The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study
Open accessAbstract
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).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As a result, this review employed Hong et al.’s [75] Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), as the instrument provides reviewers with a single tool to assess quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research, and has shown improved content validity over recent years [76].”
From The Mental Health of Elite-Level Coaches: A Systematic Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [76]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., & deBeer, H. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 · Cited by 10,681 · cited 1×
“Several approaches for rating the overall quality of evidence have been developed, such as Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) [38] and GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) [39].”
MethodAchieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12117 · Cited by 7,219 · cited 2×
“Also, Fetters, Curry, and Creswell [31] identified three integration levels (design, methods, and interpretation/reporting).”
BackgroundDetermination and Quantification Of Content Validity
LYNN, M. R. (1986) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017 · Cited by 6,775 · cited 2×
“78 or higher were indicative of good content validity [48].”
BackgroundResearch guidelines for the Delphi survey technique
Hasson, F. (2000) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01567.x · Cited by 5,951 · cited 1×
“The Delphi technique is used to reach consensus among a group of experts [20] and is particularly suitable to build consensus on issues that have limited or contradictory evidence [21].”
MethodIs the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations
Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.20199 · Cited by 5,273 · cited 1×
“Polit, Beck, and Owen [49] recommended having 8 to 12 experts for the first round.”
BackgroundPrimary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890 · cited 1×
“Initial developments mainly focused on meta-analysis for addressing questions on the effectiveness of interventions, and the emphasis was on randomized controlled trials [2,3].”
MethodSystematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-5664 · Cited by 4,081
The Handbook of Research Synthesis.
Howel, D., Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1995) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533295 · Cited by 3,657
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,001 of 1,001
Systematic Review of Sponge City Indicators for Constructing a Thailand-Specific Sponginess Index
Thamakaison, S., & Positlimpakul, K. (2026) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1629/1/012020
Metadata
- Authors
- Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., & Vedel, I.
- Affiliations
- McGill University (CA)
- Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (ES)
- University of Warwick (GB)
- University of Canberra (AU)
- Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
- Université Laval (CA)
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Pluye, Pierre
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-07
- Volume
- 111
- Pages
- 49-59.e1
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2924322406
- Cited by
- 1,082
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 205 · 2025: 178 · 2024: 190 · 2023: 174 · 2022: 163 · 2021: 110 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 168.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- The Oberta in Open Access (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (submittedVersion)
- EspaceINRS (National Institute for Scientific Research (Canada)) (submittedVersion)
- RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, content validity, critical appraisal, methodological quality criteria, qualitative research, survey research, mixed methods, e-Delphi, expert consensus
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Delphi Technique, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
