Skip to main content


Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 4 Methodological quality assessment for qualitative studies

From: Should community health workers offer support healthcare services to survivors of sexual violence? a systematic review

Rating section Barron, 2013 [47] Itzhaky, 2001 [48] Merkin, 1995 [50] Rossman, 1999 [51] Tanabe, 2013 [52] Zraly, 2011 [53]
1.1 Is a qualitative approach appropriate? Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate
1.2 Is the study clear in what it seeks to do? Clear Mixed Mixed Unclear Clear Mixed
2.1 How defensible/rigorous is the research design/methodology? Defensible Defensible Not defensible Not defensible Defensible Defensible
3.1 How well was the data collection carried out? Appropriate Appropriate Inadequately reported Inadequately reported Appropriate Appropriate
4.1 Is the context clearly described? Clear Clear Unclear Unclear Clear Clear
4.2 Were the methods reliable? Reliable Reliable Unreliable Unreliable Unreliable Unreliable
5.1 Are the data ‘rich’? Rich Not sure/not reported Not reported Not reported Rich Rich
5.2 Is the analysis reliable? Reliable Not reported Not reported Not reported Unreliable Reliable
5.3 Are the findings convincing? Convincing Not convincing Not convincing Convincing Convincing Convincing
5.4 Are the conclusions adequate? Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate
6.1 Was the study approved by an ethics committee? Yes Not reported Not reported Not reported Yes Yes
6.2 Is the role of the researcher clearly described? Clear Not clear Not clear Not reported Clear Clear
As far as can be ascertained from the paper, how well was the study conducted? ++ + ++ ++