Writing a literature review involves a synthesis of a complex range of analytical and rhetorical skills as well as academic writing skills, and an understanding of what is meant by critical analysis and argument.
(Turner & Bitchener, 2008).
1.1. WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW?
Pick up nearly any book on research methods and you will find a description of a literature review. At a basic level, the term implies a survey of factual or nonfiction books, articles, and other documents published on a particular subject. Definitions may be similar across the disciplines, with new types and definitions continuing to emerge. Generally speaking, a literature review is a:
- “comprehensive background of the literature within the interested topic area…” (O’Gorman & MacIntosh, 2015, p. 31).
- “critical component of the research process that provides an in-depth analysis of recently published research findings in specifically identified areas of interest.” (House, 2018, p. 109).
- “written document that presents a logically argued case founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about a topic of study” (Machi & McEvoy, 2012, p. 4).
As a foundation for knowledge advancement in every discipline, it is an important element of any research project. At the graduate or doctoral level, the literature review is an essential feature of thesis and dissertation, as well as grant proposal writing. That is to say, “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research…A researcher cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field.” (Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3). It is by this means, that a researcher demonstrates familiarity with a body of knowledge and thereby establishes credibility with a reader. An advanced-level literature review shows how prior research is linked to a new project, summarizing and synthesizing what is known while identifying gaps in the knowledge base, facilitating theory development, closing areas where enough research already exists, and uncovering areas where more research is needed. (Webster & Watson, 2002, p. xiii)
A graduate-level literature review is a compilation of the most significant previously published research on your topic. Unlike an annotated bibliography or a research paper you may have written as an undergraduate, your literature review will outline, evaluate and synthesize relevant research and relate those sources to your own thesis or research question. It is much more than a summary of all the related literature.
It is a type of writing that demonstrate the importance of your research by defining the main ideas and the relationship between them. A good literature review lays the foundation for the importance of your stated problem and research question.
- define a concept
- map the research terrain or scope
- systemize relationships between concepts
- identify gaps in the literature (Rocco & Plathotnik, 2009, p. 128)
The purpose of a literature review is to demonstrate that your research question is meaningful. Additionally, you may review the literature of different disciplines to find deeper meaning and understanding of your topic. It is especially important to consider other disciplines when you do not find much on your topic in one discipline. You will need to search the cognate literature before claiming there is “little previous research” on your topic.
Well developed literature reviews involve numerous steps and activities. The literature review is an iterative process because you will do at least two of them: a preliminary search to learn what has been published in your area and whether there is sufficient support in the literature for moving ahead with your subject. After this first exploration, you will conduct a deeper dive into the literature to learn everything you can about the topic and its related issues.
Literature Review Tutorial
1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW BASICS
An effective literature review must:
- Methodologically analyze and synthesize quality literature on a topic
- Provide a firm foundation to a topic or research area
- Provide a firm foundation for the selection of a research methodology
- Demonstrate that the proposed research contributes something new to the overall body of knowledge of advances the research field’s knowledge base. (Levy & Ellis, 2006).
All literature reviews, whether they are qualitative, quantitative or both, will at some point:
- Introduce the topic and define its key terms
- Establish the importance of the topic
- Provide an overview of the amount of available literature and its types (for example: theoretical, statistical, speculative)
- Identify gaps in the literature
- Point out consistent finding across studies
- Arrive at a synthesis that organizes what is known about a topic
- Discusses possible implications and directions for future research
1.3 TYPES OF LITERATURE REVIEWS
There are many different types of literature reviews, however there are some shared characteristics or features. Remember a comprehensive literature review is, at its most fundamental level, an original work based on an extensive critical examination and synthesis of the relevant literature on a topic. As a study of the research on a particular topic, it is arranged by key themes or findings, which may lead up to or link to the research question. In some cases, the research question will drive the type of literature review that is undertaken.
The following section includes brief descriptions of the terms used to describe different literature review types with examples of each. The included citations are open access, Creative Commons licensed or copyright-restricted.
