framework for critiquing qualitative research articles

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2021
• Volume 31 , pages 679–689, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Drishti Yadav   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-0323 1  

81k Accesses

28 Citations

71 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.

Similar content being viewed by others

Good Qualitative Research: Opening up the Debate

Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer.

What is Qualitative in Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

“… It is important to regularly dialogue about what makes for good qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 , p. 837)

To decide what represents good qualitative research is highly debatable. There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives. Bryman et al., ( 2008 , p. 262) suggest that “It is widely assumed that whereas quality criteria for quantitative research are well‐known and widely agreed, this is not the case for qualitative research.” Hence, the question “how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research” has been continuously debated. There are many areas of science and technology wherein these debates on the assessment of qualitative research have taken place. Examples include various areas of psychology: general psychology (Madill et al., 2000 ); counseling psychology (Morrow, 2005 ); and clinical psychology (Barker & Pistrang, 2005 ), and other disciplines of social sciences: social policy (Bryman et al., 2008 ); health research (Sparkes, 2001 ); business and management research (Johnson et al., 2006 ); information systems (Klein & Myers, 1999 ); and environmental studies (Reid & Gough, 2000 ). In the literature, these debates are enthused by the impression that the blanket application of criteria for good qualitative research developed around the positivist paradigm is improper. Such debates are based on the wide range of philosophical backgrounds within which qualitative research is conducted (e.g., Sandberg, 2000 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.

Among qualitative researchers, the dilemma of governing the measures to assess the quality of research is not a new phenomenon, especially when the virtuous triad of objectivity, reliability, and validity (Spencer et al., 2004 ) are not adequate. Occasionally, the criteria of quantitative research are used to evaluate qualitative research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008 ; Lather, 2004 ). Indeed, Howe ( 2004 ) claims that the prevailing paradigm in educational research is scientifically based experimental research. Hypotheses and conjectures about the preeminence of quantitative research can weaken the worth and usefulness of qualitative research by neglecting the prominence of harmonizing match for purpose on research paradigm, the epistemological stance of the researcher, and the choice of methodology. Researchers have been reprimanded concerning this in “paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000 ).

In general, qualitative research tends to come from a very different paradigmatic stance and intrinsically demands distinctive and out-of-the-ordinary criteria for evaluating good research and varieties of research contributions that can be made. This review attempts to present a series of evaluative criteria for qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the unique nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims, and assumptions). This review aims to assist researchers in identifying some of the indispensable features or markers of high-quality qualitative research. In a nutshell, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing knowledge on high-quality qualitative research and to verify the existence of research studies dealing with the critical assessment of qualitative research based on the concept of diverse paradigmatic stances. Contrary to the existing reviews, this review also suggests some critical directions to follow to improve the quality of qualitative research in different epistemological and ontological perspectives. This review is also intended to provide guidelines for the acceleration of future developments and dialogues among qualitative researchers in the context of assessing the qualitative research.

The rest of this review article is structured in the following fashion: Sect.  Methods describes the method followed for performing this review. Section Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies provides a comprehensive description of the criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. This section is followed by a summary of the strategies to improve the quality of qualitative research in Sect.  Improving Quality: Strategies . Section  How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings? provides details on how to assess the quality of the research findings. After that, some of the quality checklists (as tools to evaluate quality) are discussed in Sect.  Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality . At last, the review ends with the concluding remarks presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook . Some prospects in qualitative research for enhancing its quality and usefulness in the social and techno-scientific research community are also presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook .

For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research , Criteria , etc . The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The following keywords (and their combinations using Boolean connectives OR/AND) were adopted for the literature search: qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity. The synonyms for these keywords were collected and arranged in a logical structure (see Table 1 ). All publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 till 2021 were considered for the search. Other articles extracted from the references of the papers identified in the electronic search were also included. A large number of publications on qualitative research were retrieved during the initial screening. Hence, to include the searches with the main focus on criteria for good qualitative research, an inclusion criterion was utilized in the search string.

From the selected databases, the search retrieved a total of 765 publications. Then, the duplicate records were removed. After that, based on the title and abstract, the remaining 426 publications were screened for their relevance by using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Publications focusing on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research were included, whereas those works which delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research were excluded. Based on the screening and eligibility, 45 research articles were identified that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and were found to be relevant to this review.

