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

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

FrontPage

This version was saved 13 years, 2 months ago View current version     Page history
Saved by Pierre PLUYE
on January 26, 2011 at 7:02:01 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

 

Aim of this WIKI: To enable collaborative work for developing a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

 

The MMAT is intended to be used as a checklist for concomitantly appraising and/or describing studies included in systematic mixed studies reviews (reviews including original qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies). It is a tool in development, and must be used with caution. For instance, you may state:

 

The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool is (http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com):

  • Designed for systematic reviews that include qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies;
  • Efficient as it allows to use one tool for concomitantly appraising the most common types of empirical studies;
  • Addressing the quality of mixed methods studies (appraisal of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods components);
  • Based on a literature review, and has been revised using mainly feedback from workshops and a mixed methods framework (content validation);
  • Tested for  reliability.

 

You may cite this WIKI as follows. Pluye, P. (2011). Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool: A public WIKI workspace. Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5tTRTc9yJ

 

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 (2010).

 

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).

 

 

  • Pilot version (reliability testing)

 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)

 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. 

 

Crowe and Sheppard (2011) reviewed critical appraisal tools, and found only one tool that addresses the quality of mixed methods studies: the MMAT.

 

References     

 

  • Crowe, M., & Sheppard, L. (2011). A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(1), 79-89.
  • 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. (2010). 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 (pp. 531-555). 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.