Fer to distinct constructs. Where distinctly-named constructs have Nutlin (3a)MedChemExpress Nutlin (3a) equivalent definitions, apply the code `Bridging constructs–duplicate correction’ in order to merge them. 6. If any constructs have been merged or sub-divided, return to the visual summaries and reperform a within and cross XL880 web analysis of TAK-385 supplier theoretical framework clusters following steps 1 and 2. 7. Compile a report of the most recent set of theoretical frameworks, listing their constructs, and of the most recent set of constructs, listing all definitions. This report is to be reviewed by a member of the team with expertise in the subject-matter. If changes are recommended, the team is to verify changes, making additional splits and mergers where necessary, using the review methods described thus far. This process is to be repeated until agreement is reached between the lead reviewer and the expert. 8. The resulting set of frameworks and constructs constitutes the review’s set of etic, analystgenerated frameworks and constructs. To move from author-reported to analyst-generated theoretical frameworks and constructs we used domain analysis [29] and the constant comparative method [30] at both conceptual levels. Each TAK-385 solubility cluster of author-reported theoretical frameworks was analyzed for internal uniformity based on presence of suspected equivalent constructs. Representative examples from each uniform cluster were subsequently compared. Once we had made a selection of key constructs from each framework, construct definitions were analyzed for internal uniformity within groups of commonly-named article-specific constructs. We then compared representative definitions of all constructs that were key to defining a framework. Following these steps, the entire set of frameworks was examined to see if changes SART.S23506 in constructs had implications for the categorization of frameworks. At both levels this analysis resulted in splits and mergers of the initial set of frameworks and constructs coded in Stage 1. Where this was done (or where it was frustrated due for example to absent construct definitions) the process was recorded using codes. This enabled us to track the process, and was used in later stages to match article-specific operationalizations to analyst-generated constructs. Once a stable categorization of frameworks and constructs had been reached, this was compiled into a report that was examined by a team member who had expertise in the subject matter. This member critically j.jebo.2013.04.005 reviewed the report and sought to identify instances where the categorizations created through the structural review were not meaningful from the perspective of the field. Where changes were recommended, the lead reviewer attempted to refute them on an evidentiary basis. This interchange, based on the principles of refutational synthesis [31], continued until consensus was reached between the two teammembers, signifying agreement reached between two modes of enquiry–empirical and expert-PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0149071 February 22,10 /Systematic Review of Methods to Support Commensuration in Low Consensus Fieldsguided. The set of frameworks and constructs agreed on was then used in the remainder of the review as, analyst-generated etic representations. After these two stages, we then conducted transparency, validity, and feasibility tests, modeled on Kampen and Tam [32] and da Silva et. al. [33], on all articles-specific operationalizations. We subsequently integrated those remaining transparent, valid.Fer to distinct constructs. Where distinctly-named constructs have equivalent definitions, apply the code `Bridging constructs–duplicate correction’ in order to merge them. 6. If any constructs have been merged or sub-divided, return to the visual summaries and reperform a within and cross analysis of theoretical framework clusters following steps 1 and 2. 7. Compile a report of the most recent set of theoretical frameworks, listing their constructs, and of the most recent set of constructs, listing all definitions. This report is to be reviewed by a member of the team with expertise in the subject-matter. If changes are recommended, the team is to verify changes, making additional splits and mergers where necessary, using the review methods described thus far. This process is to be repeated until agreement is reached between the lead reviewer and the expert. 8. The resulting set of frameworks and constructs constitutes the review’s set of etic, analystgenerated frameworks and constructs. To move from author-reported to analyst-generated theoretical frameworks and constructs we used domain analysis [29] and the constant comparative method [30] at both conceptual levels. Each cluster of author-reported theoretical frameworks was analyzed for internal uniformity based on presence of suspected equivalent constructs. Representative examples from each uniform cluster were subsequently compared. Once we had made a selection of key constructs from each framework, construct definitions were analyzed for internal uniformity within groups of commonly-named article-specific constructs. We then compared representative definitions of all constructs that were key to defining a framework. Following these steps, the entire set of frameworks was examined to see if changes SART.S23506 in constructs had implications for the categorization of frameworks. At both levels this analysis resulted in splits and mergers of the initial set of frameworks and constructs coded in Stage 1. Where this was done (or where it was frustrated due for example to absent construct definitions) the process was recorded using codes. This enabled us to track the process, and was used in later stages to match article-specific operationalizations to analyst-generated constructs. Once a stable categorization of frameworks and constructs had been reached, this was compiled into a report that was examined by a team member who had expertise in the subject matter. This member critically j.jebo.2013.04.005 reviewed the report and sought to identify instances where the categorizations created through the structural review were not meaningful from the perspective of the field. Where changes were recommended, the lead reviewer attempted to refute them on an evidentiary basis. This interchange, based on the principles of refutational synthesis [31], continued until consensus was reached between the two teammembers, signifying agreement reached between two modes of enquiry–empirical and expert-PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0149071 February 22,10 /Systematic Review of Methods to Support Commensuration in Low Consensus Fieldsguided. The set of frameworks and constructs agreed on was then used in the remainder of the review as, analyst-generated etic representations. After these two stages, we then conducted transparency, validity, and feasibility tests, modeled on Kampen and Tam [32] and da Silva et. al. [33], on all articles-specific operationalizations. We subsequently integrated those remaining transparent, valid.Fer to distinct constructs. Where distinctly-named constructs have equivalent definitions, apply the code `Bridging constructs–duplicate correction’ in order to merge them. 6. If any constructs have been merged or sub-divided, return to the visual summaries and reperform a within and cross analysis of theoretical framework clusters following steps 1 and 2. 