Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review

International Journal of Nursing Studies

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 47-53

  Pace, Romina ^a   Pluye, Pierre ^a   Bartlett, Gillian ^a   Macaulay, Ann C ^a   Salsberg, Jon ^a   Jagosh, Justin ^a   Seller, Robbyn ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Critical appraisal tool; Literature review; Mixed methods research; Systematic mixed studies review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PILOT STUDY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; PILOT PROJECTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84855909323     PISSN: 00207489     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bryman A. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?. Qualitative Research 2006, 6(1):97-113.
2. Caelli K., Ray L., Mill J. 'Clear as Mud': toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2003, 2(2):1-23.
3. Carmines E.G., Zeller R.A. Reliability and Validity Assessment 1979, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
4. Cohen D.J., Crabtree B.F. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Annals of Family Medicine 2008, 6(4):331-339.
5. Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group (CQRMG) Critical Appraisal of Qualitative Research (Draft Chapter - in peer review with Cochrane Handbook Editors) 2010, (retrieved August 27.08.10). http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/cqrmg/documents/Cochrane_Guidance/Chapter6_Guidance_Critical_Appraisal.pdf.
6. Creswell J., Plano Clark V.L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research 2007, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
7. Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) Ten Questions to Help You Make Sense of Qualitative Research 2011, (retrieved 15.01.11). http://www.sph.nhs.uk/what-we-do/public-health-workforce/resources.
8. Crowe M., Sheppard L. A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: alternative tool structure is proposed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011, 64(1):79-89.
9. EQUATOR The EQUATOR Network Website: The Resource Centre for Good Reporting of Health Research Studies 2011, (retrieved 30.01.11). http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre.
10. Garson D.G. Reliability Analysis: Statnotes, from North Carolina State University, Public Administration Program 2010, Available from:. http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/reliab.htm.
11. Grant M.J., Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal 2009, 26(2):91-108.
12. Hannes K., Lockwood C., Pearson A. A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments' ability to assess validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 2010, 20(12):1736-1743.
13. Landis J.R., Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33(1):159-174.
14. Macaulay A.C., et al. Participatory research maximises community and lay involvement. British Medical Journal 1999, 319(7212):774-778.
15. Murphy E., Dingwall R., Greatbatch D., Parker S., Watson P. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technology Assessment 1998, 2(16):1-274.
16. Niglas K. The multidimensional model of research methodology: an integrated set of continua. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research 2010, 215-236. Sage, Thousand Oaks. A. Tashakkori, C. Teddlie (Eds.).
17. O'Cathain A., Murphy E., Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2008, 13(2):92-98.
18. O'Cathain A. Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: towards a comprehensive framework. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research 2010, 531-555. Sage, Thousand Oaks. A. Tashakkori, C. Teddlie (Eds.).
19. Phillips B., Ball C., Sackett D., Badenoch D., Straus S., Haynes B., et al. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine: Levels of Evidence 2009, Available from:. http://www.cebm.net/?o=1025.
20. Pluye P., Grad R.M., Dunikowski L., Stephenson R. Impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on physicians: a literature review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2005, 74(9):745-768.
21. Pluye P., Gagnon M.P., Griffiths F., Johnson-Lafleur J. A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2009, 46(4):529-546.
22. Pope C., Mays N. Critical reflections on the rise of qualitative research. British Medical Journal 2009, 339:b3425.
23. Pope C., Mays N., Popay J. Synthesizing Qualitative and Quantitative Health Evidence: A Guide to Methods 2007, Open University Press, Berkshire.
24. Sandelowski M. What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing and Health 2010, 33(1):77-84.
25. Sandelowski M., Voils C.I., Barroso J. Comparability work and the management of difference in research synthesis studies. Social Science & Medicine 2007, 64(1):236-247.
26. Sheldon T.A. Making evidence synthesis more useful for management and policy-making. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 2005, 10(3 Suppl. 1):1-5.
27. Shrout P.E., Fleiss J.L. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 1979, 86(2):420-428.
28. Simera I., Moher D., Hoey J., Schulz K.F., Altman D.G. A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 2010, 40(1):35-53.
29. Thorne S., Kirkham S.R., MacDonald-Emes J. Interpretive description: a noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Research in Nursing and Health 1997, 20(2):169-177.
30. Vogt D.S., King D.W., King L.A. Focus groups in psychological assessment: enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychological Assessment 2004, 16(3):231-243.
31. Wells G.A., Shea B., O'Connell D., Peterson J., Welch V., Losos M., et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Studies in Meta-analyses 2009, Available from:. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm.
32. Wong W.C., Cheung C.S., Hart G.J. Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 2008, 5:23. 10.1186/1742-7622-5-23.