CASP Qualitative Checklist and Evidence-Linked Judgements

WHY ENGLISH?

A checklist question becomes useful only when the reader can point to the paper, explain the evidence and show how the answer affects trust or relevance.

This guide helps students, parents and emerging researchers use the CASP qualitative checklist as a conversation with evidence rather than a scorecard.

The CASP qualitative checklist helps readers think systematically about qualitative research. People searching for a CASP checklist, qualitative research appraisal or how to critically appraise an interview study often want the correct boxes. The practical value of English lies between the boxes: describing what the researchers asked, how participants were recruited, how accounts were interpreted and what evidence supports the findings.

Qualitative studies can illuminate experiences, meanings, decisions and social processes that a numerical average cannot fully explain. They also require careful reading. A polished theme name does not show how the theme was developed. A quotation does not automatically represent the whole sample. The word reflexivity is not decoration; it asks how the researcher’s role, assumptions and relationship with participants may have shaped the study.

The 2024 CASP checklist for qualitative research, checked on 5 November 2026, tells users not to assume what researchers did and to choose “Can’t tell” when reporting is not explicit. CASP’s current FAQ describes its checklists as pedagogic teaching tools that were not formally validated. This article therefore teaches evidence-linked judgement without turning CASP responses into a numerical quality score.

Begin With the Study’s Stated Aim

A clear aim identifies the experience, process or meaning the researchers want to understand and explains why it matters.

What to inspect: Begin With the Study’s Stated Aim

Read the abstract and introduction for the population, phenomenon, setting and knowledge gap. Compare that statement with the questions actually asked and findings reported. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A study says it explores how first-year students experience feedback during the transition to secondary school; the reader does not quietly broaden the aim to all feedback effectiveness.

How to write the judgement: Begin With the Study’s Stated Aim

Write the aim in one sentence using the authors’ population and phenomenon, then note any mismatch. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

A relevant topic is not the same as a precise aim. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Ask Whether Qualitative Methodology Fits the Question

Qualitative methodology is appropriate when the research seeks interpretation, meaning, experience or process rather than only numerical frequency.

What to inspect: Ask Whether Qualitative Methodology Fits the Question

Look for a question that needs participants’ accounts, observations, documents or interactions and for an explanation of why qualitative inquiry is suitable. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

Interviews may illuminate why students avoid asking questions, while a prevalence estimate would require a different design.

How to write the judgement: Ask Whether Qualitative Methodology Fits the Question

Explain what knowledge the method can produce and what it cannot estimate. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Qualitative is not a synonym for small, informal or easier research. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Distinguish Methodology From Method

Methodology is the study’s logic and orientation; methods are the practical ways data were produced and analysed.

What to inspect: Distinguish Methodology From Method

Identify whether the paper names an approach such as grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography, case study or qualitative description, and whether interview, observation or document methods fit it. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A phenomenological claim should be supported by a design focused on lived experience rather than a survey with one optional comment box.

How to write the judgement: Distinguish Methodology From Method

Name the claimed approach, the methods used and the fit between them. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Using interviews does not by itself establish a coherent qualitative methodology. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Check the Research Design Against the Aim

The design should help answer the stated aim and its rationale should be visible.

What to inspect: Check the Research Design Against the Aim

Inspect setting, sampling, data-generation methods, analysis and timing as one connected design rather than independent techniques. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A study of classroom interaction combines observation with interviews so reported intentions can be compared with actual exchanges.

How to write the judgement: Check the Research Design Against the Aim

Describe why the chosen design can illuminate the phenomenon and where it leaves gaps. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

A complicated design is not automatically a strong design. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Read the Recruitment Strategy

Recruitment determines whose experiences enter the analysis and whose may remain invisible.

What to inspect: Read the Recruitment Strategy

Look for eligibility criteria, sampling strategy, approach route, refusals and reasons the selected participants can inform the question. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

Purposeful sampling includes students with different feedback experiences rather than only the easiest volunteers to contact.

How to write the judgement: Read the Recruitment Strategy

State who was invited, who participated and which perspectives may be missing. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

A large qualitative sample cannot repair systematic exclusion. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Understand Purposive and Convenience Sampling

Sampling words express different selection logics and should not be treated as interchangeable.

What to inspect: Understand Purposive and Convenience Sampling

Purposive sampling seeks information-rich variation; convenience sampling prioritises availability; theoretical sampling may follow emerging analysis. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A project deliberately seeks students from several programme types because contrast is central to the question.

How to write the judgement: Understand Purposive and Convenience Sampling

Connect the sampling logic to the kind of claim the study later makes. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Purposive does not mean representative in the statistical sense. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Check Data Collection in Context

Readers need to know where, when and how accounts or observations were produced.

