Weight of Evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence

By D. Gough. 2007

805 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Management Science and Operations Research, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cd1e1075da056663b61fd1baf560eaf6e8962059

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Investigating forty years of stem research: How explanations for the gender gap have evolved over time (2014, background): “Further, whereas meta-analysis calls for an assessment of how much “weight” should be given to the findings of a research study, the meta-narrative seeks to give voice to the over-arching storylines of one or many bodies of literature by summarizing key methods and findings (Gough, 2007).”
Systematic Review. What is the evidence of the impact of microfinance on the well-being of poor people? (2011, background): “org 17 Gough D (2007) Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence.”
Environmental education and K-12 student outcomes: A review and analysis of research (2018, methodology): “We also learned from critiques of research reviews in education, more generally, and EE, in particular (e.g., Cooper, 2010; Gough, 2007; Gough, Oliver, & Thomas, 2012; Hallinger, 2013; Marcinkowski, 2003; Rickinson & Reid, 2016).”
The surprisingly weak evidence base for supervision: Findings from a systematic review of research in child welfare practice (2000–2012) (2013, methodology): “The only three studies with a longitudinal perspective would not pass muster in most reviews because of their design and methodological limitations; they, and a number of other studies, are included here through a somewhat generous interpretation of the Weight of Evidence quality appraisal criteria ”
Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies (2018, background): “Reporting of literature searching is a key area in systematic reviews since it sets out clearly what was done and how the conclusions of the review can be believed [52, 109].”
Critical Thinking Development—A Necessary Step in Higher Education Transformation towards Sustainability (2018, background): “One of the ways that they can start searching for the reasons why they did something in class or why they chose a certain approach in solving certain problems, is to apply reflection [22,23] with the aim of disclosing the reasons for certain actions and enabling student teachers to learn from their ”
Tablet use in schools: a critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes (2016, methodology): “Each study in the final set was assessed for its quality based on our modified version of the Weight of Evidence (WoE) framework outlined in Gough (2007).”
Technological pedagogical content knowledge - a review of the literature (2013, methodology): “2010), suggesting that the boundaries between the knowledge domains are fuzzy (Graham 2011). This becomes clear when the individual items of the instruments are inspected. For instance, Archambault and Barnett (2010) classified the item ‘My ability to plan the sequence of concepts taught within my c”
Socioeconomic Status and Child Development (2013, methodology): “To ensure accuracy, senior team members extracted outcome and quality assessment data using accepted weight of evidence criteria (Gough, 2007).”
Rape myth acceptance, victim blame attribution and Just World Beliefs: A rapid evidence assessment. (2017, methodology): “…1 VB = victim-blaming; 2 RSA = rape-supportive attitude; 3 RMA = rape-myth acceptance; 4 JWB = Just World Belief; 5 WoE = weight of evidence (Gough, 2007); 6 ARVS = Attitudes towards Rape Victims Scale (Ward, 1988); 7 VBA = Victim Blaming Attributions; 8 MRMS = Male Rape Myth Scale; 9 SRES…”
Creative Learning Environments in Education--A Systematic Literature Review. (2013, methodology): “- judgement of overall weight of evidence (WoE) (Gough 2007) based on the assessments made for each of the above criteria (see Table 3).”
The Impact of Economic Resource Transfers to Women Versus Men (2012, methodology): “In order to screen studies relevant to our systematic review question, we assessed the relevance and quality of the studies retrieved according to three main criteria, adapted from Gough (2007):”
Effects of Student Participation in Decision Making at School. A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Empirical Research. (2012, background): “In our study, we included a wide range of research designs and studies with differing quality levels and weighed them accordingly to determine the strength of the evidence (Gough, 2007).”
Traditional and Inquiry-Based Learning Pedagogy: A Systematic Critical Review (2018, background): “Table.1 explains the inclusion criteria in detail Gough (2007).”