To assess the quality of a test suite, one can rely on mutation testing, which computes whether the overall test cases are adequately exercising the covered lines. However, this high level of granularity may overshadow the quality of individual test methods. In this paper, we propose an empirical study to assess the quality of test methods by relying on mutation testing at the method level. We find no major differences between high-quality and low-quality test methods in terms of size, number of asserts, and modifications. In contrast, high-quality test methods are less affected by critical test smells. Finally, we discuss practical implications for researchers and practitioners.