Table 3

Some guidance for critiquing mixed methods (MM) research

Critiquing subheadings	Areas to consider	Notes
Section A Generic criteria
Is the research question and aims stated?	Did the researcher state the research question? Can you identify the research aims? Are the aims and research questions clearly articulated? (Are they easy to identify or lost in the text?)
Is there a clear theoretical or conceptual framework?	Did the researcher state the theoretical framework that is used to guide the research? If there is not a theoretical framework stated, can you identify the conceptual framework used? This is usually drawn from the literature reviewed.
Are the sampling technique and data collection methods appropriate?	Does the research question(s) link to the methods? (Are they appropriate to answer the research question?) Is there a clear sampling strategy? Is the sample appropriate to the research?
Are the data analysis methods appropriate?	Have the researchers stated how data will be analysed? Can you identify the data analysis techniques used for both qualitative and quantitative data? Are the data analysis techniques appropriate to the collected data?
Are the findings/results their interpretation, and conclusions clear (does the conclusions reflect the findings/results?)	Are the findings or results a true reflection of the data? For example, are qualitative findings reported in themes and anchored in participants’ quotes? For quantitative research, are data presented using appropriate graphs, charts or tables? Are the relevant values reported? Are you able to identify how the findings/results have been derived? Are conclusions reflective of the findings/results?
Are inferences and implications for practice made?	Can you identify any inferences made for the discussions of the findings/results? Did the researcher make any implications for practice or recommendation based on the discussion of the findings?
Section B MM critiquing criteria
Justification for mixing methods	Is the reason for using an MM approach justified or explicit?
Value of using an MM approach	Does the MM approach add value when compared with a single approach?
Paradigm position	Can you identify the paradigm position, for example, positivism, constructivism, pragmatism, or is there more than one paradigm?
Research design	Can the research design be identified according to MM typologies? Did the authors discuss the timing, weighting and mixing of methods? Can you identify the design, that is, is it sequential or concurrent/parallel? In sequential studies, can you identify the dominant method? In concurrent/parallel, can you identify which method is used first? Can you identify where and how data sets may have been merged?
Quality	Are issues of quality addressed? (eg, justification of study, design, sampling, integration of data limitations and insights) For quantitative methods, are validity and reliability discussed? For qualitative methods, are trustworthiness, credibility, confirmability dependability and transferability discussed Is the impact of the researchers on the study made clear? Are the researchers transparent in the reporting of the study? Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed?
Integration and cohesiveness	Can you identify the integration of data at design, methods and interpretation and reporting? Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? Does the study cohere, that is, can you see how the qualitative and quantitative methods ‘fit’ together?