Critical Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studies

By Mieke Heyvaert, K. Hannes, B. Maes, Patrick Onghena. 2013

171 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Management Science and Operations Research, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/91ced6d3f4c75757365080499a4872e668650735

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study. (2019, methodology): “For the MMAT, we retained the criterion #6 (quantitative and qualitative components of the study are effectively integrated) because it was also mentioned in other studies as among the most prevalent criterion for assessing the quality of mixed methods studies [17,29].”
Developing mixed methods research in sport and exercise psychology: critical reflections on five points of controversy. (2015, background): “(2008) study named the following criteria as being specific to MMR: relevance to research questions; transparency; a rationale for using mixed methods research; and the need for integration of mixed methods findings (also see Heyvaert et al., 2013).”
International financing for climate change adaptation in small island developing states (2017, background): “The benefits of a mixed methods approach, discussed by Heyvaert et al. (2013) and Sale et al. (2002), are well suited to the study of emerging policy issues such as climate finance.”
A Systematic Review of Mindfulness-Based School Interventions with Early Adolescents (2018, methodology): “In the absence of quality indicators for mixed-method studies, new indicators were developed based on the work of Heyvaert et al. (2013), Pluye et al. (2009) and Hwang et al. (2017).”
The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers (2018, unknown): “Currently, there exist more than 500 critical appraisal tools (i.e., checklists including a list of criteria to judge the quality of a study) (Bai et al., 2012; Crowe & Sheppard, 2011; Heyvaert et al., 2013; Santiago-Delefosse et al., 2016).”
Joint displays for mixed methods research in psychology (2021, background): “Over the last several decades, the use of mixed research methods in psychology and other disciplines has steadily increased (Heyvaert et al., 2013).”
Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews (2020, unknown): “…to develop a bespoke tool for mixed methods primary studies or identify an already existing critical appraisal tool for use in JBI MMSRs. 24,25,35,36 Additionally, with regard to critical appraisal in the integrated approach, further investigation into how the appraisal results of…”