Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10609/99596
Title: Improving the content validity of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool: a modified e-Delphi study
Author: Hong, Quan Nha
Pluye, Pierre
Fàbregues Feijóo, Sergi  
Bartlett, Gillian
Boardman, Felicity
Cargo, Margaret
Dagenais, Pierre
Gagnon, Marie-Pierre
Griffiths, Frances
Nicolau, Belinda
O'Cathain, Alicia
Rousseau, Marie-Claude
Vedel, Isabelle
Keywords: Quality appraisal
Delphi technique
Systematic review
Qualitative research
Survey
Mixed methods research
Issue Date: 21-Mar-2019
Publisher: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Citation: 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. (2019). Improving the content validity of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool: a modified e-Delphi study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, (), 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008
Also see: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435618300829/pdfft?md5=ff308cec57144dfa52e11ac864296fe1&pid=1-s2.0-S0895435618300829-main.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).
Language: English
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10609/99596
ISSN: 0895-4356MIAR
Appears in Collections:Articles
Articles

Share:
Export:
Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
modified_eDelphiStudy.pdf818.36 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.