2018
DOI: 10.1080/02667363.2018.1466269
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The representation of the management of behavioural difficulties in EP practice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…From here, 20% of the papers ( n = 7) were read and scored by both authors using these evaluative frameworks, with a high level of inter‐rater agreement both before (93%) and after discussion (100%). Following recent systematic reviews within the domain of educational research (e.g., Allen and Bond, 2020; Law and Woods, 2018), scores were converted into percentages to allow for fair and accurate comparison between frameworks: total scores of less than 33% were given a ‘low’ rating; scores between 34 and 66% were given a ‘medium’ rating; and scores of 67% or above were given a ‘high’ rating. Dixon‐Woods et al.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From here, 20% of the papers ( n = 7) were read and scored by both authors using these evaluative frameworks, with a high level of inter‐rater agreement both before (93%) and after discussion (100%). Following recent systematic reviews within the domain of educational research (e.g., Allen and Bond, 2020; Law and Woods, 2018), scores were converted into percentages to allow for fair and accurate comparison between frameworks: total scores of less than 33% were given a ‘low’ rating; scores between 34 and 66% were given a ‘medium’ rating; and scores of 67% or above were given a ‘high’ rating. Dixon‐Woods et al.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The qualitative investigation and evaluation papers utilised the frameworks used by Bond et al (2013) in their review of the effectiveness of solution focused brief therapy (cf. also Law and Woods, 2018). Each paper was coded with final scores assigned up to 14 points, with criteria including execution of data collection, analysis close to data, evidence of explicit reflexivity and evidence of attention to ethical issues.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As frameworks had different totals, final scores were converted to percentages to allow for comparison, and the higher percentage was used. Following Law and Woods (2018), these percentages were then used to categorise each paper as high quality (67-100 per cent), medium quality (34-66 per cent), or low quality (33 per cent or less).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The qualitative studies were assessed using the Review Framework for Qualitative Evaluation/Investigation Research, which was adapted from a systematic review of the effectiveness of Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) by Bond and colleagues (2013) and has been extensively used in subsequent systematic literature reviews (e.g. Ezzamel and Bond, 2016; Law and Woods, 2018; Snape and Atkinson, 2016; Tyrell and Woods, 2018). This framework identifies 12 criteria (appropriateness of research design, clear sampling rationale, well-executed data collection, analysis close to the data, evidence of explicit reflexivity, comprehensiveness of documentation, negative case analysis, clarity and comprehensiveness of reporting, evidence of researcher-participant negotiation of meanings, emergent theory related to the problem, transferable conclusions and evidence of attention to ethical issues) and gives each paper a score of between 0 and 14 (some criteria carrying two points).…”
Section: Data Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%