| Defining Goal/ Purpose |
| 1* | goal/purpose clearly articulated |
| 2* | how the mixed methods study was conducted |
| 3* | why the mixed methods study was conducted |
| 4 | A clear theoretical, conceptual, or practical framework are presented (suggested) |
| 5* | Literature review provides (must meet a OR b; suggested - meets a AND b): |
| (a) qualitative evidence to support use of a mixed methods research design (e.g., adequate reference is made to most recent mixed methods research literature) and/or |
| (b) quantitative evidence to support use of a mixed methods research design (e.g., adequate reference is made to most recent mixed methods research literature). |
| 6* | Research questions (objectives) are aligned with study phases (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, and/or mixed) |
| 7* | Research questions clearly identify study sample/population |
| Sampling Procedures |
| 8* | Research questions (objectives) are aligned with study phases (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, and/or mixed) |
| 9* | Research questions clearly identify study sample/population |
| 10* | Sampling scheme or procedure is clearly articulated (e.g., random sampling vs. random assignment; random [simple stratified, cluster, systematic]; purposive [theory-based, confirming/disconfirming, snowball]) |
| 11 | Sample size considerations for quantitative and qualitative phases are included (e.g., power analysis for qualitative [e.g., saturation] and quantitative methods) (suggested) |
| 12 | Clear connection made between generalization to sample design, scheme, and size and purpose statement (e.g., statistical generalization, analytic generalization, case-to-case transfer, transferability) (suggested) |
| Research Design |
| 13* | Quantitative research design (e.g., descriptive, correlational, causal-comparative, experimental) is clearly articulated or described and aligns with purpose and research questions |
| 14* | Qualitative research design (e.g., ethnographic, case study, phenomenological, grounded theory) is clearly articulated or described and aligns with purpose and research questions |
| Data Collection and Analysis |
| 15* | Information presented about quantitative instructions and process for administration included |
| 16 | Outcomes for capturing the study’s effect are measured at the appropriate times. (suggested) |
| 17* | Process for instrument development is clearly articulated (e.g., expert vetting, score reliability, score validity) |
| 18* | Information about qualitative instruments and process for administration included |
| 19* | Mixed methods data analysis strategy included (e.g., data matrices/display, data integration, complimentary analysis data reduction, data transformation, data triangulation, data consolidation, data comparison) |
| 20* | Indication that assumptions that underlie quantitative analysis, including descriptive analysis, were met (e.g., normality, quality of variances, missing data, outliers, response rate) |
| 21* | Relevant descriptive and inferential statistics are included |
| 22* | Coding technique used for qualitative analysis is clearly articulated and specific (e.g., content analysis of constant comparison, domain analysis) |
| 23* | Level of mixing identified (i.e., fully mixed [across data collection, analysis, and interpretation] or partially mixed [interpretation only]) |
| 24* | Emphasis of approaches is clearly articulated (i.e., equal approaches vs. one approach being more dominant than the other) |
| Results & Discussion |
| 25* | Results interpreted and significance of quantitative findings (i.e., statistical, practical, clinical, economic) are included |
| 26* | Results interpreted and significance of qualitative findings (i.e., meaning, themes) are included |
| 27* | Threats to internal and external validity are addressed for both quantitative and qualitative methodologies |
| 28* | A combination of qualitative and quantitative data were used to answer at least one research question (i.e., there is some evidence of analysis across multiple data sources) |