It is necessary to represent the importance of all findings in the MMR article (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2004). Regarding the significance of that, an interpretive framework which includes ten aspects of quality is drafted by Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009, pp. 301-302):

1. Appropriateness of design (i.e. ‘Are the methods of study appropriate for answering the research questions?’; ‘Does the design match the research questions?’; ‘Does the mixed methods design match the stated purpose for conducting an integrated study?’; ‘Do the strands of the mixed methods study address the same research questions [or closely related aspects of the research question]?’).
2. Reliability of design (i.e. ‘Are the qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods procedures or design components... capturing the meanings, effects, or relationships?’).
3. Coherence inside the design (i.e. ‘Do the components of the design fit together in a seamless manner?’; ‘Do the strands of the mixed methods study follow each other [or are they linked] in a logical and seamless manner?’).
4. Analytical competence (i.e., ‘Are the data analysis procedures/strategies appropriate and adequate to provide possible answers to research questions?’; ‘Are the mixed methods strategies implemented effectively?’).
5. Analytical cohesion (i.e., ‘Do the inferences closely follow the relevant findings in terms of type, scope, and intensity?’; ‘Are multiple inferences made on the basis of the same findings consistent with each other?’).
6. Conceptual coherence (i.e., ‘Are the inferences consistent with theory and state of knowledge in the field?’);
7. Explicative concurrence (i.e., ‘Are other scholars likely to reach the same conclusions on the basis of the same results?’; ‘Do the inferences match participants’ constructions?’).
8. Analytical uniqueness (i.e., ‘Is each inference distinctively more credible/plausible than other possible conclusions that might be made on the basis of the same results?’).
9. Combining efficiency (i.e., ‘Do the meta-inferences adequately incorporate the inferences that are made in each strand of the study?’; ‘If there are credible inconsistencies between inferences made within/across strands, are the theoretical explanations for these inconsistencies explored, and possible explanations offered?’).
10. Exploratory agreement (i.e., ‘Do the inferences correspond to the stated purpose/questions of the study?’; ‘Do the inferences made in each strand address the purposes of the study in that strand?’; ‘Do the meta-inferences meet the stated need for using a mixed methods design?’)