“…Only three papers were rated as being high quality (++; Draper, Errington, Omar, & Makhita, 2013; Geary, Lambie, & Seymour, 2011; Halse et al, 2012), six medium (+; Belton, Barnard, & Cotmore, 2014; Duane, Carr, Cherry, McGrath, & O’Shea, 2002; Jones, 2015; Miller, 2011; Pierce, 2011; Somervell & Lambie, 2009), and four low (−; Lambie et al, 2000; Lawson, 2003; Martin, 2004; Slattery, Cherry, Swift, Tallon, & Doyle, 2012). Areas where papers received low ratings include the unclear role of the researcher, the thin description of context, the uncertain reliability of analysis, and the lack of “richness” of the data reported.…”