

Y

Y

Y

CT

N

Y

N

Y

P

7

Moderate

Somerset (2005) [51]

Y

N

CT

Y

N

CT

N

P

P

Y

N

N

CT

3

Weak

Viola (2006) [52]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

P

Y

P

N

P

Y

Y

Y

9

Moderate

  1. Where multiple publications reported qualitative data from the same study, they were appraised as one study
  2. Y yes, P partial, N no, CT can’t tell, NA not applicable
  3. Overall quality rating: strong (11–12 ratings Y); moderate (6–10 ratings Y); weak (1–5 ratings Y)
  4. Legend for Table 6: Wallace criteria (Wallace et al. [18])
  5. 1. Is the research question clear?
  6. 2. Is the theoretical or ideological perspective of the author (or funder) explicit?
  7. 2b. Has this influenced the study design, methods or research findings?
  8. 3. Is the study design appropriate to answer the question?
  9. 4. Is the context or setting adequately described?
  10. 5. Is the sample adequate to explore the range of subjects and settings, and has it been drawn from an appropriate population?
  11. 6. Was the data collection adequately described?
  12. 7. Was data collection rigorously conducted to ensure confidence in the findings?
  13. 8. Was there evidence that the data analysis was rigorously conducted to ensure confidence in the findings?
  14. 9. Are the findings substantiated by the data?
  15. 10. Has consideration been given to any limitations of the methods or data that may have affected the results?
  16. 11. Do any claims to generalisability follow logically and theoretically from the data?
  17. 12. Have ethical issues been addressed and confidentiality respected?
  18. The scoring system used above was adapted for the purposes of this review
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us