The Need to Rigorously Develop Common Quality Guidelines for Reporting Mixed Methods Research

Bryman A. Becker S. Sempik J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401644

Cheek J. (2015). It depends: Possible impacts of moving the field of mixed methods research toward best practice guidelines. In Hesse-Biber S. N. Johnson R. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.013.53

Collins K. M. T. Onwuegbuzie A. J. Johnson B. (2012). Securing a place at the table: A review and extension of legitimation criteria for the conduct of mixed research. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 849-865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433799

Fàbregues S. Molina-Azorin J. F. (2017). Addressing quality in mixed methods research: A review and recommendations for a future agenda. Quality & Quantity, 51(6), 2847-2863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0449-4

Fàbregues S. Molina-Azorin J. F. Fetters M. D. (2021). Virtual special issue on “quality in mixed methods research”. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(2), 146-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898211001974

Fàbregues S. Paré M. H. Meneses J. (2019). Operationalizing and conceptualizing quality in mixed methods research: A multiple case study of the disciplines of education, nursing, psychology, and sociology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 424-445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817751774

Hirose M. Creswell J. W. (2023). Applying core quality criteria of mixed methods research to an empirical study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(1), 12-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221086346

Hong Q. N. 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. Pluye P. (2018). The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285-291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221

Hong Q. N. Pluye P. (2019). A conceptual framework for critical appraisal in systematic mixed studies reviews. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 446-460. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818770058

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. (2018). Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of copyright (#1148552). Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada.

Levitt H. M. Bamberg M. Creswell J. W. Frost D. M. Josselson R. Suarez-Orozco C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA publications and communications board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26-46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151

O’Brien B. C. Harris I. B. Beckman T. J. Reed D. A. Cook D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388

O’Cathain A. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Towards a comprehensive framework. In Tashakkori A. Teddlie C. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 531-555). SAGE.

O’Cathain A. Murphy E. Nicholl J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(2), 92-98. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074

Onwuegbuzie A. J. Johnson R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.

Onwuegbuzie A. J. Johnson R. B. Collins K. M. T. (2011). Assessing legitimation in mixed research: A new framework. Quality & Quantity, 45(6), 1253-1271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9289-9

Perez A. Howell Smith M. C. Babchuk W. A. Lynch-O’Brien L. I. (2023). Advancing quality standards in mixed methods research: Extending the legitimation typology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(1), 29-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221093872

Rouleau G. Hong Q. N. Kaur N. Gagnon M. Côté J. Bouix-Picasso J. Pluye P. (2023). Systematic reviews of systematic quantitative, qualitative, and mixed studies reviews in healthcare research: How to assess the methodological quality of included reviews? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(1), 51-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898211054243

Schulz K. F. Altman D. G. Moher D. CONSORT Groupa (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 152(11), 726-732. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332

Tashakkori A. Teddlie C. (2008). Quality of inferences in mixed methods research: Calling for an integrative framework. In Bergman M. M. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 101-119). Sage.

Tong A. Sainsbury P. Craig J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042