National university systematic literature review prisma flowchart template for

It is 2:00 AM, your advisor has just rejected Chapter 3, and the statistical output in SPSS shows a non‑normal distribution that you can’t explain. You’re staring at the search query “National University systematic literature review PRISMA flowchart template for” and wondering if you can salvage the dissertation before the prospectus deadline. The first thing to do is take a deep breath and break the problem into three concrete stages: (1) align the literature review with PRISMA and institutional standards; (2) correct the statistical assumptions with Hayes PROCESS macro and NVivo coding; and (3) produce a synthesis matrix that meets the rubric’s 0‑point threshold for missing research gaps. This guide will walk you through each stage, provide a ready‑to‑copy PRISMA flowchart template, and give you a step‑by‑step checklist that you can run at 3 AM and feel confident about.

Theoretical Foundation & Academic Criteria

In a doctoral dissertation, the literature review is not a mere summary; it is a critical synthesis that establishes the conceptual framework, identifies gaps, and justifies the research questions. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses) is the gold‑standard template that ensures transparency and reproducibility. National University and other leading institutions—Walden, GCU, Capella, WGU, and UK universities—require that the PRISMA flowchart be fully populated, with explicit counts for records identified, screened, excluded, and included. The synthesis matrix must map each study to the research gaps it addresses, using a 2‑by‑2 or 3‑by‑3 grid that aligns constructs, methodologies, and findings. The rubric typically awards 30% of the literature review score to the synthesis matrix; a failure to identify gaps can cost the entire section. Moreover, APA 7 formatting, proper citation of systematic review guidelines, and the use of NVivo 14 for coding qualitative data are mandatory. Finally, the Hayes PROCESS macro demands that all assumptions—normality, multicollinearity, homoscedasticity—be tested and reported; otherwise, the mediation or moderation analyses lose validity.

Practical Execution Matrix & Comparison Table

Step‑by‑Step Implementation Protocol

1. Gather Search Results: Export citations from databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO) into EndNote. Use the query “National University systematic literature review PRISMA flowchart template for” to ensure you retrieve the most recent guidance.
2. Deduplicate: Run EndNote’s “Find Duplicates” function, then export the unique list to Excel. Record the number of duplicates removed.
3. Screen Titles & Abstracts: Apply inclusion/exclusion criteria (e.g., empirical studies, English language, 2015‑2025). Use a shared Google Sheet to log decisions.
4. Full‑Text Retrieval: Download PDFs, annotate in Adobe Acrobat, and upload to NVivo 14. Create a node for each theoretical construct.
5. Code Qualitative Data: Apply thematic coding, ensuring each node has at least 10 citations. Export the code matrix to Word.
6. Populate PRISMA Flowchart: Use the National University template (available in the university’s research portal). Fill in numbers for records identified, screened, excluded, and included. Add a note on the appendix with the PRISMA checklist.
7. Build the Synthesis Matrix: In Excel, create columns for Study ID, Author, Year, Sample, Method, Key Findings, Gap Identified, Research Question Addressed. Highlight gaps in yellow.
8. Statistical Assumptions: Run normality tests (Shapiro–Wilk) and plot Q‑Q graphs. Check multicollinearity by calculating VIF in SPSS. Run PROCESS macro (model 4 for mediation) and save the output. Report the indirect effect, confidence intervals, and significance.
9. APA 7 Formatting: Ensure all in‑text citations use author‑year format, the reference list is double‑spaced, and the headings follow the 7th edition style guide.
10. Final Review: Cross‑check the synthesis matrix against the rubric. Verify that each research gap is linked to a specific hypothesis or research question. Run the document through Turnitin and an AI detector; if flagged, rewrite the flagged sections in your own words and add a citation to the original source.

What Faculty Committees & Rubrics Look For

Committees evaluate the dissertation on a 100‑point scale, with 30 points reserved for the literature review. They look for: (1) a fully populated PRISMA flowchart; (2) a synthesis matrix that explicitly identifies at least three research gaps; (3) APA 7 compliance; and (4) statistically sound analyses. A missing gap or an incomplete flowchart can trigger a 0‑point deduction for that subsection. To safeguard against plagiarism, the document must pass Turnitin with < 15% similarity and the AI detector must flag < 5% AI‑generated text. The rubric also requires that the synthesis matrix be included as a separate appendix, labeled Appendix A, and that each row be numbered for easy reference. Faculty will cross‑reference the matrix with the hypotheses to ensure logical consistency. Any deviation from these standards invites a formal comment, requiring revisions before the prospectus or defense.

Frequently Asked Questions