The assessment of the MA dissertations' literature review quality*
| MA dissertations No | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1: Design | ||||||||||||||||
| 1 | In relationship to the overall research field, is this literature review needed and does it make a substantial, practical or theoretical contribution? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 2 | Are the motivation, the purpose, and the research question(s) clearly stated and motivated? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 3 | Does the review account for the previous literature review and other relevant literature? | √ | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | √ | √ | × | × | × | √ | √ |
| 4 | Is the approach/methodology for the literature review clearly stated? | √ | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | √ | × | × | × | × | √ |
| 5 | Is this the most appropriate approach to address the research problem? | √ | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | √ | √ | × | × | × | √ | √ |
| 6 | Are the methodology and the search strategy clearly and transparently described and motivated (including search terms, databases used, and explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria)? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Total | 6 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 6 | |
| Phase 2: Conduct | ||||||||||||||||
| 1 | Is the search process appropriate for this type of review? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 2 | Is the practical search process accurately described and accounted for? | √ | √ | √ | √ | × | × | × | √ | √ | √ | × | × | √ | √ | √ |
| 3 | Is the process of the inclusion and exclusion of articles transparent? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 4 | Have proper measures been taken to ensure research quality? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 5 | Can it be trusted that the final sample is appropriate and in concordance with the overall purpose of the review? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Total | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| Phase 3: Data Abstraction and Analysis | ||||||||||||||||
| 1 | Is the data abstracted from the article appropriate in concordance with the overall purpose of the review? | √ | √ | √ | √ | × | × | × | √ | √ | √ | × | × | √ | √ | √ |
| 2 | Is the process for abstracting data accurately described? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | × | × | √ | √ | √ | × | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 3 | Have proper measures been taken to ensure quality data abstraction? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 4 | Is the chosen data analysis technique appropriate concerning the overall research question and the data abstracted? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 5 | Is the analysis process properly described and transparent? | √ | √ | √ | × | × | √ | × | × | √ | √ | × | × | × | √ | √ |
| Total | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | |
| Phase 4: Structuring and Writing the Review | ||||||||||||||||
| 1 | Is the review article organized coherently in relation to the overall approach and research question? | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × |
| 2 | Is the overall method of conducting the literature review sufficiently described? Can the study be replicated? | √ | × | × | × | √ | × | × | × | √ | × | × | × | × | √ | √ |
| 3 | Is the result of the review reported in an appropriate and clear way? | √ | √ | × | × | √ | × | × | × | √ | √ | × | × | × | × | √ |
| 4 | Does the article synthesize the findings of the literature review into a clear and valuable contribution to the topic? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 5 | Are questions or directions for further research included? Are the results from the review useable? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Total | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| MA dissertations No | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In relationship to the overall research field, is this literature review needed and does it make a substantial, practical or theoretical contribution? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 2 | Are the motivation, the purpose, and the research question(s) clearly stated and motivated? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 3 | Does the review account for the previous literature review and other relevant literature? | √ | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | √ | √ | × | × | × | √ | √ |
| 4 | Is the approach/methodology for the literature review clearly stated? | √ | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | √ | × | × | × | × | √ |
| 5 | Is this the most appropriate approach to address the research problem? | √ | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | √ | √ | × | × | × | √ | √ |
| 6 | Are the methodology and the search strategy clearly and transparently described and motivated (including search terms, databases used, and explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria)? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Total | 6 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 6 | |
| 1 | Is the search process appropriate for this type of review? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 2 | Is the practical search process accurately described and accounted for? | √ | √ | √ | √ | × | × | × | √ | √ | √ | × | × | √ | √ | √ |
| 3 | Is the process of the inclusion and exclusion of articles transparent? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 4 | Have proper measures been taken to ensure research quality? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 5 | Can it be trusted that the final sample is appropriate and in concordance with the overall purpose of the review? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Total | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| 1 | Is the data abstracted from the article appropriate in concordance with the overall purpose of the review? | √ | √ | √ | √ | × | × | × | √ | √ | √ | × | × | √ | √ | √ |
| 2 | Is the process for abstracting data accurately described? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | × | × | √ | √ | √ | × | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 3 | Have proper measures been taken to ensure quality data abstraction? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 4 | Is the chosen data analysis technique appropriate concerning the overall research question and the data abstracted? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 5 | Is the analysis process properly described and transparent? | √ | √ | √ | × | × | √ | × | × | √ | √ | × | × | × | √ | √ |
| Total | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | |
| 1 | Is the review article organized coherently in relation to the overall approach and research question? | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | × |
| 2 | Is the overall method of conducting the literature review sufficiently described? Can the study be replicated? | √ | × | × | × | √ | × | × | × | √ | × | × | × | × | √ | √ |
| 3 | Is the result of the review reported in an appropriate and clear way? | √ | √ | × | × | √ | × | × | × | √ | √ | × | × | × | × | √ |
| 4 | Does the article synthesize the findings of the literature review into a clear and valuable contribution to the topic? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 5 | Are questions or directions for further research included? Are the results from the review useable? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Total | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Note(s): *Adopted from Snyder's (2019, p. 338) model “Guidelines to assess the quality of a literature review”
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Please sign in to your personal account to gift article access.
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Gift articles remaining: --
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Gift articles remaining: --
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses.
You have reached the limit of 10 links within a 30 day period.
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.