Figure  1 illustrates the complete review process in the form of PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, i.e., “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” is employed in systematic reviews to refine the quality of reporting.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and inclusion process. N represents the number of records

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Fundamental criteria: general research quality.

Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3 . Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy’s “Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 ). Tracy argues that high-quality qualitative work should formulate criteria focusing on the worthiness, relevance, timeliness, significance, morality, and practicality of the research topic, and the ethical stance of the research itself. Researchers have also suggested a series of questions as guiding principles to assess the quality of a qualitative study (Mays & Pope, 2020 ). Nassaji ( 2020 ) argues that good qualitative research should be robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology. These beliefs govern how the researcher perceives and acts. The net, which encompasses the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises, is referred to as a paradigm, or an interpretive structure, a “Basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990 ). Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural. The complexity of these four abstract paradigms increases at the level of concrete, specific interpretive communities. Table 5 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm. Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003 ). In addition, a series of questions have been put forward in the literature to assist a reviewer (who is proficient in qualitative methods) for meticulous assessment and endorsement of qualitative research (Morse, 2003 ). Hammersley ( 2007 ) also suggests that guiding principles for qualitative research are advantageous, but methodological pluralism should not be simply acknowledged for all qualitative approaches. Seale ( 1999 ) also points out the significance of methodological cognizance in research studies.

Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable. Hence, the researchers must be reflexive about the criteria they use in the various roles they play within their research community.

Improving Quality: Strategies

Another critical question is “How can the qualitative researchers ensure that the abovementioned quality criteria can be met?” Lincoln and Guba ( 1986 ) delineated several strategies to intensify each criteria of trustworthiness. Other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ; Shenton, 2004 ) also presented such strategies. A brief description of these strategies is shown in Table 6 .

It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021 ). In general, the guiding principle pertaining to generalizability speaks about inducing and comprehending knowledge to synthesize interpretive components of an underlying context. Table 7 summarizes the main metasynthesis steps required to ascertain generalizability in qualitative research.

Figure  2 reflects the crucial components of a conceptual framework and their contribution to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice (Johnson et al., 2020 ). The synergy and interrelationship of these components signifies their role to different stances of a qualitative research study.

Essential elements of a conceptual framework

In a nutshell, to assess the rationale of a study, its conceptual framework and research question(s), quality criteria must take account of the following: lucid context for the problem statement in the introduction; well-articulated research problems and questions; precise conceptual framework; distinct research purpose; and clear presentation and investigation of the paradigms. These criteria would expedite the quality of qualitative research.

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, “80% of all respondents agreed that” or “only one of the interviewees mentioned that”) may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for “why this may not help in intensifying the research” has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020 ). Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8 .

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

Numerous checklists are available to speed up the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive. I recommend that such lists and guiding principles may assist in pinpointing the markers of high-quality qualitative research. However, considering enormous variations in the authors’ theoretical and philosophical contexts, I would emphasize that high dependability on such checklists may say little about whether the findings can be applied in your setting. A combination of such checklists might be appropriate for novice researchers. Some of these checklists are listed below:

The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007 ). This framework is recommended by some journals to be followed by the authors during article submission.

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O’Brien et al., 2014 ).

Also, Tracy ( 2010 ) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021 ) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.

Further, researchers have also outlined different criteria as hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research. For instance, the “Road Trip Checklist” (Epp & Otnes, 2021 ) provides a quick reference to specific questions to address different elements of high-quality qualitative research.