1.3.1 TYPES OF REVIEW
Guided by an understanding of basic issues rather than a research methodology. You are looking for key factors, concepts or variables and the presumed relationship between them. The goal of the conceptual literature review is to categorize and describe concepts relevant to your study or topic and outline a relationship between them. You will include relevant theory and empirical research.
Examples of a Conceptual Review:
- Education: The formality of learning science in everyday life: A conceptual literature review. (Dohn, 2010).
- Education: Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education. (Amundsen & Wilson, 2012).
An empirical literature review collects, creates, arranges, and analyzes numeric data reflecting the frequency of themes, topics, authors and/or methods found in existing literature. Empirical literature reviews present their summaries in quantifiable terms using descriptive and inferential statistics.
Examples of an Empirical Review:
- Nursing: False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: An empirical review. (Imberger, Thorlund, Gluud, & Wettersley, 2016).
- Education: Impediments of e-learning adoption in higher learning institutions of Tanzania: An empirical review (Mwakyusa & Mwalyagile, 2016).
Unlike a synoptic literature review, the purpose here is to provide a broad approach to the topic area. The aim is breadth rather than depth and to get a general feel for the size of the topic area. A graduate student might do an exploratory review of the literature before beginning a synoptic, or more comprehensive one.
Examples of an Exploratory Review:
- Education: University research management: An exploratory literature review. (Schuetzenmeister, 2010).
- Education: An exploratory review of design principles in constructivist gaming learning environments. (Rosario & Widmeyer, 2009).
A type of literature review limited to a single aspect of previous research, such as methodology. A focused literature review generally will describe the implications of choosing a particular element of past research, such as methodology in terms of data collection, analysis and interpretation.
Examples of a Focused Review:
- Nursing: Clinical inertia in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A focused literature review. (Khunti, Davies, & Khunti, 2015).
- Education: Language awareness: Genre awareness-a focused review of the literature. (Stainton, 1992).
Critiques past research and draws overall conclusions from the body of literature at a specified point in time. Reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way. Most integrative reviews are intended to address mature topics or emerging topics. May require the author to adopt a guiding theory, a set of competing models, or a point of view about a topic. For more description of integrative reviews, see Whittemore & Knafl (2005).
Examples of an Integrative Review:
- Nursing: Interprofessional teamwork and collaboration between community health workers and healthcare teams: An integrative review. (Franklin, Bernhardt, Lopez, Long-Middleton, & Davis, 2015).
- Education: Exploring the gap between teacher certification and permanent employment in Ontario: An integrative literature review. (Brock & Ryan, 2016).
A subset of a systematic review, that takes findings from several studies on the same subject and analyzes them using standardized statistical procedures to pool together data. Integrates findings from a large body of quantitative findings to enhance understanding, draw conclusions, and detect patterns and relationships. Gather data from many different, independent studies that look at the same research question and assess similar outcome measures. Data is combined and re-analyzed, providing a greater statistical power than any single study alone. It’s important to note that not every systematic review includes a meta-analysis but a meta-analysis can’t exist without a systematic review of the literature.
Examples of a Meta-Analysis:
- Education: Efficacy of the cooperative learning method on mathematics achievement and attitude: A meta-analysis research. (Capar & Tarim, 2015).
- Nursing: A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students. (Lee, Lee, Gong, Bae, & Choi, 2016).
- Education: Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. (Weinburgh, 1995).
An overview of research on a particular topic that critiques and summarizes a body of literature. Typically broad in focus. Relevant past research is selected and synthesized into a coherent discussion. Methodologies, findings and limits of the existing body of knowledge are discussed in narrative form. Sometimes also referred to as a traditional literature review. Requires a sufficiently focused research question. The process may be subject to bias that supports the researcher’s own work.
Examples of a Narrative/Traditional Review:
- Nursing: Family carers providing support to a person dying in the home setting: A narrative literature review. (Morris, King, Turner, & Payne, 2015).
- Education: Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. (Hattie, Marsh, Neill, & Richards, 1997).
