NRS-445 Qualitative Critical Appraisal: How to Use the CASP Checklist (Step by Step)

Reading Time: 6 minutes

NRS-445 Qualitative Critical Appraisal: How to Use the CASP Checklist (Step by Step)

The qualitative critical appraisal in NRS-445 asks you to take one qualitative study tied to your PICOT and judge how trustworthy it is — using the CASP Qualitative Checklist. Appraisal isn’t summary: you’re evaluating how the study was done and how much its findings can be trusted, not just reporting what it found. This guide walks through all ten CASP questions in plain language, shows you how to apply each to your own article, and explains how qualitative appraisal differs from quantitative — so you can write a strong appraisal of your own.

How to use this guide: This explains how to appraise a qualitative study you’ve chosen, using the CASP framework. Pull the official CASP Qualitative Checklist from casp-uk.net and work through your article yourself — the judgment you build here is the EBP skill the course (and your capstone) is after.

What the assignment asks for

You select a qualitative primary research article (typically one of the qualitative studies from your Literature Evaluation Table) and critically appraise it using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) Qualitative Checklist. For each checklist item you record a “yes,” “no,” or “can’t tell,” supported by evidence from the article, and then judge the study’s overall trustworthiness and relevance to your practice problem.

A note on the response options: if you genuinely can’t tell, use “can’t tell” — it means the researchers weren’t explicit. A study with many “can’t tell” answers is one whose findings you should treat with caution.

The CASP Qualitative Checklist: 10 questions in 3 sections

CASP groups its ten questions into three broad issues. Here’s each one paraphrased in plain language, with what to look for in your article. (Use the official wording and italicized prompts from the CASP checklist itself — see resources below.)

Section A — Are the findings valid? (the first six questions)

1. Were the aims clear? Did the study state a clear research goal and explain why it matters?
2. Was a qualitative method appropriate? Qualitative research suits “why” and “how” questions about experience and meaning — does the study’s question fit that?
3. Was the design appropriate to the aims? Does the chosen design (e.g., phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography) match what they were trying to learn?
4. Was recruitment appropriate? Were the right participants selected, and is it explained why they were the best people to provide access to the topic?
5. Did data collection address the research issue? Are the methods explicit — interviews, focus groups, a topic guide — and was the setting justified?
6. Was reflexivity considered? Did the researchers examine their own potential influence on the participants and the data (the researcher–participant relationship)?

Section B — What are the findings? (the next three)

7. Were ethical issues considered? Consent, confidentiality, ethical approval, and how the study handled any impact on participants.
8. Was the analysis sufficiently rigorous? Is the analytic process explained, with enough data to support findings, and evidence of depth rather than cherry-picking?
9. Is there a clear statement of findings? Are the findings explicit, discussed against the research question, and is their credibility addressed?

Section C — Will the findings help locally? (the last)

10. How valuable is the research? What does it contribute, how does it relate to existing knowledge, and can it transfer to your practice setting and PICOT?

How qualitative appraisal differs from quantitative

This is the conceptual point that earns marks. A quantitative study’s quality lives in its design, sample size, and statistics. A qualitative study’s quality lives somewhere different — and the CASP Qualitative questions reflect that:

• Credibility over statistical significance — there are no p-values to check; you’re judging whether the findings genuinely reflect participants’ experiences.
• Reflexivity matters — the researcher is part of the instrument, so their influence has to be examined (Question 6). Quantitative appraisal doesn’t ask this.
• Rigor means transparent analysis — not a large sample, but a clear, justified path from data to themes.
• Transferability, not generalizability — qualitative findings transfer to similar contexts; they don’t claim to generalize to whole populations.

If you’ve also done the quantitative critical appraisal, naming these differences explicitly shows your instructor you understand why the two checklists ask different questions.

How to structure your appraisal write-up

• Introduce the study — full APA citation, the research aim, and why you selected it for your PICOT.
• Work through the CASP questions — address each with a yes/no/can’t-tell judgment and the evidence from the article that supports it. Don’t just answer; justify.
• Judge overall trustworthiness — weigh the answers together. Many “can’t tell” responses lower your confidence.
• Connect to your practice problem — how the study’s findings inform (or don’t) the change you’re proposing.

The difference between a weak and strong appraisal is in the justification: a strong one cites specific details from the study for each judgment.

Common mistakes that cost points

• Summarizing instead of appraising — don’t recap the study; evaluate how it was conducted.
• Yes/no with no evidence — every judgment needs support from the article.
• Applying quantitative criteria — don’t fault a qualitative study for a small sample or missing statistics; that misunderstands the method.
• Skipping reflexivity — Question 6 is the one students most often miss.
• Ignoring “can’t tell” — forcing a yes/no when the article isn’t explicit hides a real weakness.
• No link to the PICOT — appraisal should end by connecting the study to your practice problem.
• APA slips — cite the article and the CASP checklist correctly.

How this connects to the rest of NRS-445 — and your capstone

Your qualitative appraisal works on a study from your Literature Evaluation Table, pairs with your quantitative critical appraisal, and feeds the research-critiques section of your final EBP proposal. The appraisal skill carries straight into the NRS-465 capstone, where you evaluate evidence for your change project on the same model.

→ Back to the full NRS-445 course guide.

Helpful resources

• CASP Qualitative Checklist — the official tool, free to download: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme). Use its exact questions and prompts when you appraise.
• Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2023). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
• Grand Canyon University (Ed.). (2022). Nursing research: Understanding methods for best practice (2nd ed.). — your NRS-445 textbook.
• GCU Library — CINAHL and MEDLINE, and the critical-appraisal research guides.

Frequently asked questions

What checklist does the NRS-445 qualitative critical appraisal use? The CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) Qualitative Checklist — ten questions grouped into validity, findings, and value, answered yes, no, or can’t tell with supporting evidence.

How many questions are on the CASP Qualitative Checklist? Ten, organized into three sections: are the findings valid (six questions), what are the findings (three), and will they help locally (one).

What’s the difference between qualitative and quantitative critical appraisal? Quantitative appraisal judges design, sample size, and statistics; qualitative appraisal judges credibility, reflexivity, rigor of analysis, and transferability — there are no p-values to assess.

What does a “can’t tell” answer mean? It means the researchers weren’t explicit about that aspect. A study with many “can’t tell” responses should be treated with caution.

Is reflexivity important in qualitative appraisal? Yes. Because the researcher is part of the data-gathering instrument, the CASP checklist asks whether their influence on participants and findings was adequately considered — it’s a commonly missed point.

How does this connect to the NRS-465 capstone? The capstone evaluates evidence for a change project using the same appraisal skills, so strong appraisal work here transfers directly.