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

This work presents a broad review of the criteria for good qualitative research. In addition, this article presents an exploratory analysis of the essential elements in qualitative research that can enable the readers of qualitative work to judge it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. In this review, some of the essential markers that indicate high-quality qualitative research have been highlighted. I scope them narrowly to achieve rigor in qualitative research and note that they do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research. This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist. In other words, this review also emphasizes the non-existence of a set of common guidelines among qualitative researchers. In unison, this review reinforces that each qualitative approach should be treated uniquely on account of its own distinctive features for different epistemological and disciplinary positions. Owing to the sensitivity of the worth of qualitative research towards the specific context and the type of paradigmatic stance, researchers should themselves analyze what approaches can be and must be tailored to ensemble the distinct characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. Although this article does not assert to put forward a magic bullet and to provide a one-stop solution for dealing with dilemmas about how, why, or whether to evaluate the “goodness” of qualitative research, it offers a platform to assist the researchers in improving their qualitative studies. This work provides an assembly of concerns to reflect on, a series of questions to ask, and multiple sets of criteria to look at, when attempting to determine the quality of qualitative research. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the need to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. Bringing together the vital arguments and delineating the requirements that good qualitative research should satisfy, this review strives to equip the researchers as well as reviewers to make well-versed judgment about the worth and significance of the qualitative research under scrutiny. In a nutshell, a comprehensive portrayal of the research process (from the context of research to the research objectives, research questions and design, speculative foundations, and from approaches of collecting data to analyzing the results, to deriving inferences) frequently proliferates the quality of a qualitative research.

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

Irrefutably, qualitative research is a vivacious and evolving discipline wherein different epistemological and disciplinary positions have their own characteristics and importance. In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date. Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021 ; McGinley et al., 2021 ). Following are some prospects and a few recommendations put forward towards the maturation of qualitative research and its quality evaluation:

In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts. Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria. However, researchers and reviewers need to keep in mind that it is inappropriate to utilize the same approaches and conducts among all qualitative research. Therefore, future work needs to focus on educating researchers and reviewers about the criteria to evaluate qualitative research from within the suitable theoretical and methodological context.

There is an urgent need to refurbish and augment critical assessment of some well-known and widely accepted tools (including checklists such as COREQ, SRQR) to interrogate their applicability on different aspects (along with their epistemological ramifications).

Efforts should be made towards creating more space for creativity, experimentation, and a dialogue between the diverse traditions of qualitative research. This would potentially help to avoid the enforcement of one's own set of quality criteria on the work carried out by others.

Moreover, journal reviewers need to be aware of various methodological practices and philosophical debates.

It is pivotal to highlight the expressions and considerations of qualitative researchers and bring them into a more open and transparent dialogue about assessing qualitative research in techno-scientific, academic, sociocultural, and political rooms.

Frequent debates on the use of evaluative criteria are required to solve some potentially resolved issues (including the applicability of a single set of criteria in multi-disciplinary aspects). Such debates would not only benefit the group of qualitative researchers themselves, but primarily assist in augmenting the well-being and vivacity of the entire discipline.

To conclude, I speculate that the criteria, and my perspective, may transfer to other methods, approaches, and contexts. I hope that they spark dialog and debate – about criteria for excellent qualitative research and the underpinnings of the discipline more broadly – and, therefore, help improve the quality of a qualitative study. Further, I anticipate that this review will assist the researchers to contemplate on the quality of their own research, to substantiate research design and help the reviewers to review qualitative research for journals. On a final note, I pinpoint the need to formulate a framework (encompassing the prerequisites of a qualitative study) by the cohesive efforts of qualitative researchers of different disciplines with different theoretic-paradigmatic origins. I believe that tailoring such a framework (of guiding principles) paves the way for qualitative researchers to consolidate the status of qualitative research in the wide-ranging open science debate. Dialogue on this issue across different approaches is crucial for the impending prospects of socio-techno-educational research.

Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16 (10), 1472–1482.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3–4), 201–212.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (4), 261–276.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.

CASP (2021). CASP checklists. Retrieved May 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6 (4), 331–339.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.

Epp, A. M., & Otnes, C. C. (2021). High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. Journal of Service Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520961445

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative paradigms conference, mar, 1989, Indiana u, school of education, San Francisco, ca, us . Sage Publications, Inc.

Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30 (3), 287–305.

Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406920976417.

Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99 (2), 178–188.

Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 (2), 307–312.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–46.

Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84 (1), 7120.

Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (3), 131–156.

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67–93.

Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 15–34.

Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68 (3), 357.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986 (30), 73–84.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 1–20.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch15

McGinley, S., Wei, W., Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). The state of qualitative research in hospitality: A 5-year review 2014 to 2019. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62 (1), 8–20.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, US.