- Education: Good quality discussion is necessary but not sufficient in asynchronous tuition: A brief narrative review of the literature. (Fear & Erikson-Brown, 2014).
- Nursing: Outcomes of physician job satisfaction: A narrative review, implications, and directions for future research. (Williams & Skinner, 2003).
Aspecific type of literature review that is theory-driven and interpretative and is intended to explain the outcomes of a complex intervention program(s).
Examples of a Realist Review:
- Nursing: Lean thinking in healthcare: A realist review of the literature. (Mazzacato, Savage, Brommels, 2010).
- Education: Unravelling quality culture in higher education: A realist review. (Bendermacher, Egbrink, Wolfhagen, & Dolmans, 2017).
Tend to be non-systematic and focus on breadth of coverage conducted on a topic rather than depth. Utilize a wide range of materials; may not evaluate the quality of the studies as much as count the number. One means of understanding existing literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research; preliminary assessment of size and scope of available research on topic. May include research in progress.
Examples of a Scoping Review:
- Nursing: Organizational interventions improving access to community-based primary health care for vulnerable populations: A scoping review. (Khanassov, Pluye, Descoteaux, Haggerty, Russell, Gunn, & Levesque, 2016).
- Education: Interdisciplinary doctoral research supervision: A scoping review. (Vanstone, Hibbert, Kinsella, McKenzie, Pitman, & Lingard, 2013).
- Nursing: A scoping review of the literature on the abolition of user fees in health care services in Africa. (Ridde, & Morestin, 2011).
Unlike an exploratory review, the purpose is to provide a concise but accurate overview of all material that appears to be relevant to a chosen topic. Both content and methodological material is included. The review should aim to be both descriptive and evaluative. Summarizes previous studies while also showing how the body of literature could be extended and improved in terms of content and method by identifying gaps.
Examples of a Synoptic Review:
- Education: Theoretical framework for educational assessment: A synoptic review. (Ghaicha, 2016).
- Education: School effects research: A synoptic review of past efforts and some suggestions for the future. (Cuttance, 1981).
126.96.36.199 Systematic Review
A rigorous review that follows a strict methodology designed with a presupposed selection of literature reviewed. Undertaken to clarify the state of existing research, the evidence, and possible implications that can be drawn from that. Using comprehensive and exhaustive searching of the published and unpublished literature, searching various databases, reports, and grey literature. Transparent and reproducible in reporting details of time frame, search and methods to minimize bias. Must include a team of at least 2-3 and includes the critical appraisal of the literature. For more description of systematic reviews, including links to protocols, checklists, workflow processes, and structure see “A Young Researcher’s Guide to a Systematic Review“.
Examples of a Systematic Review:
- Education: The potentials of using cloud computing in schools: A systematic literature review (Hartmann, Braae, Pedersen, & Khalid, 2017)
- Nursing: Is butter back? A systematic review and meta-analysis of butter consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and total mortality. (Pimpin, Wu, Haskelberg, Del Gobbo, & Mozaffarian, 2016).
- Education: The use of research to improve professional practice: a systematic review of the literature. (Hemsley-Brown & Sharp, 2003).
- Nursing: Using computers to self-manage type 2 diabetes. (Pal, Eastwood, Michie, Farmer, Barnard, Peacock, Wood, Inniss, & Murray, 2013).
188.8.131.52 Umbrella/Overview of Reviews
Compiles evidence from multiple systematic reviews into one document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address those interventions and their effects. Often used in recommendations for practice.
Examples of an Umbrella/Overview Review:
- Education: Reflective practice in healthcare education: An umbrella review. (Fragknos, 2016).
- Nursing: Systematic reviews of psychosocial interventions for autism: an umbrella review. (Seida, Ospina, Karkhaneh, Hartling, Smith, & Clark, 2009).
For a brief discussion see “Not all literature reviews are the same” (Thomson, 2013).
1.4 WHY DO A LITERATURE REVIEW?
The purpose of the literature review is the same regardless of the topic or research method. It tests your own research question against what is already known about the subject.
