Quan Nha Hong1, Pierre Pluye2, Sergi Fàbregues3, Gillian Bartlett1, Felicity Boardman4, Margaret Cargo5, Pierre Dagenais6, Marie-Pierre Gagnon7, Frances Griffiths4, Belinda Nicolau8, Alicia O'Cathain9, Marie-Claude Rousseau10, Isabelle Vedel1. 1. Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, Suite 300, Montréal, Québec, H3S 1Z1, Canada. 2. Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, Suite 300, Montréal, Québec, H3S 1Z1, Canada. Electronic address: pierre.pluye@mcgill.ca. 3. Department of Psychology and Education, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Rambla del Poblenou, 156, 08018, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Warwick Medical School - Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, England. 5. Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia. 6. Faculté de médecine et des sciences de la santé, Université de Sherbrooke, 3001, 12(e) Avenue Nord, Sherbrooke, Québec, J1H 5N4, Canada. 7. Faculté des sciences infirmières, Université Laval, 1050, avenue de la Médecine, Québec, Québec, G1V 0A6, Canada. 8. Faculty of Dentistry, Division of Oral Health and Society Research, McGill University, 2001 McGill College, suite 500, Montréal, Québec, H3A 1G1, Canada. 9. Medical Care Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. 10. INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier Research Centre, 531, boulevard des Prairies, Laval, Québec, H7V 1B7, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) was developed for critically appraising different study designs. This study aimed to improve the content validity of three of the five categories of studies in the MMAT by identifying relevant methodological criteria for appraising the quality of qualitative, survey, and mixed methods studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: First, we performed a literature review to identify critical appraisal tools and extract methodological criteria. Second, we conducted a two-round modified e-Delphi technique. We asked three method-specific panels of experts to rate the relevance of each criterion on a five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: A total of 383 criteria were extracted from 18 critical appraisal tools and a literature review on the quality of mixed methods studies, and 60 were retained. In the first and second rounds of the e-Delphi, 73 and 56 experts participated, respectively. Consensus was reached for six qualitative criteria, eight survey criteria, and seven mixed methods criteria. These results led to modifications of eight of the 11 MMAT (version 2011) criteria. Specifically, we reformulated two criteria, replaced four, and removed two. Moreover, we added six new criteria. CONCLUSION: Results of this study led to improve the content validity of this tool, revise it, and propose a new version (MMAT version 2018).
OBJECTIVE: The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) was developed for critically appraising different study designs. This study aimed to improve the content validity of three of the five categories of studies in the MMAT by identifying relevant methodological criteria for appraising the quality of qualitative, survey, and mixed methods studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: First, we performed a literature review to identify critical appraisal tools and extract methodological criteria. Second, we conducted a two-round modified e-Delphi technique. We asked three method-specific panels of experts to rate the relevance of each criterion on a five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: A total of 383 criteria were extracted from 18 critical appraisal tools and a literature review on the quality of mixed methods studies, and 60 were retained. In the first and second rounds of the e-Delphi, 73 and 56 experts participated, respectively. Consensus was reached for six qualitative criteria, eight survey criteria, and seven mixed methods criteria. These results led to modifications of eight of the 11 MMAT (version 2011) criteria. Specifically, we reformulated two criteria, replaced four, and removed two. Moreover, we added six new criteria. CONCLUSION: Results of this study led to improve the content validity of this tool, revise it, and propose a new version (MMAT version 2018).
Authors: Daniel Jones; Erica Di Martino; Stephen H Bradley; Blessing Essang; Scott Hemphill; Judy M Wright; Cristina Renzi; Claire Surr; Andrew Clegg; Richard Neal Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 6.302
Authors: Catherine Hudon; Maud-Christine Chouinard; Pierre Pluye; Reem El Sherif; Paula Louise Bush; Benoît Rihoux; Marie-Eve Poitras; Mireille Lambert; Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun; France Légaré Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Madison Milne-Ives; Sarah Neill; Natasha Bayes; Mitch Blair; Jane Blewitt; Lucy Bray; Enitan D Carrol; Bernie Carter; Rob Dawson; Paul Dimitri; Monica Lakhanpaul; Damian Roland; Alison Tavare; Edward Meinert Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-06-30
Authors: Elizabeth A McGuier; David J Kolko; Mary Lou Klem; Jamie Feldman; Grace Kinkler; Matthew A Diabes; Laurie R Weingart; Courtney Benjamin Wolk Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-06-26