CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,082Delphi Technique in ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Education and Validation

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 access
Hong, Quan Nha, Pluye, Pierre, Fàbregues, Sergi, Bartlett, Gillian, Boardman, Felicity, Cargo, Margaret, Dagenais, Pierre, Gagnon, Marie-Pierre, Griffiths, Frances, Nicolau, Belinda, O’Cathain, Alicia, Rousseau, Marie-Claude, Vedel, Isabelle·2019·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 50 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–900 of 1,001

Related

See all

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)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008
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
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