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

  • Finally, you can manage your Google Docs, uploads, and email attachments (plus Dropbox and Slack files) in one convenient place. Claim a free account, and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) can automatically organize your content for you.


Publications on the MMAT

This version was saved 2 years, 7 months ago View current version     Page history
Saved by Quan Nha HONG
on November 24, 2018 at 2:17:12 pm

MMAT, version 2018

  • 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. 



Return to FrontPage


Visitors (since 2018-08-07): 

Comments (0)

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