1.4.1 First – It’s part of the whole. Omission of a literature review chapter or section in a graduate-level project represents a serious void or absence of critical element in the research process.
The outcome of your review is expected to demonstrate that you:
- can systematically explore the research in your topic area
- can read and critically analyze the literature in your discipline and then use it appropriately to advance your own work
- have sufficient knowledge in the topic to undertake further investigation
1.4.2 Second – It’s good for you!
- You improve your skills as a researcher
- You become familiar with the discourse of your discipline and learn how to be a scholar in your field
- You learn through writing your ideas and finding your voice in your subject area
- You define, redefine and clarify your research question for yourself in the process
1.4.3 Third – It’s good for your reader. Your reader expects you to have done the hard work of gathering, evaluating and synthesizes the literature. When you do a literature review you:
- Set the context for the topic and present its significance
- Identify what’s important to know about your topic – including individual material, prior research, publications, organizations and authors.
- Demonstrate relationships among prior research
- Establish limitations of existing knowledge
- Analyze trends in the topic’s treatment and gaps in the literature
1.4.4 WHY DO A LITERATURE REVIEW?
- To locate gaps in the literature of your discipline
- To avoid reinventing the wheel
- To carry on where others have already been
- To identify other people working in the same field
- To increase your breadth of knowledge in your subject area
- To find the seminal works in your field
- To provide intellectual context for your own work
- To acknowledge opposing viewpoints
- To put your work in perspective
- To demonstrate you can discover and retrieve previous work in the area
1.5 COMMON LITERATURE REVIEW ERRORS
Graduate-level literature reviews are more than a summary of the publications you find on a topic. As you have seen in this brief introduction, literature reviews are a very specific type of research, analysis, and writing. We will explore these topics more in the next chapters. Some things to keep in mind as you begin your own research and writing are ways to avoid the most common errors seen in the first attempt at a literature review. For a quick review of some of the pitfalls and challenges a new researcher faces when he/she begins work, see “Get Ready: Academic Writing, General Pitfalls and (oh yes) Getting Started!”.
As you begin your own graduate-level literature review, try to avoid these common mistakes:
- Accepts another researcher’s finding as valid without evaluating methodology and data
- Contrary findings and alternative interpretations are not considered or mentioned
- Findings are not clearly related to one’s own study, or findings are too general
- Insufficient time allowed to define best search strategies and writing
- Isolated statistical results are simply reported rather than synthesizing the results
- Problems with selecting and using most relevant keywords, subject headings and descriptors
- Relies too heavily on secondary sources
- Search methods are not recorded or reported for transparency
- Summarizes rather than synthesizes articles
In conclusion, the purpose of a literature review is three-fold:
- to survey the current state of knowledge or evidence in the area of inquiry,
- to identify key authors, articles, theories, and findings in that area, and
- to identify gaps in knowledge in that research area.
A literature review is commonly done today using computerized keyword searches in online databases, often working with a trained librarian or information expert. Keywords can be combined using the Boolean operators, “and”, “or” and sometimes “not” to narrow down or expand the search results. Once a list of articles is generated from the keyword and subject heading search, the researcher must then manually browse through each title and abstract, to determine the suitability of that article before a full-text article is obtained for the research question.
Literature reviews should be reasonably complete, and not restricted to a few journals, a few years, or a specific methodology or research design. Reviewed articles may be summarized in the form of tables, and can be further structured using organizing frameworks such as a concept matrix.
A well-conducted literature review should indicate whether the initial research questions have already been addressed in the literature, whether there are newer or more interesting research questions available, and whether the original research questions should be modified or changed in light of findings of the literature review.
The review can also provide some intuitions or potential answers to the questions of interest and/or help identify theories that have previously been used to address similar questions and may provide evidence to inform policy or decision-making. (Bhattacherjee, 2012).
