MMAT (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool)
|Study designs||Tool developed for use in systematic mixed studies reviews. Includes items for 5 categories of studies: 1) qualitative studies, 2) randomized controlled trials, 3) non randmized studies, 4) descriptive studies, and 5) mixed methods studies.|
|Number of items||25 (5 items for each category of studies) and 2 screening questions|
|Rating||yes, no, can’t tell|
|Validity||The MMAT was created from a literature review on mixed studies reviews. It was updated in 2018 from a literature on critical apprisal tool, usability study and e-Delphi study with experts.
• 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. doi:10.1111/jep.12884
• Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., et al. (2019). Improving the content validity of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT): a modified e-Delphi study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 111(7), 49-59.e41.
|Reliability||The version 2011 has been submitted to two interrater reliability testing. The Kappa ranged from poor to good depending of the categories of the MMAT.
• Pace, R., Pluye, P., Bartlett, G., Macaulay, A. C., Salsberg, J., Jagosh, J., & Seller, R. (2012). Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(1), 47-53.
• Souto, R. Q., Khanassov, V., Hong, Q. N., Bush, P. L., 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.
|Other information||Three versions: version 2009, 2011 and 2018.
|Main references||• Version 2009: Pluye, P., Gagnon, M. P., 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.
• Version 2011: Pluye, P., Robert, E., Cargo, M., Bartlett, G., O’Cathain, A., Griffiths, F., et al. (2011). Proposal: A Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for systematic mixed studies reviews. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com
• Version 2018: Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., et al. (2018). Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright (#1148552), Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada.
Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD)
|Study designs||Tool developed to be applied to a methodologically diverse set of research articles. Include criteria for qualitative studies and quantitatives studies. To appraise mixed methods studies, the authors suggest to use all the critera.|
|Number of items||16|
|Rating||not at all, very slightly, moderately, complete|
|Validity||Tool developed from existing tools and in consultation with senior academic researchers and an expert from the York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. External feedback on the content validity, comprehension and ease of application was sought from nine researchers (Sirriyeh et al 2012).|
|Reliability||Three raters appraised three papers. The interrater reliability was substantial (k= 71.5%). The test–retest reliability (after 6-week interval) ranged from good to substantial agreement for each of the three reviewers on each of the three papers (Sirriyeh et al 2012).|
|Main references||Sirriyeh, R., Lawton, R., Gardner, P., & Armitage, G. (2012). Reviewing studies with diverse designs: The development and evaluation of a new tool. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18(4), 746-752.|
Mixed Methods Impact Evaluations (MMIE)
|Study designs||Mixed methods impact evaluations|
|Number of items||20 items (8 on quantitative aspect, 6 on qualitative aspect and 6 on integration)|
|Rating||yes and no (also "not application" for items on quantitative aspect)|
|Validity||Tool developed from evaluation criteria and appraisal frameworks found in the literature on qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. The tool was reviewed by mixed methods experts and tested by independent reviewers (Jimenez et al 2018).|
|Main references||• Jimenez, E., Waddington, H., Goel, N., Prost, A., & Pullin, A. (2018) Mixing and Matching: Using Qualitative Methods to Improve Quantitative Impact Evaluations (IEs) and Systematic Reviews (SRs) of Development Outcomes. London, UK: Centre of Excellence for Development Impact and Learning (CEDIL) Inception Paper 5.
• Jimenez, E., Waddington, H., Goel, N., Prost, A., Pullin, A., White, H., et al. (2018). Mixing and matching: using qualitative methods to improve quantitative impact evaluations (IEs) and systematic reviews (SRs) of development outcomes. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 10(4), 400-421.