Meyer, M., & Dykes, J. (2019). Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26 (1), 87–97.

Monrouxe, L. V., & Rees, C. E. (2020). When I say… quantification in qualitative research. Medical Education, 54 (3), 186–187.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250.

Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 833–851.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24 (4), 427–431.

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406919899220.

Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6 (1), 59–91.

Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International . https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.501959

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 9–25.

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (1), 58–72.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465–478.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75.

Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11 (4), 538–552.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.

Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (6), 596–599.

Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33 (2), 163–179.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.

Download references

Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, 1040, Vienna, Austria

Drishti Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yadav, D. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31 , 679–689 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Download citation

Accepted : 28 August 2021

Published : 18 September 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative research
• Evaluative criteria
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Critically appraising...

Critically appraising qualitative research

• Related content
• Peer review
• Ayelet Kuper , assistant professor 1 ,
• Lorelei Lingard , associate professor 2 ,
• Wendy Levinson , Sir John and Lady Eaton professor and chair 3
• 1 Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Room HG 08, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5
• 2 Department of Paediatrics and Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University of Toronto and SickKids Learning Institute; BMO Financial Group Professor in Health Professions Education Research, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Street, Eaton South 1-565, Toronto
• 3 Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
• Correspondence to: A Kuper ayelet94{at}post.harvard.edu

Six key questions will help readers to assess qualitative research

Summary points

Appraising qualitative research is different from appraising quantitative research

Qualitative research papers should show appropriate sampling, data collection, and data analysis

Transferability of qualitative research depends on context and may be enhanced by using theory

Ethics in qualitative research goes beyond review boards’ requirements to involve complex issues of confidentiality, reflexivity, and power

Over the past decade, readers of medical journals have gained skills in critically appraising studies to determine whether the results can be trusted and applied to their own practice settings. Criteria have been designed to assess studies that use quantitative methods, and these are now in common use.

In this article we offer guidance for readers on how to assess a study that uses qualitative research methods by providing six key questions to ask when reading qualitative research (box 1). However, the thorough assessment of qualitative research is an interpretive act and requires informed reflective thought rather than the simple application of a scoring system.

Box 1 Key questions to ask when reading qualitative research studies

Was the sample used in the study appropriate to its research question, were the data collected appropriately, were the data analysed appropriately, can i transfer the results of this study to my own setting, does the study adequately address potential ethical issues, including reflexivity.

Overall: is what the researchers did clear?

One of the critical decisions in a qualitative study is whom or what to include in the sample—whom to interview, whom to observe, what texts to analyse. An understanding that qualitative research is based in experience and in the construction of meaning, combined with the specific research question, should guide the sampling process. For example, a study of the experience of survivors of domestic violence that examined their reasons for not seeking help from healthcare providers might focus on interviewing a sample of such survivors (rather than, for example, healthcare providers, social services workers, or academics in the field). The sample should be broad enough to capture the many facets of a phenomenon, and limitations to the sample should be clearly justified. Since the answers to questions of experience and meaning also relate to people’s social affiliations (culture, religion, socioeconomic group, profession, etc), it is also important that the researcher acknowledges these contexts in the selection of a study sample.

In contrast with quantitative approaches, qualitative studies do not usually have predetermined sample sizes. Sampling stops when a thorough understanding of the phenomenon under study has been reached, an end point that is often called saturation. Researchers consider samples to be saturated when encounters (interviews, observations, etc) with new participants no longer elicit trends or themes not already raised by previous participants. Thus, to sample to saturation, data analysis has to happen while new data are still being collected. Multiple sampling methods may be used to broaden the understanding achieved in a study (box 2). These sampling issues should be clearly articulated in the methods section.

Box 2 Qualitative sampling methods for interviews and focus groups 9

Examples are for a hypothetical study of financial concerns among adult patients with chronic renal failure receiving ongoing haemodialysis in a single hospital outpatient unit.

