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. You can download a post-print version of this paper at this website: https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/articles/r207ts92g?locale=en. 

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 

• Souto, R., Khanassov, V., Hong, Q.N., Bush, P., Vedel, I., Pluye, P. (2015). Systematic mixed studies reviews: updating results on the reliability and efficiency of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 52(1): 500-501. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.08.010 
• Souto QR, Khanassov V, Pluye P, Hong QN, Bush P, Vedel I (June 28, 2014). Systematic Mixed Studies Reviews: Reliability Testing of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Mixed Methods International Research Association Conference (MMIRA), Boston, USA. 

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

• Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, Macaulay AC, Salsberg J, Jagosh J, et al. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2012;49(1):47-53. 
• Pace, R., Pluye, P., Bartlett, G., Macaulay, A., Salsberg, J., Jagosh, J., & Seller, R. (2010). Reliability of a tool for concomitantly appraising the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods research: a pilot study. 38th Annual Meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG), Seattle, USA.

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):