Table 2 Criteria used for assessing the conceptual richness of sources
‘Conceptually rich’ [29] | ‘Thicker description’ [30] but not ‘conceptually rich’ | ‘Thinner description’ [30] |
|---|---|---|
Theoretical concepts are unambiguous and described in sufficient depth to be useful | Description of the programme theory or sufficient information to enable it to be ‘surfaced’ | Insufficient information to enable the programme theory to be ‘surfaced’ |
Relationships between and amongst concepts are clearly articulated | Consideration of the context in which the programme took place | Limited or no consideration of the context in which the programme took place |
Concepts sufficiently developed and defined to enable understanding without the reader needing to have first-hand experience of an area of practice | Discussion of the differences between programme theory (the design and orientation of a programme—what was intended) and implementation (what ‘happened in real life’) | Limited or no discussion of the differences between programme theory (the design and orientation of a programme—what was intended) and implementation (what ‘happened in real life’) |
Concepts grounded strongly in a cited body of literature | Recognition and discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the programme as implemented | Limited or no discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the programme as implemented |
Concepts are parsimonious (i.e. provide the simplest, but not over-simplified, explanation) | Some attempt to explain anomalous results and findings with reference to context and data | No attempt to explain anomalous results and findings with reference to context and data |
- | Description of the factors affecting implementation | Limited or no description of the factors affecting implementation |
- | Typified by | Typified by |
 Terms—‘model’, ‘process’, or ‘function’ |  Mentioning only an ‘association’ between variables | |
 Verbs—‘investigate’, ‘describes’, or ‘explains’ | ||
 Topics—‘experiences’ |