To read the complete book
Linda Frederiksen, Sue F. Phelps. Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students. Pressbooks (Rebus Community), 2019
REFERENCES CITED IN THE BOOK (BY CHAPTER)
Amundsen, C., & Wilson, M. (2012). Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 90-126. doi: 10.3102/0034654312438409
Bendermacher, G., Egbrink, M., Wolfhagen, I., & Dolmans, D. (2017). Unraveling quality culture in higher education: A realist review. Higher Education 73(1), 39-60. doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9979-2
Bhattacherjee, A., (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. Textbooks Collection. 3. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3
Boote, D., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher 34(6), 3-15.
Brock, A., & Ryan, T. (2016). Exploring the gap between teacher certification and permanent employment in Ontario: An integrative literature review. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy 175. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1086899.pdf
Capar, G., & Tarim, K. (2015). Efficacy of the cooperative learning method on mathematics achievement and attitude: A meta-analysis research. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 15(2), 553-559. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1060189.pdf
Cuttance, P. (1981). School effects research: A synoptic review of past efforts and some suggestions for the future. Journal of Sociology 17(3), 65-69.
Dohn, N. (2010). The formality of learning science in everyday life: A conceptual literature review. Nordic Studies in Science Education. https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/nordina/article/view/250/303
Duncan, G., Leak, J., Li, W., Magnuson, K., Schindler, H., & Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Timing issues with early childhood education programs: How effect sizes vary by starting age, program duration and persistence of effects. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=%22a+meta-analysis%22&ft=on&id=ED519340
Fear, W., & Erikson-Brown, A. (2014). Good quality discussion is necessary but not sufficient in asynchronous tuition: A brief narrative review of the literature. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 18(2). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1036265.pdf
Fragkos, K. (2016). Reflective practice in healthcare education: An umbrella review. Education Sciences 6(27). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1116801.pdf
Franklin, C., Bernhardt, J., Lopez, R., Long-Middleton, E., & Davis, S. (2015). Interprofessional teamwork and collaboration between community health workers and healthcare teams: An integrative review. Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28462254
Ghaicha, A. (2016). Theoretical framework for educational assessment: A synoptic review. Journal of Education and Practice 7(24), 212-231. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1112912.pdf
Hartmann, S., Braae, L., Pedersen, S., & Khalid, M. (2017). The potentials of using cloud computing in schools: A systematic literature review. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET 16(1), 190-202. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1124903.pdf
Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 43-87. doi: 10.3102/00346543067001043
Hemsley-Brown, J., & Sharp, C. (2003). The use of research to improve professional practice: a systematic review of the literature. Oxford Review of Education, 29(4), 449-471. doi: 10.1080/0305498032000153025
Houser, J., (2018). Nursing Research Reading, Using, and Creating Evidence (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Imberger, G., Thorlund, K., Gluud, C., & Wetterslev, J. (2016). False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review. BMJ Open, 6(8). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27519923
Jankowski, M., Brożek, G., Lawson, J., Skoczyński, S., & Zejda, J. (2017). E-smoking: Emerging public health problem? International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 30(3), 329-344. doi: 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01046
Khanassov, V., Pluye, P., Descoteaux, S., Haggerty, J., Russell, G., Gunn, J., & Levesque, J. (2016). Organizational interventions improving access to community-based primary health care for vulnerable populations: a scoping review. International Journal for Equity in Health.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27724952
Khunti, S., Davies, M., & Khunti, K. (2015). Clinical inertia in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a focused literature review. British Journal of Diabetes and Vascular Disease, 15, 65-69. http://www.bjd-abcd.com/index.php/bjd/article/view/69
Lee, J., Lee, Y, Gong, S., Bae,J., & Choi, M. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students. BMC medical education, 16(1). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27633506
Levy, Y. & Ellis, T. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science Journal, 9, 181-212. http://www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol9/V9p181-212Levy99.pdf
Machi, L., & McEvoy, B. (2012). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Majumder, K. (2015). A young researcher’s guide to a system review. http://www.editage.com/insights/a-young-researchers-guide-to-a-systematic-review#
Mazzocato P, Savage C, Brommels M, Aronsson, H., & Thor, J. (2010). Lean thinking in healthcare: a realist review of the literature. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19, 376-382. http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/19/5/376.long
Morris, S., King, C., Turner, M., & Payne, S. (2015). Family carers providing support to a person dying in the home setting: A narrative literature review. Palliative Medicine, 29(6), 487-495. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4436280/
Mwakyusa, W., & Mwalyagile, N. (2016). Impediments of e-learning adoption in higher learning institutions of Tanzania: An empirical review. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(30), 152-160. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1118921.pdf
Nowrouzi, B., Giddens, E., Gohar, B., Schoenenberger, S., Bautista, M. C., & Casole, J. (2016). The quality of work life of registered nurses in Canada and the United States: a comprehensive literature review. International Journal Of Occupational & Environmental Health, 22(4), 341-358. doi:10.1080/10773525.2016.1241920
O’Gorman, K., & MacIntosh, R. (2015). Research Methods for Business & Management: A Guide to Writing Your Dissertation. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers.
