Background: Grounded theory is one of the most comprehensive and widely applied qualitative methodologies, especially in its constructivist form, playing a vital role in generating theories rooted in empirical data. In recent years, the increasing use of the term “constructivist grounded theory” has raised concerns about superficial application and diminished fidelity to its fundamental logic of theory construction. The absence of operational indicators for evaluating studies based on Charmaz’s criteria constitutes a notable gap in the methodological foundation of qualitative inquiry.



Objective: This study aimed to develop a framework for evaluating the quality of constructivist grounded theory research using Charmaz’s criteria and to examine the extent to which articles published in reputable Iranian and international journals comply with these key standards.



Method: A sequential exploratory mixed‑methods design was adopted, including both qualitative and quantitative phases. In the qualitative stage, a documentary analysis of Charmaz’s theoretical works and related literature led to the extraction of operational indicators for four criteria—credibility, originality, resonance, and usefulness—followed by the formulation of a structured evaluation checklist. In the quantitative stage, a systematic search identified 50 relevant articles. After a three‑stage screening process based on constructivist inclusion criteria, 14 qualifying studies were selected and comparatively analyzed using the checklist and a three‑level rubric (complete, partial, or no adherence).



Findings:The developed framework comprised 97 indicators grouped under 33 sub‑criteria and four main categories, forming a comprehensive checklist for assessing qualitative research quality. Analysis of the 14 selected articles indicated an average adherence rate of nearly 80%. Originality showed the highest compliance (84%), while credibility scored the lowest (76.79%). Resonance (79.46%) and usefulness (78.57%) displayed satisfactory but moderate levels of achievement.



Conclusion:The results confirm that Charmaz’s criteria provide a systematic and reliable basis for assessing constructivist grounded theory studies. Their operationalization resulted in a valid and practical evaluation framework for qualitative research. However, many studies have drifted from data‑driven theory building, reducing grounded theory to a technical process. The proposed framework thus offers a valuable tool for improving research quality, refining manuscript peer review, and strengthening qualitative research education.