The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 10 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review synthesizes published criteria for evaluating good qualitative research and argues that no single universal set of quality criteria is feasible or desirable because qualitative research spans diverse paradigms. It presents criteria, trustworthiness strategies, checklists, and recommendations for researchers and reviewers to judge qualitative work within its own theoretical and methodological context.
Key findings
- The review concludes that quality criteria are shaped by socio-institutional procedures and paradigmatic stances, and that “a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated” due to qualitative research’s paradigmatic diversity.
- It identifies four major interpretive paradigms structuring qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural.
- It highlights Tracy’s “Eight big-tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (worthy topic, rich rigor, sincerity, credibility, resonance, significant contribution, ethics, meaningful coherence) and lists checklists including COREQ, SRQR, CASP, and the “Road Trip Checklist.”
- The systematic search retrieved 765 publications; after duplicates were removed, 426 were screened, and 45 research articles offering explicit criteria for evaluating qualitative research were identified as relevant.
Methods
- Systematic literature review using databases IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, with keywords and Boolean combinations around qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity.
- Publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 until 2021 were considered; references of relevant articles were also surveyed.
- Screening used inclusion/exclusion criteria focused on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research, excluding works that only delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research; the process is presented in a PRISMA flow diagram.
Limitations
- The author states that the essential markers highlighted are scoped narrowly to achieve rigor and “do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research.”
- The author states the article does not claim to provide a “magic bullet” or “one-stop solution” for evaluating the “goodness” of qualitative research.
- Evident from the text: the search was limited to five databases and to English-language publications later than 1950, and the review excludes papers that only delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research, which may narrow the criteria considered.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
11 Own interpretation · 8 Not checked yet · 1 No basis given
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date.”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Prospects: A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Improving Quality: Strategies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stenfors et al., 2020 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003).”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Horsburgh, 2003 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts.”
- Also stated in: § Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms · plain
“Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints.”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms · plain
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
- It may state two separate claims as one. 3
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021).”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Improving Quality: Strategies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hays & McKibben, 2021 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007).”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tong et al., 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Also, Tracy (2010) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tracy (2010) source
- Not checked yetcites CASP, 2021
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Epp & Otnes, 2021 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria.”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Prospects: A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Most manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8.”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Improving Quality: Strategies
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O'Brien et al., 2014).”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites O'Brien et al., 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Prospects: A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated.”
- Also stated in: § Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms · plain
“Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook · plain
“This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist.”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: There are numerous methods within qualitative research that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives.
- Rests on an assumption: Four major interpretive paradigms structure qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural.
- Also stated in: § Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive.”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review > Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper relies on this without support.
The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings.
“The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are numerous methods within qualitative research that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives.
“There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives.”
The paper relies on this without support.
All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology.
“All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Four major interpretive paradigms structure qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural.
“Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts.
“In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Qualitative studies provide in-depth insights into complex phenomena, encouraging open discussion and exploration [21], which are crucial for implementing GAI in health professional education.”
From Generative artificial intelligence in physiotherapy education: great potential amidst challenges- a qualitative interview study (2025) · cites this paper as [21]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Additional strategies to ensure trustworthiness included member checking, triangulation, and bracketing (Yadav, 2022).”
From Into the Unknown: AI Adoption and Job Satisfaction of Christian Faculty (2026) · cites this paper as Yadav, 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 · Cited by 42,509
(2009) · Cited by 21,330
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000388 · Cited by 12,211
Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects
Shenton, A. K. (2004) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-2004-22201 · Cited by 9,748
Handbook of qualitative research
Griffin, T. F. (1999) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6793(199907)16:4 · Cited by 9,061
Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research
Tracy, S. J. (2010) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1077800410383121 · Cited by 7,536 · cited 3×
“‘‘… 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.”
BackgroundMethodIntroduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005) · Cited by 7,526
Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005) · Cited by 6,640
The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research[1]
(2006) · Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/17465640610666642 · Cited by 5,866
A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems1
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249410 · Cited by 5,263
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 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.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Purposive sampling in qualitative research: a framework for the entire journey
Ahmad, M., & Wilkins, S. (2025) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-024-02022-5 · Cited by 407
Chand, S. P. (2025) · Advances in Educational Research and Evaluation · doi:10.25082/aere.2025.01.001 · Cited by 474
Emerging Research and Policy Themes on Academic Integrity in the Age of Chat GPT and Generative AI
Plata, S., De Guzman, M. A., & Quesada, A. (2023) · Asian Journal of University Education · doi:10.24191/ajue.v19i4.24697 · Cited by 65
Caregivers' experiences of having a child with cerebral palsy. A meta-synthesis
Dlamini, M. D., Chang, Y., & Nguyen, T. T. B. (2023) · Journal of Pediatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2023.08.026 · Cited by 64
Nitel Araştırmalarda Veri Doygunluğu
Akçay, S., & Koca, E. (2024) · Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi · doi:10.18037/ausbd.1423415 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- Yadav, D.
- Affiliations
- TU Wien (AT)
- Corresponding author
- Yadav, Drishti
- ORCID
- Yadav, Drishti
- Venue
- The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher
- Published
- 2021-09-18
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 679-689
- ISSN
- 0119-5646 (ISSN-L)
- 2243-7908
- OpenAlex
- W3201508169
- Semantic Scholar
- 9e23fe7acfbd716a6a6d2ed7d94ae1c719937520
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 55 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 6
- FWCI
- 47.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- reposiTUm (TU Wien) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- TU Wien
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Keywords
- qualitative research, research quality criteria, research rigor, epistemology, ontology, research evaluation, research standards
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