Pal K, Eastwood S., Michie S., Farmer A., Barnard M., Peacock R, Wood B, Inniss J., & Murray E. (2013). Computer‐based diabetes self‐management interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD008776. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008776.pub2.
Pimpin L., Wu J., Haskelberg H, Del Gobbo L., & Mozaffarian D. (2016) Is butter back? A systematic review and meta-analysis of butter consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and total mortality. PLoS ONE 11(6): e0158118. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158118
Ridde, V., & Morestin, F. (2011). A scoping review of the literature on the abolition of user fees in health care services in Africa. Health Policy and Planning, 26(1), 1-11. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czq021.
Rocco, T. & Plathotnik, M. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 120-130. p. 128, 2009. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1023.5634&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Rosario, R. A. M., & Widmeyer, G. R. (2009). An exploratory review of design principles in constructivist gaming learning environments. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(3), 289-300. http://jise.org/Volume20/20-3/Pdf/20N3P289-abs.pdf
Schuetzenmeister, F. (2010). University research management: An exploratory literature review. Institute of European Studies. UC Berkeley: Institute of European Studies. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/77p3j2hr
Seida, J. K., Ospina, M. B., Karkhaneh, M., Hartling, L., Smith, V., & Clark, B. (2009). Systematic reviews of psychosocial interventions for autism: an umbrella review. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 51(2), 95-104. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03211.x.
Stainton, C. (1992). Language awareness: Genre awareness-a focused review of the literature. Language Awareness, 1(2), 109-121
Thomson, P. (2013), Not all literature reviews are the same. https://patthomson.net/2013/05/23/not-all-literature-reviews-are-the-same/
Tonhäuser, C. & Büker, L. 2016). Determinants of transfer of training: A comprehensive literature review. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training (IJRVET), 3(2), 127-165. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED568698.pdf. doi: 10.13152/IJRVET.3.2.4
Vanstone, M., Hibbert, K., Kinsella, E., McKenzie, P., Pitman, A., & Lingard, L. (2013). Interdisciplinary doctoral research supervision: A scoping review. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(2), 42-67. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1013587.pdf
Webster, J., & Watson, R. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii. https://web.njit.edu/~egan/Writing_A_Literature_Review.pdf
Wegner, W., Silva, M., Peres, M., Bandeira, L., Frantz, E., Botene, D., & Predebon, C. (2017). Patient safety in the care of hospitalised children: Evidence for paediatric nursing. Revista gaúcha de enfermagem, 38(1). doi: 10.1590/1983-1447.2017.01.68020.
Williams, E. S., & Skinner, A. C. (2003). Outcomes of physician job satisfaction: a narrative review, implications, and directions for future research. Health care management review, 28(2), 119-139.
