Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(3)

Critical appraisal criteria 
To critically appraise the included reviews and assess if they were conducted and reported according to 
high-quality standards (Pollock et al., 2021), the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI, (2017) checklist for 
systematic reviews and research syntheses was used (see Appendix B). A scoring system consisting of 
assigning scores to each review based on each of the 10 checklist questions was used. When the specific 
criteria under consideration were explicitly and clearly reported in the review, one point was assigned; 
when the review only partly or ambiguously described the criteria, a half point was assigned; and when the 
criteria were missing, zero points were assigned. The scores were then summed to yield the final quality 
score out of 10. To be included in the final synthesis, reviews had to meet a quality threshold of 5. The 
results of the quality assessment were used to contextualise the overview’s evidence base and assess how 
the systematic review methods may have affected the overview’s overall results (Pollock et al., 2021), 
including implications for practice and research (Aromataris et al., 2015). After critical appraisal, 10 studies 
were excluded, leaving 13 studies for evidence synthesis. 
Data collection and synthesis 
EPPI Reviewer software and an Excel worksheet were used to extract and code the data from the included 
reviews. Data collection and synthesis were carried out in three phases. In the first phase, a data extraction 
form was developed in an Excel worksheet as a logical approach for storing extracted information (i.e., 
review characteristics, purpose, synthesis methods and findings). Two reviewers who had been involved in 
the screening and eligibility phases independently extracted the information from a random sample of 20% 
of the included reviews. As in the screening phase, disagreements between the reviewers on the application 
and interpretation of the extraction form were resolved through consensus. After reaching agreement, data 
extraction was conducted on the remaining reviews by two independent reviewers. Using guidelines by 
Aromataris et al. (2015), the following aspects of each publication were extracted: publication metadata 
(i.e., publication year and type), review purpose, type of review, setting and context, number of databases 
used, date range of included studies, number and types of studies included and country of origin of each 
review, method for evidence synthesis, reported findings, implications for practice and future lines of 
research. 
In the second phase, after the extraction was completed, a hybrid coding scheme was developed, which 
allowed for both, deductive (closed) and inductive (open) coding to occur in relation to the specific 
objectives of the study in a flexible and emergent manner. This coding phase, which was implemented by 
two independent reviewers, emphasised double-checking for accuracy, reliability and consistency of the 
hybrid code scheme. In the third and final phase, qualitative content analysis (Schreier, 2012) was used to 
generate literature summary tables of the included reviews and identify patterns in the coded data. 

---

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(3). 
126 
Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the percentage of study characteristics reported across different 
methodological aspects and systematically describe and synthesise the range of variables studied.