Standard Operating Procedure: JBI Qualitative Assessment

This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) provides a rigorous framework for applying the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. This methodology is designed to evaluate the methodological quality of qualitative studies and determine the extent to which a study has addressed the possibility of bias in its design, conduct, and analysis. Adherence to this protocol ensures systematic rigor in evidence synthesis and literature review processes.

Phase 1: Study Alignment and Applicability

Before beginning the formal appraisal, ensure the study is a qualitative inquiry.

• Confirm the research question focuses on meaning, experience, or social processes.
• Verify that the study design is explicitly qualitative (e.g., Phenomenology, Grounded Theory, Ethnography, Action Research).
• Ensure the study provides full-text access for a comprehensive review of methods.

Phase 2: JBI Checklist Execution

Evaluate the study against the ten JBI standardized criteria. Each item should be marked as "Yes," "No," "Unclear," or "Not Applicable."

Philosophical and Methodological Congruence

• Is there congruity between the stated philosophical perspective and the research methodology?
• Is there congruity between the research methodology and the research question/objectives?
• Is there congruity between the research methodology and the methods used to collect data?
• Is there congruity between the research methodology and the representation and analysis of data?
• Is there congruity between the research methodology and the interpretation of results?

Researcher Reflexivity and Ethics

• Is there a statement locating the researcher culturally or theoretically?
• Is the researcher’s influence on the research, and vice-versa, addressed? (Reflexivity)
• Are participants, and their voices, adequately represented?
• Is the research supported by an ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB)?
• Do the authors address the ethical implications of the study (e.g., informed consent, confidentiality, power dynamics)?

Analysis and Findings

• Do the findings flow logically from the data (analysis/interpretation)?
• Is there a clear connection between the participant narratives and the themes/categories developed?
• Is the research study representative of the target population described?

Pro Tips & Pitfalls

• The "Unclear" Trap: Researchers often fail to report their reflexivity or philosophical stance. If it is not explicitly stated in the text, do not assume it exists; mark it as "Unclear."
• Focus on Congruity: JBI is unique because it emphasizes the alignment of the entire research cycle. A common pitfall is ignoring the methodology section and jumping straight to results. If the methods do not match the research question, the quality score must decrease.
• Documentation: Keep a decision log. For every "No" or "Unclear" rating, document a one-sentence justification. This is essential for transparency during the peer-review or publication process.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions

1. What do I do if a study uses mixed methods?

If the study contains a qualitative component that is significant enough to be reviewed independently, apply the JBI Qualitative Checklist only to that section. If the qualitative data is minimal (e.g., brief open-ended survey answers), it may be more appropriate to use a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) instead.

2. How many "Yes" votes constitute a "high quality" study?

JBI does not provide a specific numerical threshold for "high quality." Instead, use the appraisal to identify studies that are most robust. If a study fails critical items (e.g., ethics or congruity), consider excluding it from your synthesis regardless of the total count of "Yes" responses.

3. Should I contact authors if their methods are unclear?

While not strictly required by the JBI protocol, if a study is central to your research question and the missing information is critical for your appraisal, reaching out to the corresponding author for clarification is a best practice in academic rigor.