Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Defining Suitable Review Questions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Conducting Systematic Reviews in Sport, Exercise, and Physical Activity

  • 1050 Accesses

Abstract

Before sat navs, compasses helped hikers when tramping through forests. Without a compass, hikers risked becoming lost. In the research forest, purpose statements are the compass equivalent, orienting reviewers towards clear destinations. In sport, exercise, and physical activity, systematic review purpose statements vary in their specificity, influencing readers’ ability to understand a project’s direction. Vague review questions turn readers off quickly and stop them from learning about the project’s contribution to knowledge. In this chapter, I will explain the benefits of clear questions and provide insights into how to construct them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bayliss, K., Starling, B., Raza, K., Johansson, E. C., Zabalan, C., Moore, S., … Stack, R. (2016). Patient involvement in a qualitative meta-synthesis: Lessons learnt. Research Involvement and Engagement, 2, article 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0032-0.

  • Boote, J., Baird, W., & Sutton, A. (2011). Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: A narrative review of case examples. Health Policy, 102, 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.05.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22, 1435–1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. British Medical Journal, 337, article 1655. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655.

  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of the frameworks. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6, 75–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulley, S. B., Cummings, S. R., Browner, W. S., Grady, D. G., & Newman, T. B. (2013). Designing clinical research (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivarsson, A., Johnson, U., Andersen, M. B., Tranaeus, U., Stenling, A., & Lindwall, M. (2017). Psychosocial factors and sport injuries: Meta-analyses for prediction and prevention. Sports Medicine, 47, 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0578-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lanhers, C., Pereira, B., Naughton, G., Trousselard, M., Lesage, F. X., & Dutheil, F. (2017). Creatine supplementation and upper limb strength performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 47, 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0571-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2018). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 108–150). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success. Harvard Business Review, 81, 56–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macnamara, B. N., Moreau, D., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2016). The relationship between deliberate practice and performance in sports: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, S., Dickerson, K., Bangpan, M., & Newman, M. (2017). Getting started with a review. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed., pp. 71–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petticrew, M. (2001). Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: Myths and misconceptions. British Medical Journal, 322, 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7278.98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pluye, P., & Hong, Q. N. (2014). Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: Mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pope, C., Mays, N., & Popay, J. (2007). Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative health evidence: A guide to methods. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, R., & Oliver, S. (2017). Stakeholder perspectives and participation in reviews. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed., pp. 19–41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, S. (2005, August 9). Focus on questions [Web log comment]. Retrieved from https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0508&L=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&F=&S=&P=10841.

  • Squires, J. E., Valentine, J. C., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2013). Systematic reviews of complex interventions: Framing the review question. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66, 1215–1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. M., & Andersen, M. B. (1998). Psychosocial antecedents of sport injury: Review and critique of the stress and injury model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209808406375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48, 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Sport and Exercise Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

    David Tod

Authors
  1. David Tod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Tod .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tod, D. (2019). Defining Suitable Review Questions. In: Conducting Systematic Reviews in Sport, Exercise, and Physical Activity. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12263-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation