| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions. Connect your Gmail, DriveDropbox, and Slack accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize all your file attachments. Learn more and claim your free account.

View
 

Publications on the MMAT

Page history last edited by Quan Nha HONG 11 months, 3 weeks ago

MMAT, version 2018

  • Hong, Q.N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., Vedel, I. (2019). Improving the content validity of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT): A modified e-Delphi study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008 (open access).
  • Hong, Q.N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., Vedel, I., Pluye, P. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information (Special Issue). DOI 10.3233/EFI-180221. 

 

Usefulness testing - version 2011 

  • Hong, Q. N., Gonzalez-Reyes, A., & Pluye, P. (2018). Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 24(3), 459-467.  

 

Efficiency and reliability testing - version 2011 

This study suggests the MMAT-v2011 is an efficient tool, while its reliability needs further improvement, particularly for two items of the qualitative research domain, which includes the sentence ‘appropriate consideration’ (items 1.3 'Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to the context, e.g., the setting, in which the data were collected?' and 1.4 'Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to researchers’ influence, e.g., through their interactions with participants?'). We noted that the independent reviewers understood this sentence in a different manner. A reviewer considered that ‘appropriate consideration’ was given when there were at least few details, whereas the other reviewer looked for a detailed description of specific strategies. In some articles reporting qualitative research, neither the aspects corresponding to these items are mentioned; other articles mention them, but with few details (e.g., a simple description of the investigators’ experience), while articles with detailed descriptions of these aspects are rare (e.g., a strategy used to document the influence of the researchers such as a reflexive diary). This leads us to suggest discrepancy in reviewers’ interpretation of these items can be resolved by reviewers establishing a common understanding of these two items prior to beginning  the critical appraisal. Alternatively, authors can be contacted when these criteria are not met, as suggested in the MMAT tutorial. 

 

Pilot version (efficiency and reliability testing) - version 2011

 

Initial version (content validation) - version 2009

  •  Pluye P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F & Johnson-Lafleur J (2009). A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(4):529-546. 

 

Papers on mixed studies reviews

  • Hong, Q. N., & Pluye, P. (2018). A conceptual framework for critical appraisal in systematic mixed studies reviews. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Advance online publication, https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818770058.
  • Hong, Q.N., Pluye, P., Bujold, M., Wassef, M. (2017). Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Systematic Reviews. 6(1), 61. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2
  • Pluye P, Hong QN, & Vedel I (2016). The plurality of review methods and synthesis methods: Opening-up the definition of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. d73(5), 2-5. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.033
  • Pluye, P., & Hong, Q. N. (2014). Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: Mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 29-45. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440

  

 

 

Return to FrontPage

 

Visitors (since 2018-08-07): 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.