Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
medicine
Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 111, Year 2019
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
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). © 2019 The Authors
Authors & Co-Authors
Pluye, Pierre
Canada, Montreal
Université Mcgill
Fàbregues, Sergi
Spain, Barcelona
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Cargo, Margaret D.
Australia, Canberra
University of Canberra
Gagnon, Marie Pierre
Canada, Quebec
Université Laval
Griffiths, Frances E.
United Kingdom, Coventry
University of Warwick
Nicolau, Belinda F.
Canada, Montreal
Université Mcgill
O'Cathain, Alicia
United Kingdom, Sheffield
The University of Sheffield
Vedel, Isabelle
Canada, Montreal
Université Mcgill
Statistics
Citations: 324
Authors: 8
Affiliations: 8
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008
ISSN:
08954356
Study Design
Cross Sectional Study
Study Approach
Qualitative
Quantitative
Systematic review
Mixed-methods