A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews.

By Pierre Pluye, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Frances Griffiths, Janique Johnson‐Lafleur. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2009

1,027 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/faeca47f98bac69cc8bf4eb5a93db51148df5c0d

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 Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential (2011, background): “In addition, these articles should be evaluated with a quality assessment instrument (e.g., the instrument presented in Pluye et al. (2009)).”
Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. (2010, background): “Interest in mixed methods research is growing rapidly, and exciting developments are also occurring with regard to mixed methods integration (e.g., Flemming, 2010; Plueye et al., 2009).”
Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (2018, methodology): “The MMAT is rooted in a literature review on systematic mixed studies reviews conducted in 2006.(4) To provide proof of concept of the feasibility of the MMAT, the research team conducted a pilot study and subsequent studies of interrater reliability.”
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, neutral): “This led to develop a ﬁrst version of the MMAT that is in line with a social constructionist worldview (Pluye et al., 2009).”
Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence (2017, methodology): “For example, several critical appraisal tools for assessing the quality of quantitative and qualitative studies have been developed [9, 11, 12].”
Systematic Review of Factors Influencing the Adoption of Information and Communication Technologies by Healthcare Professionals (2012, methodology): “A scoring system for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies developed by Pluye et al [14] was used in this review.”