Cindy Stern, Heather Loveday, Christina Godfrey, Danielle Pollock, Quan Nha Hong, Kendra Rieger, Matthew Stephenson, Nisha Kurian, Jacopo Fiorini, Lucylynn Lizarondo
{"title":"Tools used to assess methodological quality of primary mixed methods or multi-method studies: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Cindy Stern, Heather Loveday, Christina Godfrey, Danielle Pollock, Quan Nha Hong, Kendra Rieger, Matthew Stephenson, Nisha Kurian, Jacopo Fiorini, Lucylynn Lizarondo","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this proposed scoping review is to identify the tools available to critically appraise and assess methodological quality; assess risk of bias of primary mixed methods or multi-method studies; and determine which studies have undergone any formal psychometric evaluation.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Currently, JBI does not have an appraisal tool for primary mixed methods or multi-methods studies and recommends reviewers use the JBI qualitative tool and the relevant quantitative tool (based on study design) together. While useful, this does not allow reviewers to consider elements specifically related to the nuances of primary mixed methods studies.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Any tool, checklist, scale, instrument, criteria, system, or framework that has been designed to assess the methodological quality of primary mixed methods or multi-methods studies will be of interest. Adapted or modified versions of tools will also be considered and any psychometric properties measured will be recorded. Published and unpublished primary studies, reviews, and textual evidence are eligible for inclusion in the review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review will follow JBI methodology for scoping reviews and be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The following databases and resources will be searched: CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, medRxiv, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Google Scholar. Various websites will also be searched. No language limits will be placed. Screening, data extraction, and data analysis will be conducted by 2 reviewers independently. Descriptive statistics and basic content analysis will be used to convey the results of the review, supplemented by a narrative synthesis and presented in tabular and graphical form.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>Open Science Framework: osf.io/da9th.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI evidence synthesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00569","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this proposed scoping review is to identify the tools available to critically appraise and assess methodological quality; assess risk of bias of primary mixed methods or multi-method studies; and determine which studies have undergone any formal psychometric evaluation.
Introduction: Currently, JBI does not have an appraisal tool for primary mixed methods or multi-methods studies and recommends reviewers use the JBI qualitative tool and the relevant quantitative tool (based on study design) together. While useful, this does not allow reviewers to consider elements specifically related to the nuances of primary mixed methods studies.
Inclusion criteria: Any tool, checklist, scale, instrument, criteria, system, or framework that has been designed to assess the methodological quality of primary mixed methods or multi-methods studies will be of interest. Adapted or modified versions of tools will also be considered and any psychometric properties measured will be recorded. Published and unpublished primary studies, reviews, and textual evidence are eligible for inclusion in the review.
Methods: The review will follow JBI methodology for scoping reviews and be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The following databases and resources will be searched: CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, medRxiv, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Google Scholar. Various websites will also be searched. No language limits will be placed. Screening, data extraction, and data analysis will be conducted by 2 reviewers independently. Descriptive statistics and basic content analysis will be used to convey the results of the review, supplemented by a narrative synthesis and presented in tabular and graphical form.
Review registration: Open Science Framework: osf.io/da9th.
目的：本建议的范围审查的目的是确定可用于批判性评估和评估方法学质量的工具；评估主要混合方法或多方法研究的偏倚风险；确定哪些研究经过了正式的心理测量评估。简介：目前JBI还没有针对主要混合方法或多方法研究的评价工具，建议审稿人使用JBI定性工具和相关定量工具（基于研究设计）一起使用。虽然有用，但这并不允许审稿人考虑与初级混合方法研究的细微差别有关的具体因素。纳入标准：设计用于评估主要混合方法或多方法研究的方法学质量的任何工具、检查表、量表、仪器、标准、系统或框架都将令人感兴趣。还将考虑工具的改编或修改版本，并记录测量到的任何心理测量特性。已发表和未发表的初步研究、综述和文本证据均有资格纳入本综述。方法：该综述将遵循JBI方法进行范围评价，并按照系统评价和荟萃分析扩展范围评价的首选报告项目（PRISMA-ScR）进行报告。检索的数据库和资源包括：CINAHL、PubMed、PsycINFO、Embase、Scopus、medRxiv、ProQuest dissertation and Theses Global和谷歌Scholar。各种网站也将被搜索。没有语言限制。筛选、数据提取、数据分析由2名审稿人独立完成。将使用描述性统计和基本内容分析来传达审查结果，并辅以叙述性综合，并以表格和图形形式提出。评审注册：开放科学框架：osf.io/da9th。
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
