Quality Appraisal Tools for Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods Studies: A Review and a Brief New Checklist

Abstract

Purpose Existing research quality appraisal tools in the social sciences face significant disciplinary incompatibility and methodological limitations. This study aims to address these gaps by evaluating current tools and developing a versatile new checklist to standardize quality assessment across quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies. Design/Approach/Methods A systematic literature analysis of 24 mainstream appraisal tools assessed their disciplinary compatibility, methodological scope, and criteria design. A new checklist (i.e., Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods Studies [QQM] checklist) was developed using a utility-usability framework, integrating common indicators to ensure methodological inclusiveness for studies. Findings Analysis revealed most tools are restricted to single methods, 67% focus on medical fields, and only two are discipline-specific for social sciences. Issues of existing tools include ambiguous criteria, rigid binary scoring, and outdated frameworks. The QQM checklist addresses these gaps with eight universal indicators and method-specific criteria (4–6 for quantitative, 6 for qualitative), using a three-tiered scoring system (0–2 points). Originality/Value The QQM checklist offers a standardized solution for quality appraisal in social sciences, transcending disciplinary and methodological boundaries. Its design enables AI integration, advancing standardization for consistent, rigorous evaluations—critical for funding, publication, and policy decisions. This work contributes to improving research quality and transparency in the social sciences.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.