Skip to main content


Table 2 Description of data sources for the framework analysis and how they were used by the research team

From: The Calgary Audit and Feedback Framework: a practical, evidence-informed approach for the design and implementation of socially constructed learning interventions using audit and group feedback

Data sources Description of how data was collected/used
Sample anonymous AF reports for each project The research team reviewed the AF reports and described the quality of data visualization for each case. Through familiarization with the data from the first study, the team captured participant responses to the reports which could support or refute the team observations about the reports. Observations were noted in the framework table (Exemplar graphs from AF reports are shown in Figs. 3 and 4).
Process evaluation for case 1 A formal process evaluation of case 1 was conducted by a senior CPLP team member at the termination of that project. This was a seven-page document outlining processes, procedures, stakeholders, and lessons learned for this project. This report was reviewed by the researchers (LC, DD) information from the report that provided information about influencing social interaction in case 1 was added to the case 1 description in the framework table.
Transcripts and qualitative analysis of AGFS An inductive thematic analysis of the transcripts for the six AGFS was conducted in a prior study [8]. Team members who reviewed these transcripts repeatedly for the first study made observations about the interactivity, collegiality, and change orientation of the groups which were included in the case analysis. These observations were collected as “field notes” recorded directly into the framework table during research team meetings to discuss the case studies. They were corroborated by returning to review the coding in the transcripts and in interviews with program staff who were present at those AGFS.
Structured interviews of CPLP staff A staff member who observed each AGFS was interviewed using a the framework table as a structured guide. They were asked to comment about each element in the framework for each case. Their responses were captured in notes entered directly into the framework analysis table. Likewise, the facilitator of the six sessions was interviewed and all responses were captured in the same document.
CPLP tracking document Basic information about each AGFS was captured by the CPLP staff in a tracking document maintained by the program. These included key performance indicators such as numbers of reports distributed, timing of AGFS.
Observations of the research team A consensus meeting of members of the research team (LC, HA, LR, DD) was held to share and compare observations of the AGFS and AGF projects. These observations were captured and noted directly into the framework table. This content was reviewed iteratively during the case analysis and during the development of the CAFF to ensure accuracy and consensus about the findings for each case that was analyzed. Observations of the research team were triangulated with the other data sources for corroboration.