CASP Checklist: 10 Questions for Qualitative Research Appraisal

The CASP Qualitative Research Appraisal Checklist is a tool to evaluate the validity and value of qualitative research. It consists of 10 questions that assess the research design, data collection, analysis, and findings. The checklist helps researchers think about these issues systematically and record their answers. The checklist does not have a scoring system and is designed to be used as an educational tool. The checklist was developed by a group of experts and is regularly updated. The checklist is referenced using the Harvard style citation.

CASP Checklist: 10 questions to help you make sense of a Qualitative
research
How to use this appraisal tool: Three broad issues need to be
considered when appraising a qualitative study:
Are the results of the study valid? (Section A)
What are the results? (Section B)
Will the results help
locally?
(Section C)
The 10 questions on the following pages are designed to help you think
about these issues systematically. The first two questions are screening
questions and can be answered quickly. If the answer to both is “yes”, it
is worth proceeding with the remaining questions. There is some degree
of overlap between the questions, you are asked to record a “yes”, “no”
or “can’t tell” to most of the questions. A number of italicised prompts
are given after each question. These are designed to remind you why the
question is important. Record your reasons for your answers in the
spaces provided.
About: These checklists were designed to be used as educational
pedagogic tools, as part of a workshop setting, therefore we do not
suggest a scoring system. The core CASP checklists (randomised
controlled trial & systematic review) were based on JAMA 'Users’ guides to
the medical literature 1994 (adapted from Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, and
Cook DJ), and piloted with health care practitioners.
For each new checklist, a group of experts were assembled to develop
and pilot the checklist and the workshop format with which it would be
used. Over the years overall adjustments have been made to the format,
but a recent survey of checklist users reiterated that the basic format
continues to be useful and appropriate.
Referencing: we recommend using the Harvard style citation, i.e.:
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2018). CASP (insert name of checklist
i.e. Qualitative) Checklist. [online] Available at: URL. Accessed: Date
Accessed.
©CASP this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution –
Non-Commercial-Share A like. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ www.casp-uk.net

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) part of Better Value Healthcare Ltd
www.casp-uk.net

Section A: Are the results valid?
1. Was there a clear
statement of the
aims of the
research?
Yes HINT: Consider
Can’t
Tell
• what was the goal of the
research
• why it was thought important
No • its relevance
Comments:
2. Is a qualitative Yes HINT: Consider
methodology
Can’t Tell
• If the research seeks to interpret
or
appropriate?
illuminate the actions and/or
subjective
No experiences of research participants
• Is qualitative research the tight
methodology for addressing the
research goal
Comments:
Is it worth continuing?
3. Was the research Yes HINT: Consider
design appropriate to • if the researcher has justified the
address the aims of
the Can’t Tell research design (e.g. have they
research?
No
discussed how they decided which
method to use)
Comments:

2

4. Was the recruitment Yes
True
strategy appropriate to
the aims of the Can’t Tell
research?
No
HINT: Consider
• If the researcher has explained
how the participants
were selected
• If they explained why the
participants they
selected were the most
appropriate to provide
access to the type of
knowledge sought by the
study
• If there are any discussions
around recruitment (e.g.
why some people chose not
to take part)
Comments: Yes it was appropriate, as the siblings were selected considering several
criteria’s like age,
Family background, mentally sound and whose either brother or sister was
undergoing treatment.
5. Was the data collected
in Yes HINT: Consider
a way that addressed
the True
• If the setting for the data collection
was
research issue? Can’t Tell justified
No
• If it is clear how data were collected
(e.g.
focus group, semi-structured
interview
etc.)
• If the researcher has justified the
methods
chosen
• If the researcher has made the
methods
explicit (e.g. for interview method, is
there
an indication of how interviews are
conducted, or did they use a topic
guide)
• If methods were modified during the
study. If so, has the researcher
explained how and why
• If the form of data is clear (e.g. tape
recordings, video material, notes etc.)
• If the researcher has discussed
saturation of data
Comments:

Yes , it addressed the actual
aim of the research.
3

6. Has the relationship Yes HINT: Consider
between researcher and • If the researcher critically
participants been Can’t Tell examined their own role,
adequately considered? potential bias and influence
No during (a) formulation of the
research questions (b) data
collection, including sample
recruitment and choice of
location
• How the researcher responded to
events during the study and
whether they considered the
implications of any changes in the
Ans:NO research design
Comments: There is no
clarity between the
relationship between the
researcher and
participant.
Section B: What are the results?
7. Have ethical issues been Yes
taken into consideration?
Can’t Tell
No
HINT: Consider
• If there are sufficient details of
how the research was explained
to participants for the reader to
assess whether ethical standards
were maintained
• If the researcher has discussed
issues
raised by the study (e.g. issues
around informed consent or
confidentiality or how they have
handled the effects of the study
on the participants during and
after the study)
• If approval has been
sought from the
ethics committee
Ans: Yes
Comments: The researcher does considered the ethical issue while conducting
interviews with the siblings

4

8. Was the data analysis Yes HINT: Consider
sufficiently rigorous?
• If there is an in-depth description of
the
Can’t Tell analysis process
• If thematic analysis is used. If so, is
it clear
No
how the categories/themes were
derived
from the data
• Whether the researcher explains how the
data presented were selected from the
original sample to demonstrate the analysis
process
• If sufficient data are presented to
support
the
findings
• To what extent contradictory data are
taken into account
• Whether the researcher critically examined
their own role, potential bias and influence
during analysis and selection of data for
presentation
Ans : No
Comments: It was qualitative research not a quantitative , so data analysis was not
there.
9. Is there a clear
statement YesTrue HINT: Consider whether
of findings? • If the findings are explicit
Can’t Tell • If there is adequate discussion of the
evidence both for and against the
No researcher’s arguments
• If the researcher has discussed the
credibility of their findings (e.g.
triangulation, respondent validation, more
than one analyst)
• If the findings are discussed in
relation to
the original research
question
Comments: Yes, the statement is clear as it align with the findings and results.

5

Section C: Will the results help locally?
10. How valuable is the HINT: Consider
research? • If the researcher discusses the
contribution the study makes to existing
knowledge or understanding (e.g. do they
consider the findings in relation to current
practice or policy, or relevant research-
based literature
• If they identify new areas where research
is necessary
• If the researchers have discussed whether
or how the findings can be transferred to
other populations or considered other
ways the research may be used
Comments: Although there were
already several researches
which discussed about the
impact of cancer patient on the
life of family members, this
paper delicately handled the
issues concerning the siblings of
children suffering from cancer.

6