What to inspect: Check Data Collection in Context

Inspect interview format, prompts, duration, recording, field notes, setting and whether methods changed during the study. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

Private interviews may produce different disclosures from focus groups held in front of classmates.

How to write the judgement: Check Data Collection in Context

Describe the data-generation situation and how it could shape what participants said. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

A label such as semi-structured is too thin when the topic guide and process are absent. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Read Interview Questions for Direction and Assumption

Question wording can invite detail, impose categories or signal a preferred answer.

What to inspect: Read Interview Questions for Direction and Assumption

Look for open prompts, follow-up questions and loaded assumptions in topic guides or examples. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

“Tell me about feedback that was useful or unhelpful” permits contrast; “How did excellent feedback motivate you?” presupposes benefit.

How to write the judgement: Read Interview Questions for Direction and Assumption

Identify important presuppositions and whether probing opened or narrowed the account. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

No interview can be perfectly neutral because interaction itself shapes data. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Distinguish Focus-Group Interaction From Several Interviews

A focus group produces interaction among participants as well as individual statements.

What to inspect: Distinguish Focus-Group Interaction From Several Interviews

Check group composition, facilitation, dominant voices, confidentiality limits and how interaction was included in analysis. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

Students build on one another’s experiences, but a senior participant’s presence may silence criticism.

How to write the judgement: Distinguish Focus-Group Interaction From Several Interviews

Note how the study handled agreement, disagreement and uneven participation. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Quotations extracted without interaction context can misrepresent the group process. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Inspect Observation and Field Notes

Observation can reveal practices that participants may not mention or remember.

What to inspect: Inspect Observation and Field Notes

Look for observer role, duration, access, recording and the distinction between descriptive notes and interpretation. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A researcher records who speaks during group work and separately notes an interpretation about confidence.

How to write the judgement: Inspect Observation and Field Notes

Keep event description, participant meaning and researcher inference separate. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Observed behaviour still requires contextual interpretation and may change under observation. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Examine the Researcher–Participant Relationship

CASP asks readers to consider the relationship because qualitative knowledge is produced through interaction.

What to inspect: Examine the Researcher–Participant Relationship

Look for the researcher’s role, prior relationship, assumptions, power and response to events during recruitment and data collection. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A teacher interviewing their own students may receive cautious answers and should explain safeguards and reflexive handling.

How to write the judgement: Examine the Researcher–Participant Relationship

State the disclosed relationship and plausible influence without mind reading. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Silence about the relationship makes influence harder to judge; it does not prove misconduct. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Use Reflexivity as a Method, Not a Confession

Reflexivity records how researchers examine their position and its influence on the study.

What to inspect: Use Reflexivity as a Method, Not a Confession

Look for ongoing decisions, assumptions, team discussions and changes, not merely a demographic biography. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A researcher notes that prior advocacy for peer feedback shaped early codes and documents how colleagues challenged them.

How to write the judgement: Use Reflexivity as a Method, Not a Confession

Describe the reflexive process and how it changed collection, analysis or claims. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Reflexivity does not remove subjectivity; it makes important parts of it inspectable. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Check Ethical Considerations Beyond Approval

Formal approval is important but does not exhaust ethical reasoning.

What to inspect: Check Ethical Considerations Beyond Approval

Inspect consent, confidentiality, power, distress, withdrawal, data handling and risks created by quotations or small settings. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A school study masks identifying combinations because a role and incident could reveal a participant despite a pseudonym.

How to write the judgement: Check Ethical Considerations Beyond Approval

Record both formal review and practical protections relevant to the participants. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

An ethics committee number cannot show how unexpected harm was handled. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Consent should match what participants are asked to do and how their material will be used.

Look for information, voluntariness, recording, quotation, future use and the possibility of withdrawing. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

Participants consent to audio recording but the paper separately explains how quotations were approved and anonymised.

Ask whether participants could understand and exercise their choices throughout the study. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Signed forms do not eliminate power pressure. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Check Whether Analysis Is Explained

A credible analysis shows how raw material became codes, categories, themes or interpretations.

What to inspect: Check Whether Analysis Is Explained

Look for preparation, coding, comparison, team roles, software use, theme development and decisions about deviant cases. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

The paper gives an example from transcript excerpt to code to theme rather than saying data were analysed thematically.

How to write the judgement: Check Whether Analysis Is Explained

Reconstruct the stated steps and mark any leap where evidence disappears. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Software names do not explain analysis. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Distinguish Codes, Categories and Themes

These terms represent different analytical levels and should not be used as decorative synonyms.

What to inspect: Distinguish Codes, Categories and Themes

Codes mark features of data, categories organise related material and themes make an interpretive claim about a patterned meaning. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

Several codes about delayed replies, unclear criteria and fear of judgement contribute to a theme about feedback as social risk.

