Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)

By Quan Nha Hong, Araceli Gonzalez-Reyes, Pierre Pluye. Journal of Evaluation In Clinical Practice, 2018

878 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews (2020, positive): “It may be necessary 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 ”
Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study. (2019, methodology): “In addition, in interviews conducted with MMAT users to explore their views and experiences of the MMAT, concerns were raised about whether the tool included enough criteria to judge the quality of studies and criteria that were difficult to judge, in particular the criteria for qualitative and mixe”
The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers (2018, neutral): “To further its development, usefulness testing was performed by interviewing 20 researchers who have used the MMAT in a systematic review or had contacted the developer of the tool for questions or permission to use the tool (Hong et al., 2018a).”