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing 52(2), 546-53. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x/epdf
Vorsino, M. (2015). Re-reading Dewey through a feminist lens. Educational Perspectives, 47(1-2), 50-54. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1088345.pdf
Great Schools Partnership. (2016). The Glossary of Education Reform. http://edglossary.org/action-research/
Hansen, K., & Paul, N. (2015). Disciplines of knowledge. In Information Strategies for Communicators. http://open.lib.umn.edu/infostrategies/chapter/6-7-disciplines-of-knowledge/
Hansen, K., & Paul, N. (2015). Scholarly sources. In Information Strategies for Communicators.http://open.lib.umn.edu/infostrategies/chapter/6-4-scholarly-sources/
Houser, J., (2018). Nursing Research Reading, Using, and Creating Evidence (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2016). Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduates (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Writing for Success (2015). Strategies for gathering reliable information. http://open.lib.umn.edu/writingforsuccess/chapter/11-4-strategies-for-gathering-reliable-information/
D’Antoni, A. V., & Pinto Zipp, G. (2006). Applications of the mind map learning technique in chiropractic education: A pilot study and literature review. Journal of Chiropractic Humanities, 13, 2-11.
Dhanga, N., & Taheri, S. (2017). A narrative review of obesity and hearing loss. International Journal of Obesity. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2017.32
Dittman, M. (2005). Starting the dissertation. gradPSYCH 3(1). http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2005/01/starting.aspx
Early Childhood Longitudinal Program (ECLS). (2011). Example research questions. https://nces.ed.gov/ecls/researchquestions2011.asp
Kefalianos, E., Onslow, M., Block, S., Menzies, R., & Reilly, S. (2012). Early stuttering, temperament and anxiety: Two hypotheses. Journal of Fluency Disorders 37(3), 151-163.
Leslie, M., Floyd, J., & Oermann, M. (2002). Use of MindMapper software for research domain mapping. Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN, 20(6), 229-35.
Manafo, E., & Wong, S. (2012). Health literacy programs for older adults: A systematic literature review. Health Education Research 27(6), 947-960.
Pain, E. (2016). How to (seriously) read a scientific paper. http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/03/how-seriously-read-scientific-paper
Rowan, M., Poole, N., Shea, B., Gone, J., Mykota, D., Farag, M., Hopkins, C., Hall, L. Mushquash, C., & Dell, C. (2014). Cultural interventions to treat addictions in indigenous populations: Findings from a scoping study. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 9(34). doi: 10.1186/1747-597X-9-34.
Sandoval, E. (2016). Music in peacebuilding: A critical literature review. Journal of Peace Education13(3), 200-217.
Snyder, E., Witmer, S., & Schmitt, H. (2017). English language learners and reading instruction: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure 61(2), 136-145.
Walton, A., & Rogers, B. (2017). Workplace hazards faced by nursing assistants in the United States: A focused literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(5). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28534859
Wahl P, Bruland D, Bauer U, Okan O, & Lenz A. (2017). What are the family needs when a parent has mental health problems? Evidence from a systematic literature review. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 30, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcap.12171
Bernnard, D., Bobish, G., Hecker, J., Holden, I., Hosier, A., Jacobson, T., Loney, T., & Bullis, D. (2014a). Scoping: Knowing what is available. In Bobish, G., & Jacobson, T. (eds.) The Information Literacy Users Guide: An Open Online Textbook. https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/the-information-literacy-users-guide-an-open-online-textbook/chapter/gather-finding-what-you-need/
Bernnard, D., Bobish, G., Hecker, J., Holden, I., Hosier, A., Jacobson, T., Loney, T., & Bullis, D. (2014b). Science literacy: Information literacy in the sciences. In Bobish, G., & Jacobson, T. (eds.) The Information Literacy Users Guide: An Open Online Textbook.https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/the-information-literacy-users-guide-an-open-online-textbook/chapter/science-literacy-information-literacy-in-the-sciences/
Clark, S. (2016). Online Research: Tips for Effective Search Strategies. CC BY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJygQwYV84
Fink, A. (2014). Conducting Research Literature Reviews (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Hammond, C. & Brown, S. (2008). Citation searching: Search smarter & find more. Information Today 28(5). http://www.infotoday.com/cilmag/may08/Hammond_Brown.shtml
Association of College & Research Libraries (2016). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