Typical case sampling —sampling the most ordinary, usual cases of a phenomenon

The sample would include patients likely to have had typical experiences for that haemodialysis unit and patients who fit the profile of patients in the unit for factors found on literature review. Other typical cases could be found via snowball sampling (see below)

Deviant case sampling —sampling the most extreme cases of a phenomenon

The sample would include patients likely to have had different experiences of relevant aspects of haemodialysis. For example, if most patients in the unit are 60-70 years old and recently began haemodialysis for diabetic nephropathy, researchers might sample the unmarried university student in his 20s on haemodialysis since childhood, the 32 year old woman with lupus who is now trying to get pregnant, and the 90 year old who newly started haemodialysis due to an adverse reaction to radio-opaque contrast dye. Other deviant cases could be found via theoretical and/or snowball sampling (see below)

Critical case sampling —sampling cases that are predicted (based on theoretical models or previous research) to be especially information-rich and thus particularly illuminating

The nature of this sample depends on previous research. For example, if research showed that marital status was a major determinant of financial concerns for haemodialysis patients, then critical cases might include patients whose marital status changed while on haemodialysis

Maximum-variation sampling —sampling as wide a range of perspectives as possible to capture the broadest set of information and experiences)

The sample would include typical, deviant, and critical cases (as above), plus any other perspectives identified

Confirming-disconfirming sampling —Sampling both individuals or texts whose perspectives are likely to confirm the researcher’s developing understanding of the phenomenon under study and those whose perspectives are likely to challenge that understanding

The sample would include patients whose experiences would likely either confirm or disconfirm what the researchers had already learnt (from other patients) about financial concerns among patients in the haemodialysis unit. This could be accomplished via theoretical and/or snowball sampling (see below)

Snowball sampling —sampling participants found by asking current participants in a study to recommend others whose experiences would be relevant to the study

Current participants could be asked to provide the names of others in the unit who they thought, when asked about financial concerns, would either share their views (confirming), disagree with their views (disconfirming), have views typical of patients on their unit (typical cases), or have views different from most other patients on their unit (deviant cases)

Theoretical sampling —sampling individuals or texts whom the researchers predict (based on theoretical models or previous research) would add new perspectives to those already represented in the sample

Researchers could use their understanding of known issues for haemodialysis patients that would, in theory, relate to financial concerns to ensure that the relevant perspectives were represented in the study. For example, if, as the research progressed, it turned out that none of the patients in the sample had had to change or leave a job in order to accommodate haemodialysis scheduling, the researchers might (based on previous research) choose to intentionally sample patients who had left their jobs because of the time commitment of haemodialysis (but who could not do peritoneal dialysis) and others who had switched to jobs with more flexible scheduling because of their need for haemodialysis

It is important that a qualitative study carefully describes the methods used in collecting data. The appropriateness of the method(s) selected to use for the specific research question should be justified, ideally with reference to the research literature. It should be clear that methods were used systematically and in an organised manner. Attention should be paid to specific methodological challenges such as the Hawthorne effect, 1 whereby the presence of an observer may influence participants’ behaviours. By using a technique called thick description, qualitative studies often aim to include enough contextual information to provide readers with a sense of what it was like to have been in the research setting.

Another technique that is often used is triangulation, with which a researcher uses multiple methods or perspectives to help produce a more comprehensive set of findings. A study can triangulate data, using different sources of data to examine a phenomenon in different contexts (for example, interviewing palliative patients who are at home, those who are in acute care hospitals, and those who are in specialist palliative care units); it can also triangulate methods, collecting different types of data (for example, interviews, focus groups, observations) to increase insight into a phenomenon.

Another common technique is the use of an iterative process, whereby concurrent data analysis is used to inform data collection. For example, concurrent analysis of an interview study about lack of adherence to medications among a particular social group might show that early participants seem to be dismissive of the efforts of their local pharmacists; the interview script might then be changed to include an exploration of this phenomenon. The iterative process constitutes a distinctive qualitative tradition, in contrast to the tradition of stable processes and measures in quantitative studies. Iterations should be explicit and justified with reference to the research question and sampling techniques so that the reader understands how data collection shaped the resulting insights.