7. Compile a report of the most recent set of theoretical frameworks, listing their constructs, and of the most recent set of constructs, listing all definitions. This report is to be reviewed by a member of the team with expertise in the subject-matter. If changes are recommended, the team is to verify changes, making additional splits and mergers where necessary, using the review methods described thus far. This process is to be repeated until agreement is reached between the lead reviewer and the expert. 8. The resulting set of frameworks and constructs constitutes the review’s set of etic, analystgenerated frameworks and constructs. To move from author-reported to analyst-generated theoretical frameworks and constructs we used domain analysis [29] and the constant comparative method [30] at both conceptual levels. Each cluster of author-reported theoretical frameworks was analyzed for internal uniformity based on presence of suspected equivalent constructs. Representative examples from each uniform cluster were subsequently compared. Once we had made a selection of key constructs from each framework, construct definitions were analyzed for internal uniformity within groups of commonly-named article-specific constructs. We then compared representative definitions of all constructs that were key to defining a framework. Following these steps, the entire set of frameworks was examined to see if changes SART.S23506 in constructs had implications for the categorization of frameworks. At both levels this analysis resulted in splits and mergers of the initial set of frameworks and constructs coded in Stage 1. Where this was done (or where it was frustrated due for example to absent construct definitions) the process was recorded using codes. This enabled us to track the process, and was used in later stages to match article-specific operationalizations to analyst-generated constructs. Once a stable categorization of frameworks and constructs had been reached, this was compiled into a report that was examined by a team member who had expertise in the subject matter. This member critically j.jebo.2013.04.005 reviewed the report and sought to identify instances where the categorizations created through the structural review were not meaningful from the perspective of the field. Where changes were recommended, the lead reviewer attempted to refute them on an evidentiary basis. This interchange, based on the principles of refutational synthesis [31], continued until consensus was reached between the two teammembers, signifying agreement reached between two modes of enquiry–empirical and expert-PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0149071 February 22,10 /Systematic Review of Methods to Support Commensuration in Low Consensus Fieldsguided. The set of frameworks and constructs agreed on was then used in the remainder of the review as, analyst-generated etic representations. After these two stages, we then conducted transparency, validity, and feasibility tests, modeled on Kampen and Tam [32] and da Silva et. al. [33], on all articles-specific operationalizations. We subsequently integrated those remaining transparent, valid.Fer to distinct constructs. Where distinctly-named constructs have equivalent definitions, apply the code `Bridging constructs–duplicate correction’ in order to merge them. 6. If any constructs have been merged or sub-divided, return to the visual summaries and reperform a within and cross analysis of theoretical framework clusters following steps 1 and 2. 7. Compile a report of the most recent set of theoretical frameworks, listing their constructs, and of the most recent set of constructs, listing all definitions. This report is to be reviewed by a member of the team with expertise in the subject-matter. If changes are recommended, the team is to verify changes, making additional splits and mergers where necessary, using the review methods described thus far. This process is to be repeated until agreement is reached between the lead reviewer and the expert. 8. The resulting set of frameworks and constructs constitutes the review’s set of etic, analystgenerated frameworks and constructs. To move from author-reported to analyst-generated theoretical frameworks and constructs we used domain analysis [29] and the constant comparative method [30] at both conceptual levels. Each cluster of author-reported theoretical frameworks was analyzed for internal uniformity based on presence of suspected equivalent constructs. Representative examples from each uniform cluster were subsequently compared. Once we had made a selection of key constructs from each framework, construct definitions were analyzed for internal uniformity within groups of commonly-named article-specific constructs. We then compared representative definitions of all constructs that were key to defining a framework. Following these steps, the entire set of frameworks was examined to see if changes SART.S23506 in constructs had implications for the categorization of frameworks. At both levels this analysis resulted in splits and mergers of the initial set of frameworks and constructs coded in Stage 1. Where this was done (or where it was frustrated due for example to absent construct definitions) the process was recorded using codes. This enabled us to track the process, and was used in later stages to match article-specific operationalizations to analyst-generated constructs. Once a stable categorization of frameworks and constructs had been reached, this was compiled into a report that was examined by a team member who had expertise in the subject matter. This member critically j.jebo.2013.04.005 reviewed the report and sought to identify instances where the categorizations created through the structural review were not meaningful from the perspective of the field. Where changes were recommended, the lead reviewer attempted to refute them on an evidentiary basis. This interchange, based on the principles of refutational synthesis [31], continued until consensus was reached between the two teammembers, signifying agreement reached between two modes of enquiry–empirical and expert-PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0149071 February 22,10 /Systematic Review of Methods to Support Commensuration in Low Consensus Fieldsguided. The set of frameworks and constructs agreed on was then used in the remainder of the review as, analyst-generated etic representations. After these two stages, we then conducted transparency, validity, and feasibility tests, modeled on Kampen and Tam [32] and da Silva et. al. [33], on all articles-specific operationalizations. We subsequently integrated those remaining transparent, valid.