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

  • Files spread between Dropbox, Google Drive, Gmail, Slack, and more? Dokkio, a new product from the PBworks team, integrates and organizes them for you. Try it for free today.



This version was saved 9 years, 11 months ago View current version     Page history
Saved by Pierre PLUYE
on April 2, 2010 at 9:57:36 am

Welcome to the public wiki 'Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool'


This is a real workspace!  Please invite others to use this workspace with you.

 WIKI tips

 Comments & suggestions can be added at the bottom of each page (comment box) and longer comments can be added by clicking here


Objective: To enable collaborative work for developing a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).


MMAT permits to quickly appraise the methodological quality of the three components of mixed methods research: mixed, qualitative and quantitative. The current pilot version is intended to be used as a checklist for describing studies included in systematic mixed studies reviews.


There are general criteria for planning, designing and reporting mixed methods research, but there is no consensus on key specific criteria for appraising the methodological quality of mixed methods studies. Therefore, while MMAT is helpful for the appraisal stage of complex systematic literature reviews of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies (mixed studies reviews), it must be used with caution.


Limitations: MMAT is not a guidance for writing and reporting mixed methods studies such as GRAMMS 'Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study' (O'Cathain et al., 2008), and does not permit a comprehensive evaluation of mixed methods studies such as the conceptual framework proposed by O'Cathain (in press).


The development of the current pilot version of MMAT is supported by a project called ‘Content Validity, Usability and Reliability of a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)’ (including workshops, presentations and grant application).



Reference: Pluye et al. (2009). A proposal for concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies included in systematic mixed studies reviews. 37th NAPCRG Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada.


  • Initial version

 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. 


You may cite this WIKI as follows. Pierre Pluye (2010). Collaborative development of a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool: A public WIKI workspace. Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com Archived by WebCite® at



  • O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 13(2), 92-98.
  • O'Cathain, A. (in press). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: towards a comprehensive framework. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage.


Need Help? We're here for you:

  • The PBworks Manual and 30-second training videos can help show you how to edit, add videos and invite users.
  • The best way to get your support questions answered is to click the help link at the top of this page. Our support gurus will get back to you asap. 


Comments (0)

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