Qualitative studies should include a clear description of a systematic form of data analysis. Many legitimate analytical approaches exist; regardless of which is used, the study should report what was done, how, and by whom. If an iterative process was used, it should be clearly delineated. If more than one researcher analysed the data (which depends on the methodology used) it should be clear how differences between analyses were negotiated. Many studies make reference to a technique called member checking, wherein the researcher shows all or part of the study’s findings to participants to determine if they are in accord with their experiences. 2 Studies may also describe an audit trail, which might include researchers’ analysis notes, minutes of researchers’ meetings, and other materials that could be used to follow the research process.

The contextual nature of qualitative research means that careful thought must be given to the potential transferability of its results to other sociocultural settings. Though the study should discuss the extent of the findings’ resonance with the published literature, 3 much of the onus of assessing transferability is left to readers, who must decide if the setting of the study is sufficiently similar for its results to be transferable to their own context. In doing so, the reader looks for resonance—the extent that research findings have meaning for the reader.

Transferability may be helped by the study’s discussion of how its results advance theoretical understandings that are relevant to multiple situations. For example, a study of patients’ preferences in palliative care may contribute to theories of ethics and humanity in medicine, thus suggesting relevance to other clinical situations such as the informed consent exchange before treatment. We have explained elsewhere in this series the importance of theory in qualitative research, and there are many who believe that a key indicator of quality in qualitative research is its contribution to advancing theoretical understanding as well as useful knowledge. This debate continues in the literature, 4 but from a pragmatic perspective most qualitative studies in health professions journals emphasise results that relate to practice; theoretical discussions tend to be published elsewhere.

Reflexivity is particularly important within the qualitative paradigm. Reflexivity refers to recognition of the influence a researcher brings to the research process. It highlights potential power relationships between the researcher and research participants that might shape the data being collected, particularly when the researcher is a healthcare professional or educator and the participant is a patient, client, or student. 5 It also acknowledges how a researcher’s gender, ethnic background, profession, and social status influence the choices made within the study, such as the research question itself and the methods of data collection. 6 7

Research articles written in the qualitative paradigm should show evidence both of reflexive practice and of consideration of other relevant ethical issues. Ethics in qualitative research should extend beyond prescriptive guidelines and research ethics boards into a thorough exploration of the ethical consequences of collecting personal experiences and opening those experiences to public scrutiny (a detailed discussion of this problem within a research report may, however, be limited by the practicalities of word count limitations). 8 Issues of confidentiality and anonymity can become quite complex when data constitute personal reports of experience or perception; the need to minimise harm may involve not only protection from external scrutiny but also mechanisms to mitigate potential distress to participants from sharing their personal stories.

In conclusion: is what the researchers did clear?

The qualitative paradigm includes a wide range of theoretical and methodological options, and qualitative studies must include clear descriptions of how they were conducted, including the selection of the study sample, the data collection methods, and the analysis process. The list of key questions for beginning readers to ask when reading qualitative research articles (see box 1) is intended not as a finite checklist, but rather as a beginner’s guide to a complex topic. Critical appraisal of particular qualitative articles may differ according to the theories and methodologies used, and achieving a nuanced understanding in this area is fairly complex.

Further reading

Crabtree F, Miller WL, eds. Doing qualitative research . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999.

Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of qualitative research . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.

Finlay L, Ballinger C, eds. Qualitative research for allied health professionals: challenging choices . Chichester: Wiley, 2006.

Flick U. An introduction to qualitative research . 2nd ed. London: Sage, 2002.

Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research . London: Sage, 2004.

Lingard L, Kennedy TJ. Qualitative research in medical education . Edinburgh: Association for the Study of Medical Education, 2007.

Mauthner M, Birch M, Jessop J, Miller T, eds. Ethics in Qualitative Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.

Seale C. The quality of qualitative research . London: Sage, 1999.

Silverman D. Doing qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.

Journal articles

Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: papers that go beyond numbers. BMJ 1997;315:740-3.

Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research: Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ 1995;311:109-12.

Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000;320:50-2.

Popay J, Rogers A, Williams G. Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qual Health Res 1998;8:341-51.

Internet resources

National Health Service Public Health Resource Unit. Critical appraisal skills programme: qualitative research appraisal tool . 2006. www.phru.nhs.uk/Doc_Links/Qualitative%20Appraisal%20Tool.pdf

Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a1035

• Related to doi: , 10.1136/bmj.a288
• doi: , 10.1136/bmj.39602.690162.47
• doi: , 10.1136/bmj.a1020
• doi: , 10.1136/bmj.a879
• doi: 10.1136/bmj.a949

This is the last in a series of six articles that aim to help readers to critically appraise the increasing number of qualitative research articles in clinical journals. The series editors are Ayelet Kuper and Scott Reeves.

