Steps and Procedure

The procedure used to conduct this review was in accordance with the stages outlined by Gasteen (2010) mentioned earlier.

1. Define and refine the topic.

The researcher attempted to ensure that the topic was well defined and concise.

2. Conducting a literature search

In the second stage, searches were conducted for relevant research outputs. The initial intent was to review and consider both international and national literature published between 2000 and 2013. However, relevant research outputs were only international studies. Internet and database searches were conducted by means of the researcher generating a list of keywords related to the study. Initially “childhood development” and “antisocial personality disorder” were part of keywords used to generate results, but this yielded few results. As a result those keywords were removed, and more comprehensive search strings were found. These keywords were: parenting, antisocial behaviour, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder.

All relevant articles were reviewed and their references scanned for other potential research studies. The studies included in this systematic review were located by using the following databases: PsycINFO, Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC), E-Journals, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL with

67

Full Text, and Humanities International Complete. A web search using Google Scholar was also executed. This study made use of quantitative and qualitative studies, and therefore books and commentaries were not included in the search. By searching these databases a list of relevant studies for the review was drawn up, and may be seen in Appendix A. Included in Appendix A is also the search strings used with the numbers of articles found per database.

3. Search according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria used to identify studies were as follows: Articles needed to

(a) Be quantitative and qualitative studies, with a focus on the role of parenting in the development of antisocial behaviour.

(b) Contain information about parenting. This could include parenting practices, parenting behaviours, and parenting styles; related to the development of antisocial behaviour.

(c) Include one or both parents, male, female, or same sex.

(d) Include biological or adoptive parents who had raised the child since infant years.

(e) Focus on children ranging in age from infancy to adolescence, but under the age of 18 years old.

The exclusion criteria used to exclude studies from the review were as follows: (a) The studies needed to focus explicitly on children with antisocial

behaviour, CD, or ODD, and no other diagnosis.

The researcher considered all articles that were identified through the initial search, and those that met the inclusion criteria were included. According to the

68

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD, 2009) the process for study selection is conducted in two stages:

During the first stage, decisions are made based on titles and abstracts which are evaluated against the inclusion criteria. If it can be determined that an article does not meet the inclusion criteria then it can be rejected. For those studies that address the topic of interest, but fail to meet one or more criteria, the researcher should record why the study failed to meet the inclusion criteria. During the second stage, the researcher should obtain the full text of the article, if a definite decision cannot be made based on the title or the abstract of the study alone.

The researcher followed both these stages during the screening process. A total of 236 publications were screened (128 from PsychINFO, 50 from Academic Search Complete, 9 from E-Journals, 7 from ERIC, 4 from Cinahl Full Text, and 38 from Google Scholar).

One hundred and twenty eight articles were excluded from the review based on either duplication, or their being deemed irrelevant to the subject under review. This reduced the number of articles to 108. After initial screening, a total of 44 studies made the selection for relevancy for the study.The reason for the studies exclusion was recorded on the inclusion criteria form found in Appendix B. The second stage involved the detailed screening of those 44 articles. Of the 44 articles, 36 made the second screening process after reading through the abstracts or full text. Of the 36 studies, 35 were published articles, and 1 was an unpublished research article. A list of the studies included in this review can be found in Appendix C. An independent consultant was used to verify the second stage screening process in an attempt to eliminate bias.

69 4. Data extraction

Data extraction involves capturing the data extracted from each paper, such as the description of included participants, what the outcomes of each study were, what the summary of the results were, and the emerging themes. Data extraction forms provide consistency in a systematic review, and the use of an electronic form enables the researcher to record and extract data in one step (CRD, 2009). Data extraction was done by the researcher and the completed data extraction form drawn up for this purpose is attached as Appendix D.

To ensure the limitation of data-extraction bias, Petticrew and Roberts (2006) advise that all the data should be extracted by another person. An independent consultant was thus utilised to assist the researcher in determining the emerging themes, and the summary of results as a way to eliminate bias.

5. Data analysis and quality appraisal

This involves the collation and summary of findings of studies included in the review. During this stage findings are assembled and presented in a meaningful, objective, systematic and organised way. The summary of findings consists of the data that was extracted, and results and themes discussed for each article meeting the inclusion criteria.

The process of assembling findings allowed the researcher to explore whether results or observed effects were consistent across studies and to investigate possible reasons for discrepancies (CRD, 2009).

As this was a narrative systematic review the differences and results across studies, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the included studies, were discussed by means of summarising information about the methods and results of the studies.

70

Quality appraisal was based on the guidelines set out by Downs and Black (1998), Law et al., (1998), and Deault (2010). The completed quality appraisal checklist used in this review is attached in Appendix E.

6. Dissemination of results

The final step involves the writing of the results and conclusions of the study, based on the findings from the data analysis and quality appraisal, in the form of a dissertation. The themes, findings, and potential biases are reported in Chapter 6 and collated in a summarising map of themes found in Appendix F. This dissertation serves as the final step in this systematic review.

5.5. Reliability

Reliability asks the question “are the results consistent over time?” By asking this question, the replicability and repeatability of the results obtained is also referred to (Golafshani, 2003). According to the CRD (2009), the reliability of a systematic review is increased if all the studies that met the inclusion criteria are independently assessed by more than one researcher, and the decisions are shown to be

replicable. This was ensured as both the researcher and the independent consultant were involved in the process of data selection and extraction to maximise reliability.

5.6. Validity

Validity determines whether something truly measures what it is set out to measure, as well as the truthfulness of the research results (Golafshani, 2003). Within the context of a systematic review, validity refers to the efforts that are made to prevent systematic errors and bias (CRD, 2009). Validity consists of internal and external validity. Within a systematic review internal validity refers to the risk of bias which the researcher may have towards a specific outcome, whilst external validity refers to the generalisability of results to other populations (CRD, 2009).

71

In this study, validity was ensured by the independent consultant reviewing the included articles independently, and discussing the data analysis with the

researcher.