Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool

A modified e-Delphi study

Quan Nha Hong, Pierre Pluye, Sergi Fàbregues, Gillian Bartlett, Felicity Boardman, Margaret Cargo, Pierre Dagenais, Marie Pierre Gagnon, Frances Griffiths, Belinda Nicolau, Alicia O'Cathain, Marie Claude Rousseau, Isabelle Vedel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)

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).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)49-59.e1
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume111
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

Delphi Technique

Cite this

Hong, Quan Nha ; Pluye, Pierre ; Fàbregues, Sergi ; Bartlett, Gillian ; Boardman, Felicity ; Cargo, Margaret ; Dagenais, Pierre ; Gagnon, Marie Pierre ; Griffiths, Frances ; Nicolau, Belinda ; O'Cathain, Alicia ; Rousseau, Marie Claude ; Vedel, Isabelle. / Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool : A modified e-Delphi study. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2019 ; Vol. 111. pp. 49-59.e1.
@article{1ecd29d610a34075b212441361fc63ec,
title = "Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: A modified e-Delphi study",
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).",
keywords = "Delphi technique, Mixed methods research, Qualitative research, Quality appraisal, Surveys, Systematic review",
author = "Hong, {Quan Nha} and Pierre Pluye and Sergi F{\`a}bregues and Gillian Bartlett and Felicity Boardman and Margaret Cargo and Pierre Dagenais and Gagnon, {Marie Pierre} and Frances Griffiths and Belinda Nicolau and Alicia O'Cathain and Rousseau, {Marie Claude} and Isabelle Vedel",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008",
language = "English",
volume = "111",
pages = "49--59.e1",
journal = "Journal of Chronic Diseases",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

Hong, QN, Pluye, P, Fàbregues, S, Bartlett, G, Boardman, F, Cargo, M, Dagenais, P, Gagnon, MP, Griffiths, F, Nicolau, B, O'Cathain, A, Rousseau, MC & Vedel, I 2019, 'Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: A modified e-Delphi study', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 111, pp. 49-59.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008

Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool : A modified e-Delphi study. / Hong, Quan Nha; Pluye, Pierre; Fàbregues, Sergi; Bartlett, Gillian; Boardman, Felicity; Cargo, Margaret; Dagenais, Pierre; Gagnon, Marie Pierre; Griffiths, Frances; Nicolau, Belinda; O'Cathain, Alicia; Rousseau, Marie Claude; Vedel, Isabelle.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 111, 2019, p. 49-59.e1.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool

T2 - A modified e-Delphi study

AU - Hong, Quan Nha

AU - Pluye, Pierre

AU - Fàbregues, Sergi

AU - Bartlett, Gillian

AU - Boardman, Felicity

AU - Cargo, Margaret

AU - Dagenais, Pierre

AU - Gagnon, Marie Pierre

AU - Griffiths, Frances

AU - Nicolau, Belinda

AU - O'Cathain, Alicia

AU - Rousseau, Marie Claude

AU - Vedel, Isabelle

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - 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).

AB - 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).

KW - Delphi technique

KW - Mixed methods research

KW - Qualitative research

KW - Quality appraisal

KW - Surveys

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064313713&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/improving-content-validity-mixed-methods-appraisal-tool-modified-edelphi-study

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008

M3 - Article

VL - 111

SP - 49-59.e1

JO - Journal of Chronic Diseases

JF - Journal of Chronic Diseases

SN - 0895-4356

ER -