How to write the judgement: Distinguish Codes, Categories and Themes

Ask what organising idea connects the evidence and how it answers the aim. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

A list of popular topics may not constitute a developed theme. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Look for Iteration and Comparison

Qualitative analysis often moves repeatedly between data, emerging ideas and further questions.

What to inspect: Look for Iteration and Comparison

Inspect whether researchers compared participants, settings, time points or negative examples and whether collection evolved. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A surprising account prompts later interviews to explore when students reject helpful feedback.

How to write the judgement: Look for Iteration and Comparison

Identify what changed and which evidence prompted the change. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Iteration should be transparent rather than rewritten as a perfectly linear process. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Find the Treatment of Contradictory Evidence

Trustworthy reporting does not hide accounts that resist the dominant interpretation.

What to inspect: Find the Treatment of Contradictory Evidence

Look for negative cases, minority views, tensions and changes made to themes. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

Most participants describe safety in small groups, while two report greater pressure; the final theme explains the condition rather than erasing them.

How to write the judgement: Find the Treatment of Contradictory Evidence

State how exceptions refined, limited or challenged the interpretation. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

One contrary quotation does not automatically invalidate a pattern. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Assess the Use of Quotations

Quotations allow readers to see part of the evidential connection between interpretation and participant language.

What to inspect: Assess the Use of Quotations

Check speaker context, variety, relevance and whether quotations are used analytically rather than as decoration. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

Several participants support a theme, and the paper explains why each quotation reveals a different aspect.

How to write the judgement: Assess the Use of Quotations

Connect each quotation to the claim and note whose voices are absent. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

A vivid quote is not a vote count or a representative sample. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Check Whether Findings Are Clearly Stated

Findings should answer the aim with a coherent account, not merely repeat the interview schedule.

What to inspect: Check Whether Findings Are Clearly Stated

Look for theme definitions, relationships, supporting data and clear separation from background literature. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A theme explains how timing changes whether feedback feels usable, supported by accounts across settings.

How to write the judgement: Check Whether Findings Are Clearly Stated

Paraphrase each main finding and identify the data and reasoning that support it. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Attractive labels can hide vague or overlapping findings. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Read the Discussion for Fit, Not Flattery

The discussion should interpret findings in relation to the question, prior research and study limits.

What to inspect: Read the Discussion for Fit, Not Flattery

Inspect whether authors distinguish their data from comparison with literature and avoid universal claims. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A local interview study suggests a mechanism and proposes further testing instead of claiming national prevalence.

How to write the judgement: Read the Discussion for Fit, Not Flattery

Mark which sentences are study findings, external comparison and author implication. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Citations cannot compensate for weak connection between findings and data. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Assess Transferability Through Context

Qualitative findings may transfer through thoughtful comparison of contexts rather than statistical representativeness.

What to inspect: Assess Transferability Through Context

Readers need enough detail about participants, setting, time and process to judge relevance elsewhere. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A Singapore secondary-school study may inform a similar setting while requiring caution in adult workplace training.

How to write the judgement: Assess Transferability Through Context

Explain which contextual features match the new setting and which differ. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

“Generalisable” and “not generalisable” are often too blunt. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Ask What Value the Study Adds

CASP’s final area asks what contribution the study makes to knowledge, practice, policy or future research.

What to inspect: Ask What Value the Study Adds

Look for a specific insight, refined concept, practical implication or unresolved question that follows from the findings. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

The study reveals that feedback delay matters because students lose access to the original reasoning, guiding a new process question.

How to write the judgement: Ask What Value the Study Adds

State the contribution, evidence base and next uncertainty in one paragraph. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Importance claims should not outrun evidence. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Separate Trustworthiness From Usefulness

A study may be methodologically thoughtful yet only partly relevant to a decision, or highly relevant but poorly reported.

What to inspect: Separate Trustworthiness From Usefulness

Keep appraisal of conduct and reporting separate from applicability to the reader’s question. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A rigorous hospital study offers limited direct transfer to classroom tutoring but may illuminate a communication mechanism.

How to write the judgement: Separate Trustworthiness From Usefulness

Write two judgements: trustworthiness and relevance. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Relevance does not cure weak methods, and rigour does not guarantee local fit. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Avoid Turning CASP Into a Score

CASP’s own FAQ describes the checklists as teaching aids that were not formally validated.

What to inspect: Avoid Turning CASP Into a Score

Counting Yes responses assumes equal weights and can hide a critical uncertainty behind many easy items. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

Two studies with the same total may differ sharply because one lacks an analysis trail and the other omits a minor contextual detail.

How to write the judgement: Avoid Turning CASP Into a Score

Present question-level reasons and an overall narrative rather than a numeric grade. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

A percentage creates precision the tool does not promise. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Use Can’t Tell Honestly

The 2024 checklist instructs readers not to assume what researchers did when reporting is unclear.

