CASP RUBRIC Author Names: Kelvin Choi, Lindsey Fabian, Neli Mottey, Amanda Corbet, and Jean Foster

CASP Question Exemplary Performance

Score
(5-0)

Interpretation of the (5-0) Scale

1: The author (a) made a clear statement of the

research aims and goals, (b) described the importance
of the research, (c) established its relevance, and (d)
provided supporting citations.

2: The author clearly established (a) the

appropriateness of research methodology
in general to the research goals, (b) the fit between the
selected research methodology and the research
question(s), and (c) provided supporting citations.
3: The author clearly (a) described the research
design, (b) explained the designs appropriateness to
address the aims of the research, (c) explained how,
when, or why the design was selected, (d) established
fit between design described and design implemented;
and (e) provided supporting citations.
4: The author clearly (a) identified the sampling
strategy, (b) justified its appropriateness to the aims of
the research and studys design; (c) described the
process and outcomes of the recruitment strategy, (d)
justified its appropriateness to the aims of the research
and studys design; (e) described the studys
participants; (f) explained how, where, when, and why
the sites/participants were selected; (g) protected the
identities of the participants; and (h) provided
supporting citations.
5: The author clearly (a) described how data were
collected and processed; (b) described who collected
and processed the data; (c) explained how the data
collection and processing addressed the research issue;
(d) justified the setting for data collection; (e) if the
methods were modified during the study, explained
how and why; (f) acknowledged if data saturation had
been achieved; and (g) provided supporting citations.

6: The author clearly (a) described the relationship

between researcher and participants; (b) explained
how potential bias was managed with the
methodological choices made throughout the research

Reviewer: XXXXXXXXXXX
Comments

Date: XXXXX

5=Excellentthe author(s) addressed all of the suggested elements; 4=Very Goodthe author(s) addressed
most of the suggested elements; 3=Goodthe author(s) addressed some of the suggested elements; 2=Fairthe
author(s) addressed few of the suggested elements; 1-0=Poorthe author(s) did not address any of the
suggested elements.
a)Yes, the objectives of the study are to explore young adults' perceptions of snus, dissolvable tobacco products, and
electronic cigarettes and their intention to try these products (+). b) The authors think the study is particularly important
because research focusing on public perceptions of new tobacco products has been limited, and this research allows to
examine young adults' perceptions of these new products because they have been a target of tobacco company marketing
(+). c) The authors consider the study is relevant because there is not enough research on public perceptions of newly
introduced tobacco products and this research represented an opportunity to expand literature . (+). d) The authors
provided references but no citations < ->.
a) They describe the method used to generate data (Qualitative: focus groups, thematic approach) based on the fact that
they focused the research on public perceptions this is the most appropriate method. (+). b) The authors did not discuss
why they selected focus group methodology (focus groups) and no other type of qualitative mythology method (interview,
observation) to collect the data (-). c) The authors provided references but no citations < ->.

a) They did not clearly describe the research design (descriptive research design), they did not explain clearly the overall
strategy that they chose to integrate the different components of the study in a coherent and logical way to address the
research problem.(-). b) The authors did not explain the design's appropriateness to address the goals of the research, they
did not explain how they decided which methods to use (-).c) No, they did not explain how, when, or why the design was
selected (-). d) The authors did not establish fit between design described and design implemented (-). e) The authors
provided references but no citations. < ->.

a) No, they did not identify the sampling strategy used in the research (purposive sampling, quota sampling, etc) (-). b).
They did not justify its correctness to the goals of the research and study's design (why those 66 individuals are the most
appropriate to provide answers to the research?) (-). c) Yes, the authors described that they use 4 recruitment strategies to
get 66 participants (+). d) They did not explained why the sampling strategy adopted was the most appropriate to achieve
the goals of the study (-). e)Yes, they clearly described the study's participants (26 men and 40 women between 18 and 16
years old, 4-year college or graduates and 2-year college or not enrolled in postsecondary education) (+). f) They explain
how (recruitment strategies), where (colleges campuses, newsletter, recruitment booth), why (4-year colleges to represent
those with higher socioeconomic status and 2-year colleges to represent those with lower socioeconomic status) but they
did not specified when the participants were selected < ->. g) Participants' identities had to be protected by the authors
because participants provided written consent before taking part in the study. In addition, the study was approved by the
University of Minnesota IRB (+). h)The authors provided references but no citations < ->.
a) Yes, the data was collected trough semi structured focus group discussions and a previous short questionnaire. They
developed audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim all focus group discussions and analyzed them using a thematic
approach (+) . b) Yes, the data was collected by one author ( Kelvin Choi) and reviewed it for himself and a second
author (Lindsey Fabian) (+). c) Yes, the data collection and processing was directed to answer the research issue; they
developed the discussion guide including topics such as perceptions of new tobacco products and experiences with those
products. Additionally, they showed participants pictures of the new tobacco products to collect their perceptions. (+). d)
Yes, they set up the groups on the basis of their gender and education (enrolled in or graduated a 4-year college or not) for
data collection because they had the knowledge that exposure to tobacco marketing has been reported to differ by those 2
characteristics (+). e) The methods were not modified during the study. (N/A). f) The researchers have not discussed
saturation of data (-). g) The authors provided references but no citations. < ->.

a)No, the authors did not mention the relationship between the researcher and the participants (-). b) No, they did not
explain how their potential bias was managed in the research study considering that one of the authors (K.C.) was
conducting the focus groups, and that the study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The authors never declared
their assumptions about the topic, their bias and influences of their own point of view (-).

