QQM Checklist aims to improve study quality appraisal across methods

Researchers at Shanghai Jiao Tong University and University College London have developed the QQM Checklist to evaluate quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies. The open-access tool is designed to fill gaps in existing appraisal methods, especially for social science research, and could make reviews and meta-analyses more consistent. Why it matters: - Research quality appraisal shapes the evidence base used in meta-analyses and systematic reviews. - Existing appraisal tools often cover only one method or a narrow field, which can skew syntheses and lead to misleading conclusions. - Social science researchers have had fewer tools that balance rigor, ease of use and reliable judgments. What happened: - A research team led by Professor Xin Tang of Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Professor Jennifer Symonds of University College London developed the Quality Appraisal Checklist for Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods Studies, or QQM Checklist. - The study was published online Sept. 1, 2025, in ECNU Review of Education. - The checklist was created using a utility-usability framework. The details: - The QQM Checklist includes eight universal indicators that apply to all studies. - It also adds four to six method-specific indicators for quantitative and qualitative studies. - The tool uses a three-tier scoring system with suggested cut-off points to classify studies as poor, moderate or high quality. - The checklist was validated through the Delphi method and used in international research. - Each indicator includes detailed explanations and illustrative examples showing how to complete the scoring process. - The QQM Checklist and the published paper are open access. - Prof. Tang said the checklist offers a standardized solution for research quality appraisal across disciplinary and methodological boundaries. Between the lines: - The new checklist appears aimed at a long-standing problem: many appraisal systems are built for medicine or for a single research design. - A broader, shared standard could make quality judgments more transparent and easier to compare across studies. - That matters for editors, funders and researchers who rely on review results to guide decisions. What’s next: - Researchers, journals and funders can begin using the open-access checklist in future reviews and appraisal workflows. - Wider adoption will show whether the tool improves consistency across quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods research. - The published paper provides the full scoring framework and examples for implementation.