For a definition of general terms relating to qualitative research, see the first article in this series.

Contributors: AK wrote the first draft of the article and collated comments for subsequent iterations. LL and WL made substantial contributions to the structure and content, provided examples, and gave feedback on successive drafts. AK is the guarantor.

Funding: None.

Competing interests: None declared.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

• ↵ Holden JD. Hawthorne effects and research into professional practice. J Evaluation Clin Pract 2001 ; 7 : 65 -70. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
• ↵ Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography: principles in practice . 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1995 .
• ↵ Silverman D. Doing qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000 .
• ↵ Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000 ; 320 : 50 -2. OpenUrl FREE Full Text
• ↵ Lingard L, Kennedy TJ. Qualitative research in medical education . Edinburgh: Association for the Study of Medical Education, 2007 .
• ↵ Seale C. The quality of qualitative research . London: Sage, 1999 .
• ↵ Wallerstein N. Power between evaluator and community: research relationships within New Mexico’s healthier communities. Soc Sci Med 1999 ; 49 : 39 -54. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
• ↵ Mauthner M, Birch M, Jessop J, Miller T, eds. Ethics in qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002 .
• ↵ Kuzel AJ. Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Crabtree F, Miller WL, eds. Doing qualitative research . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999 :33-45.

• Teesside University Student & Library Services
• Learning Hub Group

Critical Appraisal for Health Students

• Critical Appraisal of a qualitative paper
• Critical Appraisal: Help
• Critical Appraisal of a quantitative paper
• Useful resources

Appraisal of a Qualitative paper : Top tips

• Introduction

Critical appraisal of a qualitative paper

This guide aimed at health students, provides basic level support for appraising qualitative research papers. It's designed for students who have already attended lectures on critical appraisal. One framework  for appraising qualitative research (based on 4 aspects of trustworthiness) is  provided and there is an opportunity to practise the technique on a sample article.

Support Materials

• Framework for reading qualitative papers
• Critical appraisal of a qualitative paper PowerPoint

To practise following this framework for critically appraising a qualitative article, please look at the following article:

Schellekens, M.P.J.  et al  (2016) 'A qualitative study on mindfulness-based stress reduction for breast cancer patients: how women experience participating with fellow patients',  Support Care Cancer , 24(4), pp. 1813-1820.

Critical appraisal of a qualitative paper: practical example.

• Credibility
• Transferability
• Dependability
• Confirmability

How to use this practical example 

Using the framework, you can have a go at appraising a qualitative paper - we are going to look at the following article: 

Step 1.  take a quick look at the article, step 2.  click on the credibility tab above - there are questions to help you appraise the trustworthiness of the article, read the questions and look for the answers in the article. , step 3.   click on each question and our answers will appear., step 4.    repeat with the other aspects of trustworthiness: transferability, dependability and confirmability ., questioning the credibility:, who is the researcher what has been their experience how well do they know this research area, was the best method chosen what method did they use was there any justification was the method scrutinised by peers is it a recognisable method was there triangulation ( more than one method used), how was the data collected was data collected from the participants at more than one time point how long were the interviews were questions asked to the participants in different ways, is the research reporting what the participants actually said were the participants shown transcripts / notes of the interviews / observations to ‘check’ for accuracy are direct quotes used from a variety of participants, how would you rate the overall credibility, questioning the transferability, was a meaningful sample obtained how many people were included is the sample diverse how were they selected, are the demographics given, does the research cover diverse viewpoints do the results include negative cases was data saturation reached, what is the overall transferability can the research be transferred to other settings , questioning the dependability :, how transparent is the audit trail can you follow the research steps are the decisions made transparent is the whole process explained in enough detail did the researcher keep a field diary is there a clear limitations section, was there peer scrutiny of the researchwas the research plan shown to peers / colleagues for approval and/or feedback did two or more researchers independently judge data, how would you rate the overall dependability would the results be similar if the study was repeated how consistent are the data and findings, questioning the confirmability :, is the process of analysis described in detail is a method of analysis named or described is there sufficient detail, have any checks taken place was there cross-checking of themes was there a team of researchers, has the researcher reflected on possible bias is there a reflexive diary, giving a detailed log of thoughts, ideas and assumptions, how do you rate the overall confirmability has the researcher attempted to limit bias, questioning the overall trustworthiness :, overall how trustworthy is the research, further information.