Study; (c) described how and when responses were

made to events during the study and whether or not
these acts had implications for any changes in the
research design; and (d) provided supporting citations.
7: The author clearly (a) described how ethical issues
been taken into consideration; (b) provided sufficient
details of how research was explained to participants
for the reader to assess whether ethical standards were
maintained; (c) discussed any issues raised such as
informed consent or confidentiality and explained how
effects of the study on the participants during and after
the study were handled; (d) described how approval
has been sought and secured from an appropriate
ethics committee; and (e) provided supporting
citations.
8: The author clearly (a) provided an in-depth
description how data were analyzed and by whom; (b)
described a sufficiently rigorous data analysis process;
(c) described a data analysis process consistent with
the methodology and design described; (d) explained
to what extent contradictory data were taken into
account; (e) described a quality control system
intended to manage researchers own role, potential
bias and influence during analysis and selection of
data for presentation; and (f) provided supporting
citations.
9: The author clearly (a) stated explicit findings; (b)
supported findings coherently with sufficient data; (c)
presented adequate discussion of the evidence both for
and against the researchers arguments; (d) discussed
the credibility of the findings; and (e) discussed
findings in relation to the original research questions.
10: The author clearly (a) described the value of the
research; (b) explained limitations of the research
findings; (c) discussed contributions study makes to
existing knowledge or understanding of the
phenomenon; (d) considered the findings in relation to
current practice or policy, or relevant research-based
literature; (e) identified new areas where research is
necessary; and (f) discussed whether or how the
findings can be transferred to other populations or
considered other ways the research may be used.
Total Score

c) They did not describe how the researcher responded to events during the study and whether they considered the
implications of any changes in the research design (N/A). d)The authors provided references but no citations. < ->.

a) No, the authors did not clearly describe or provide sufficient details of how ethical issues are considered (-). b) They
did not provide sufficient details of how the research was explained to participants for the reader to be able to assess
whether ethical standard were maintained but the study was approved by the University of Minnesota IRB, and
participants provided written consent. This means that at least, participants know the study's procedures, its benefits and
its risks. etc. < ->. c) The researchers did not discuss in the article any issues raised by the study such as issues around
informed consent or confidentiality or how they handled the effects of the study on the participants during and after the
study (-). d) The approval of the study was made by the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (+). e) The
authors provided references but no citations. < ->.

a) Yes, they described that the data was analyzed using a thematic approach by two of the authors, K.C and L.F (+). b)
Yes, the first author K.C. reviewed all transcripts and derived a set of themes and subthemes from the discussions. These
conclusions were compared with the themes and subthemes derived from a second author's review. At the end, two other
authors verified the results of the analysis (+). c) Yes, the thematic analysis was used and it is clear how the
categories/themes and codes were derived from the data (+). d) No, they did not explain to what extent contradictory data
were taken into account but they expressed that disagreements on themes, subthemes and codes were resolved through
discussion < ->. e) No, the authors did not describe if the researchers critically examined their own role, potential bias
and influence during analysis and selection of data for presentation (-). f) The authors provided references but no citations.
< ->.

a)Yes, they stated that only minor differences by gender and education were observed of snus, dissolvable tobacco
products, and electronic cigarettes (+). b) Yes, they explained general perceptions observed by categories (accessible and
convenient, attractive and modern, fun and recreational, concealed, distasteful, etc.), perceptions about harmfulness
relative to cigarettes, perceptions about the potential of these new tobacco products to help people to quit smoking, and
intentions to try (+). c) I think there is no an adequate discussion of the evidence both for and against the researchers
arguments (-). d) They did not discussed the credibility of the findings (-) e) Yes, the author focus their findings in relation
to the original questions ( general perceptions and intentions to try) (+)

a) Yes, they consider that their findings expanded the literature on perceptions of new tobacco products (+). b) Yes, they
explicitly explain limitations of the research findings ( # of participants cannot be representative of all young adults, small
size groups, fewer men than women in the study, etc) (+). c) Yes, despite the limitations, this study deepens the
understanding of young adults' perceptions of snus, dissolvable tobacco products, and e-cigarettes. The authors found that
young adults generally perceived these products positively, and both smokers and nonsmokers reported that they would
use them in the future (+). d) Yes, they compared their findings with previous studies, for example various flavors offered
by e-cigarettes attract smokers to use them, participants see e-cigarettes as "healthier" than cigarettes because e-cigarettes
deliver only nicotine and are helpful in quitting smoking (+). e) Yes, authors identified new areas where research is
necessary, for instance, there is limited research on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as quit aids. They hope the FDA will
further examine the potential risks associated with using e-cigarettes. Another possible research is the necessity to
investigate the role of the new tobacco products in smoking initiation (+). f) Yes, they considered or recommended a
community-based survey with a large number of young adults to confirm their finding regarding this research.(+)

Overall
Rating
E = Excellent (50-41); VG = Very Good (40-31); G = Good (30-21); F = Fair (20-11); P = (10-0)

29

Good