conducting literature reviews

Conducting Literature Reviewsthe goal of rigordefine internal validity as the extent to which the review represents accurately the phenomena it is intended to describe or explaindefine objectivity as the extent to which areview’s findings are determined by the objects of the inquiry and not by the researchers’ biases andvaluesdefine externalvalidity as the extent to which the findings have applicability in other contextsdefine external validity as the extent to which the findings have applicability in other contextsTypes of Literature ReviewNarrative reviewssummarize previously published research on a topic of interestDevelopmental reviewsprovide a research community with new conceptualizations, research models, theories, frameworks or methodological approachesCumulative reviewscompile empirical evidence to map bodies of literature and draw overall conclusions regarding particular topics od interest Aggregative reviewsbring together prior findings and test specific research hypotheses or propositions. By rigorously collating and pooling prior empirical data, aggregative reviews are particularly valued for providing evidence-based validations of pre-specified theoretical models and propositions.Descriptive reviewseek to determine the extent to which a body of empirical studies in a specific research area supports or reveals any interpretable patterns or trends with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findingsScoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the available literature on a particular topicMeta-analysis use specific data extraction techniques and statistical methods to aggregate quantitative data in the form of standard effect measuresQualitative systematic reviewsattempt to search, identify, select, appraise, and abstract data from quantitative empirical studies to answer the following main questionsUmbrella reviewsa tertiary type of study that integrates relevant evidence from multiple systematic reviews (qualitative or quantitative) into one accessible and usable document to address a narrow research questionTheoretical reviewsdraws on existing conceptual and empirical studies to provide a context for identifying, describing, and transforming into a higher order of theoretical structure and various concepts, constructs or relationshipsRealist reviewstheory-driven interpretative reviews that were developed to inform, enhance, extendor alternatively supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision making Critical reviewsaim to critically analyze the extant literature on a broad topic to reveal weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, or inconsistenciesA Systematic Review of Scholarly Research on the Content of WikipediaQuality of ContentComprehensivenessMultidisciplinary and generalMedicine and healthHistotyPsychologyBiologyCommunicationCurrencyReadability and StyleReliabilityReliability assessment of Wikipediapositive or equivalent evaluationsnegative or inferior evaluationsverifiability: citing other sourcesquality-related trendsAntecedents of QualityGroup characteristicsEditing patterns and processesFeatured ArticlesSize of WikipediaMicro-Level Size FactorsMacro-Level Size Factorsserve as the background for an empirical study or as an independent, standalone piece that provides a valuable contribution in its own rightTask ATask BTask CGeneral procedureFormulation the problemThis step requires authors to define the review's objective(s), provide definitions of key concepts and justify the need for a review articleGuidelines to Evaluate Standalone Literature Reviewsreviewed the reference lists of the abovementioned sourcesselected those papers that offer practical or pragmatic guidelines on how to perform literature reviewsvalidated our list of papers using the backward and forward search techniquescarefully scrutinized each paperreflected on the usefulness and necessity of each activity, or guideline, in thereview process by questioning how it satisfied a specific purpose in terms of the study’s methodological rigor
8