The field of comparative and international education has followed methodological trends in social science research since the merging of the "twin" field after World War II. With increase in the use of mixed methods research about three decades ago, comparative and international education journals and scholars have worked rigorously to be part of the mixed methods movement (e.g., Copeland, McCrink, & Starratt, 2017; Ding, 2016; Kim, Choi, & Tatar, 2017; Kissau, Rodgers, & Haudeck, 2014; Wright & Schartner, 2013). Scholars have applied mixed methods to their comparative inquiry process and integrally explained the importance of using this method, with expectations that other scholars would apply this method as needed to their research. While there is an increase in the use of mixed methods research in the field of comparative and international education, the quality of reports generated from using this method is yet to be evaluated. In this study, I used a mixed research synthesis method to assess the extent to which 68 selected empirical articles from five comparative and international education journals (published from 2008 to 2018) approached the five mixed methods reporting quality domains: Transparency, integration, interpretive comprehensiveness, methodological foundation, and design quality; found in the developed Mixed Methods Reporting Quality Evaluative Protocol (MMRQEP). Subsequently, in the qualitative and mixed methods phases, 14 top-scored articles were selected for in-depth review into understanding and comparing the strategies used in approaching the five mixed methods reporting quality domains. Overall, the findings show that in the past decade, articles had relatively strong approach to transparency, integration, and interpretive comprehensiveness, while methodological foundation and design quality were approached poorly. In the qualitative phase, three main strategies--triangulation, interconnected flow, and explicit clarification were identified as techniques that the top-scored articles used in approaching the five mixed methods reporting quality domains. While the top-scored articles approached the five mixed methods reporting quality domains well, a practical implication of using the "tools best for the job" is recommended to comparativists as an appropriate measure when approaching transparency, integration, interpretive comprehensiveness, methodological foundation, and design quality in the mixed methods research reporting. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]