Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study.

By Quan Nha Hong, Pierre Pluye, Sergi Fàbregues, G. Bartlett, F. Boardman, Margaret Cargo, P. Dagenais, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Frances Griffiths, Belinda Nicolau and 3 more. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2019

817 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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).

Subfields: Education, General Health Professions, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b28f7f44316f2187108619cb9e83a3a0e1da84a5

Citations in the corpus