See Useful resources  for links, books and LibGuides to help with Critical appraisal.

• << Previous: Critical Appraisal: Help
• Next: Critical Appraisal of a quantitative paper >>
• Last Updated: Apr 30, 2024 4:47 PM
• URL: https://libguides.tees.ac.uk/critical_appraisal

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 27, Issue Suppl 2
• 12 Critical appraisal tools for qualitative research – towards ‘fit for purpose’
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Veronika Williams 1 ,
• Anne-Marie Boylan 2 ,
• Newhouse Nikki 2 ,
• David Nunan 2
• 1 Nipissing University, North Bay, Canada
• 2 University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Qualitative research has an important place within evidence-based health care (EBHC), contributing to policy on patient safety and quality of care, supporting understanding of the impact of chronic illness, and explaining contextual factors surrounding the implementation of interventions. However, the question of whether, when and how to critically appraise qualitative research persists. Whilst there is consensus that we cannot - and should not – simplistically adopt existing approaches for appraising quantitative methods, it is nonetheless crucial that we develop a better understanding of how to subject qualitative evidence to robust and systematic scrutiny in order to assess its trustworthiness and credibility. Currently, most appraisal methods and tools for qualitative health research use one of two approaches: checklists or frameworks. We have previously outlined the specific issues with these approaches (Williams et al 2019). A fundamental challenge still to be addressed, however, is the lack of differentiation between different methodological approaches when appraising qualitative health research. We do this routinely when appraising quantitative research: we have specific checklists and tools to appraise randomised controlled trials, diagnostic studies, observational studies and so on. Current checklists for qualitative research typically treat the entire paradigm as a single design (illustrated by titles of tools such as ‘CASP Qualitative Checklist’, ‘JBI checklist for qualitative research’) and frameworks tend to require substantial understanding of a given methodological approach without providing guidance on how they should be applied. Given the fundamental differences in the aims and outcomes of different methodologies, such as ethnography, grounded theory, and phenomenological approaches, as well as specific aspects of the research process, such as sampling, data collection and analysis, we cannot treat qualitative research as a single approach. Rather, we must strive to recognise core commonalities relating to rigour, but considering key methodological differences. We have argued for a reconsideration of current approaches to the systematic appraisal of qualitative health research (Williams et al 2021), and propose the development of a tool or tools that allow differentiated evaluations of multiple methodological approaches rather than continuing to treat qualitative health research as a single, unified method. Here we propose a workshop for researchers interested in the appraisal of qualitative health research and invite them to develop an initial consensus regarding core aspects of a new appraisal tool that differentiates between the different qualitative research methodologies and thus provides a ‘fit for purpose’ tool, for both, educators and clinicians.

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebm-2022-EBMLive.36

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

How to critique qualitative research articles

Affiliation.

• 1 Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, Ontario.
• PMID: 10603806

The critique of qualitative research requires the use of different standards and criteria than are used for quantitative research. The great diversity of available qualitative methods can make evaluation or critical appraisal difficult for consumers of research who are less familiar with these methods. The current paper suggests that the following guidelines be used when a qualitative research paper is being examined: the topic must be appropriate for qualitative enquiry; the specific qualitative research method chosen must "fit"; the literature reviewed should be consistent with the method chosen; there should be ample description of informants or participants, context, and researcher; appropriate methods for information gathering and information analysis should be employed; the conclusions should be sound; and, the research must have some importance and relevance.

Publication types

• Data Collection / standards
• Data Interpretation, Statistical
• Guidelines as Topic
• Nursing Methodology Research / methods*
• Nursing Methodology Research / standards*
• Peer Review, Research / methods*
• Research Design / standards*