What to inspect: Use Can’t Tell Honestly

Search the main paper, supplement, protocol and linked methods before recording the information gap. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

The paper says interviews were coded but gives no process; the judgement remains Can’t tell rather than an invented Yes or accusatory No.

How to write the judgement: Use Can’t Tell Honestly

State what information was sought and why its absence matters. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Can’t tell identifies uncertainty in the available report, not necessarily failure in conduct. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Calibrate Appraisers Through Discussion

Critical appraisal includes judgement, so independent readers may reasonably differ.

What to inspect: Calibrate Appraisers Through Discussion

Compare evidence locations and interpretations on sample papers before the main work. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

One reader interprets a positionality paragraph as reflexive practice; another looks for decisions changed by that reflection.

How to write the judgement: Calibrate Appraisers Through Discussion

Save the final rationale and any decision rule used for similar cases. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Agreement is useful only when grounded in the checklist and paper. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

A Parent and Student Appraisal Routine

Students can practise critical reading without becoming experts overnight.

What to inspect: A Parent and Student Appraisal Routine

Choose one question each for aim, recruitment, analysis and value, then show the exact paper passage. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A parent asks who was missing from the participant group and the student explains how that limits transfer.

How to write the judgement: A Parent and Student Appraisal Routine

End with one trusted finding and one unresolved question. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

The exercise should reward careful uncertainty, not box completion. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Transfer Appraisal Language to Work

The same habits improve interviews, user research and programme evaluation.

What to inspect: Transfer Appraisal Language to Work

Teams should document who was asked, how questions were framed, how themes developed and which contrary accounts remained. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

A workplace project revises a theme after frontline staff contradict managers’ assumptions.

How to write the judgement: Transfer Appraisal Language to Work

Transfer the evidence-linked reasoning habit and name the actual method used. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

Using CASP’s name outside its intended context can confuse tool scope. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Finish With an Evidence-Linked Appraisal Note

A strong final note identifies the paper, aim, major strengths, important uncertainties, relevance and cautious conclusion.

What to inspect: Finish With an Evidence-Linked Appraisal Note

It should allow another reader to retrace every judgement without rereading the entire paper first. Do not award confidence because the paper sounds scholarly. Locate the relevant methods, results, quotation, table or reflexive note and record where it appears.

The note cites methods and findings pages and explains why one theme is credible but locally bounded.

How to write the judgement: Finish With an Evidence-Linked Appraisal Note

Ask a second reader whether the reasons follow from the cited passages. Use Yes, No or Can’t tell only with a short evidence-based reason. The wording should tell another reader what was found, what remains uncertain and why that matters.

A one-word overall verdict loses the educational value of appraisal. A CASP response is a prompt for disciplined discussion, not a score, a verdict on the researchers or proof that every finding transfers to Singapore schools, families or workplaces.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the CASP qualitative checklist for?

It is a teaching and critical-appraisal aid for asking structured questions about qualitative research.

Is the CASP checklist formally validated?

CASP’s current FAQ says the checklists were designed as pedagogic teaching tools and were not formally validated.

Should CASP answers be added into a score?

No official scoring system is provided; question-level reasons and a narrative judgement are more faithful to the tool.

What does Can’t tell mean?

The available report does not let the reader establish the answer after checking relevant documents. It does not automatically prove the method was not done.

Is a quotation enough to support a theme?

No. Readers need to understand how quotations, cases, comparisons and analysis support the interpretive pattern.

Does qualitative research need a representative sample?

It needs a sampling logic suited to the question. Statistical representativeness is not usually its aim, but missing perspectives still matter.

What is reflexivity?

It is the researcher’s ongoing examination and documentation of how their position, assumptions and relationships influence the study.

Can students use CASP?

Yes, especially with discussion, the official checklist and a requirement to cite evidence for each judgement.

Does a Yes answer prove a study is trustworthy?

No single response proves overall trustworthiness; the pattern, importance and implications of the evidence must be interpreted.

What should a final appraisal include?

The study aim, evidence-linked strengths and concerns, relevance to the question, important uncertainties and a proportionate conclusion.

Useful Next Reading

Official CASP qualitative studies checklist page — access the current checklist.
CASP FAQ — read the organisation’s explanation of the checklist as a teaching tool.
Appraise systematic reviews with AMSTAR 2 — use the separate canonical owner for review-level appraisal.
Explain scientific evidence — turn appraisal findings into careful claims.

Closing thought: CASP becomes powerful when every answer points back to the study and every conclusion shows how evidence, uncertainty and context shaped the judgement.

Why English? | Using the CASP Qualitative Checklist to Turn Appraisal Questions Into Evidence-Linked Judgements