The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers

Quan Nha Hong, 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, Pierre Pluye

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    1469 Citations (Scopus)


    INTRODUCTION: Appraising the quality of studies included in systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence is challenging. To address this challenge, a critical appraisal tool was developed: the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The aim of this paper is to present the enhancements made to the MMAT. DEVELOPMENT: The MMAT was initially developed in 2006 based on a literature review on systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. It was subject to pilot and interrater reliability testing. A revised version of the MMAT was developed in 2018 based on the results from usefulness testing, a literature review on critical appraisal tools and a modified e-Delphi study with methodological experts to identify core criteria. TOOL DESCRIPTION: The MMAT assesses the quality of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. It focuses on methodological criteria and includes five core quality criteria for each of the following five categories of study designs: (a) qualitative, (b) randomized controlled, (c) nonrandomized, (d) quantitative descriptive, and (e) mixed methods. CONCLUSION: The MMAT is a unique tool that can be used to appraise the quality of different study designs. Also, by limiting to core criteria, the MMAT can provide a more efficient appraisal.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)285-291
    Number of pages7
    JournalEducation for Information
    Issue number4
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2018


    Dive into the research topics of 'The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this