JBI Checklist for Qualitative Research: A Full Walkthrough

The JBI checklist for qualitative research -- formally, the Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research -- is the standard tool for assessing methodological quality in qualitative studies included in a systematic review. It contains ten questions, each answered as Yes, No, Unclear, or Not Applicable. Here's what each one is actually checking for, and where reviewers commonly get tripped up.

1. Is there congruity between the stated philosophical perspective and the research methodology?

This checks whether the study's underlying theoretical framework (phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and so on) actually matches the methods used. A study claiming a phenomenological approach but using methods more consistent with grounded theory should be flagged here, even if both are legitimate approaches individually.

2. Is there congruity between the methodology and the research question or objectives?

A narrower check than item 1 -- does the chosen methodology actually fit what the researchers set out to answer? A study exploring "how" or "why" questions using a methodology designed for descriptive summary would raise a concern here.

3. Is there congruity between the methodology and the methods used to collect data?

Checks whether data collection (interviews, focus groups, observation) logically follows from the stated methodology. Grounded theory studies, for instance, typically involve iterative data collection alongside analysis -- a study claiming grounded theory but describing a single fixed round of interviews may not meet this criterion.

4. Is there congruity between the methodology and the representation and analysis of data?

Checks whether the analytic approach (thematic analysis, constant comparative method, discourse analysis) matches the stated methodology. This is one of the items reviewers most often mark "Unclear," since many published qualitative studies describe their methodology loosely.

5. Is there congruity between the methodology and the interpretation of results?

Checks whether the study's conclusions are actually grounded in the stated methodological approach, or whether the interpretation drifts into claims the methodology can't support -- for example, generalizing findings from a small ethnographic study as though they were broadly representative.

6. Is there a statement locating the researcher culturally or theoretically?

This asks whether the researchers acknowledge their own position -- background, assumptions, relationship to the topic or participants -- since that positioning shapes qualitative interpretation. Its absence is common in older or shorter published studies, which is part of why this item frequently scores "No" even in otherwise solid research.

7. Is the influence of the researcher on the research, and vice versa, addressed?

A more specific version of item 6 -- does the study discuss reflexivity, meaning how the researcher's presence may have influenced participants' responses or the researcher's own interpretation? Distinguish this from item 6: a study can locate the researcher culturally without ever discussing reflexive influence during data collection.

8. Are participants, and their voices, adequately represented?

Checks whether the findings include enough direct quotation or thick description to let a reader assess whether the researchers' interpretation is well-supported, rather than relying entirely on the authors' paraphrased summary.

9. Is the research ethical according to current criteria or, for recent studies, is there evidence of ethical approval by an appropriate body?

A straightforward check, though older studies (particularly pre-2000) may predate formal ethics board requirements and need to be judged by the standards of their era, noted as such in your appraisal.

10. Do the conclusions drawn in the research report flow from the analysis, or interpretation, of the data?

The final coherence check -- do the stated conclusions actually follow from what was found, or do they overreach into claims the data doesn't support?

Using the checklist in practice

Score independently with a second reviewer, resolve disagreements by discussion, and resist the temptation to give a study the benefit of the doubt on ambiguous items just because it's otherwise well-written. A study with several "Unclear" or "No" ratings isn't automatically excluded -- but its limitations should be reflected honestly in how much weight you give its findings during synthesis.

If you're applying JBI appraisal to a qualitative or mixed-methods review and want a second reviewer's judgment on the harder-to-score items, that's exactly the kind of quality appraisal support we provide.

**[Get a quote](/systematic-reviews#jbi-reviews)** for quality appraisal support.