Posted: April 28th, 2015
OPTION 1: Individual submission(begin with this template and submit a draft)
Structured 3,500 word essay maximum excluding the 1,129 words of these questions and your list of references. Expand the explanation boxes as required.
You must use this worksheet to complete the assessment and submit it through Turnitin.
Pair number | ||
Name and student number | ||
Second reviewer, name and student number | ||
Date draft submitted through TurnitIn. | Word count (not including the 1,129 for the form and the references): | |
Date of exchange individual work and discussion with partner |
Study assessed: New Moves – Preventing weight-related problems in adolescent girlsNequmark-Sztainer 2010
QUALITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR QUANTITATIVE STUDIES
Please complete these the questions presented as structured paragraphs as you would in an essay. Highlight your selection or cross-out the choice not applicable.Demonstrate your knowledge of epidemiological principles within each section and support your statements.
Show the structured PICO question of the study
COMPONENT RATINGS
(Q1) Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population?
Provide your explanation:
|
(Q2) What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate?
Provide your explanation:
|
RATE THIS SECTION | STRONG | MODERATE | WEAK |
See dictionary | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Provide your explanation:
|
Indicate the study design
Was the study described as randomized? If NO, go to Component C.
No Yes
If Yes, was the method of randomization described? (See dictionary)
No Yes
If Yes, was the method appropriate? (See dictionary)
No Yes
Provide your explanation:
|
RATE THIS SECTION | STRONG | MODERATE | WEAK |
See dictionary | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Provide your explanation:
|
(Q1) Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention?
The following are examples of confounders:
Provide your explanation:
|
(Q2) If yes, indicate the percentage of relevant confounders that were controlled (either in the design (e.g. stratification, matching) or analysis)?
RATE THIS SECTION | STRONG | MODERATE | WEAK |
See dictionary | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Provide your explanation:
|
(Q1) Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of participants?
Provide your explanation:
|
(Q2) Were the study participants aware of the research question?
Provide your explanation:
|
RATE THIS SECTION | STRONG | MODERATE | WEAK |
See dictionary | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Provide your explanation:
|
(Q1) Were data collection tools shown to be valid?
Provide your explanation:
|
(Q2) Were data collection tools shown to be reliable?
Provide your explanation:
|
RATE THIS SECTION | STRONG | MODERATE | WEAK |
See dictionary | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Provide your explanation:
|
(Q1) Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group?
(Q2) Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study. (If the percentage differs by groups, record the lowest).
RATE THIS SECTION | STRONG | MODERATE | WEAK | |
See dictionary | 1 | 2 | 3 | Not Applicable |
Provide your explanation:
|
(Q1) What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest?
Provide your explanation:
|
(Q2) Was the consistency of the intervention measured?
Provide your explanation:
|
(Q3) Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results?
Provide your explanation:
|
(Q1) Indicate the unit of allocation (circle one)
community organization/institution practice/office individual
(Q2) Indicate the unit of analysis (circle one)
community organization/institution practice/office individual
Provide your explanation to Q1 & Q2:
|
(Q3) Are the statistical methods appropriate for the study design?
Provide your explanation:
|
(Q4) Is the analysis performed by intervention allocation status (i.e. intention to treat) rather than the actual intervention received?
Provide your explanation:
|
GLOBAL RATING
COMPONENT RATINGS
Please transcribe the information from the gray boxes on pages 1-4 onto this page. See dictionary on how to rate this section.
A | SELECTION BIAS | STRONG | MODERATE | WEAK | |
1 | 2 | 3 | |||
B | STUDY DESIGN | STRONG | MODERATE | WEAK | |
1 | 2 | 3 | |||
C | CONFOUNDERS | STRONG | MODERATE | WEAK | |
1 | 2 | 3 | |||
D | BLINDING | STRONG | MODERATE | WEAK | |
1 | 2 | 3 | |||
E | DATA COLLECTION METHOD | STRONG | MODERATE | WEAK | |
1 | 2 | 3 | |||
F | WITHDRAWALS AND DROPOUTS | STRONG | MODERATE | WEAK | |
1 | 2 | 3 | Not Applicable |
GLOBAL RATING FOR THIS PAPER (circle one):
1 STRONG (no WEAK ratings)
2 MODERATE (one WEAK rating)
3 WEAK (two or more WEAK ratings)
Discuss now your report with your partner working through each item and the epidemiological principles.
With both reviewers discussing the ratings:
Is there a discrepancy between the two reviewers with respect to the component (A-F) ratings?
No Yes
If yes, indicate the reason for the discrepancy
Describe what happened when you exchanged your drafts and the describe outcomeof the discussion (you may describe what you learned during the process):
|
If you were unable to complete the above comparison, please describe the reason and state the risk of failing to undertake a comparative assessment after initial independent assessment.
Final decision of both reviewers (circle one):
1 STRONG
2 MODERATE
3 WEAK
Provide your explanation:
|
Results:
How large was the effect of the intervention? (consider the outcomes measured, whether the primary outcome is clearly specified, and the key results for each outcome)
Provide your explanation:
|
Your overall conclusions about this study:
Considering both the trustworthiness and outcomes of the study, make a brief overall conclusion.
Provide your explanation:
|
References: (may be in addition to the 3,500 word limit
|
This worksheet is based upon the EPHPP “Qualitative Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies” and with permission was modified for teaching purposes.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.