Bernnard, D., Bobish, G., Hecker, J., Holden, I., Hosier, A., Jacobson, T., Loney, T., & Bullis, D. (2014). Scoping: Knowing what is available. In Bobish, G., & Jacobson, T. (eds.) The Information Literacy Users Guide: An Open Online Textbook. https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/the-information-literacy-users-guide-an-open-online-textbook/chapter/evaluate-assessing-your-research-process-and-findings/
Blendell, R.L., & Fehr, J.L. (2012). Discussing vaccination with concerned patients: An evidence-based resource for healthcare providers. Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing 26(3), 230-241. Retrieved from http://www.nursingcenter.com/evidencebasedpracticenetwork/home/journalarticle.aspx?Article_ID=1405702
Caulfield, M. (2017). Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers. CC BY. https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/
Frydenberg, J. (2002). Quality standards in e-learning: A matrix of analysis. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distributed Learning, 3(2). CC BY-SA 4.0. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v3i2.109
Kerath, S., Klein, G., Kern, M., Shapira, I., Witthuhn, J., Norohna, N., Kline, M., Baksh, F. Gregersen, P., and Taioli, E. (2013). Beliefs and attitudes towards participating in genetic research: A population based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 13 (114). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-114
Mandalios, J. (2013). RADAR: An approach for helping students evaluate Internet sources. Journal of Information Science 39(4), 470-478. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551513478889
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., de Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Gebrekristos, S., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., and Hinz, S. (2017). The Condition of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=201714
Radom, R. (2017). Evaluating Information Sources Using the 5 Ws”. OER Commons. Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education. CC BY-NC 4.0 https://www.oercommons.org/authoring/19364-evaluating-information-sources-using-the-5-ws
Sheridan Libraries, Johns Hopkins University. (2017). Evaluating Social Media. CC BY. http://guides.library.jhu.edu/c.php?g=202581&p=1335031.
Bell, J. (2005). Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers in Education, Health and Social Science (4th ed). New York: Open University Press.
Collins, S. (2016). Professional Writing in the Health Disciplines. http://epub-fhd.athabascau.ca/professionalwriting/ CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0
Machi, L.A., & McEvoy, B.T. (2012). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Teaching & Learning, Ohio State University Libraries. (2015). Choosing & using sources: A guide to academic research. CC BY 4.0 https://osu.pb.unizin.org/choosingsources/
University of Edinburgh Records Management (2017). Electronic record naming conventions. http://www.ed.ac.uk/records-management/records-management/staff-guidance/electronic-records/naming-conventions
Bernnard, D., Bobish, G., Hecker, J., Holden, I., Hosier, A., Jacobson, T., Loney, T., & Bullis, D. (2014). Presenting: Sharing What You’ve Learned. In Bobish, G., & Jacobson, T. (eds.) The Information Literacy Users Guide: An Open Online Textbook. https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/the-information-literacy-users-guide-an-open-online-textbook/chapter/present-sharing-what-youve-learned/
Garrard, J. (2017). Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy: The Matrix Method. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Klingner, J., Scanlon, D., & Pressley, M. (2005). How to publish in scholarly journals. Educational Researcher 34(8): 14-20.
Milardo, R.M. (2015). Crafting Scholarship in the Behavioral and Social Sciences: Writing, Reviewing, and Editing. New York: Routledge.
Loseke, D. (2017). Methodological thinking: Basic principles of social research design (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Pautasso M (2013) Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology9(7): e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. (2016). This is a derivative of Research Methods in Psychology by a publisher who has requested that they and the original author not receive attribution, which was originally released and is used under CC BY-NC-SA. This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Previous: Appendix
Related works (in Spanish)
- Revisiones sistematizadas para trabajos académicos · 1: Conceptos, fases y bibliografía
- Revisiones sistematizadas para trabajos académicos · 2: Búsqueda y Evaluación
- Revisiones sistematizadas para trabajos académicos · 3: Análisis y Síntesis
- Revisiones bibliográficas sistematizadas: Procedimientos generales y Framework para Ciencias Humanas y Sociales [PDF]