An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Durga prasanna misra.
1 Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
2 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK.
3 Department of Internal Medicine #2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine.
4 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.
George d. kitas.
5 Centre for Epidemiology versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).
Science is the systematized description of natural truths and facts. Routine observations of existing life phenomena lead to the creative thinking and generation of ideas about mechanisms of such phenomena and related human interventions. Such ideas presented in a structured format can be viewed as hypotheses. After generating a hypothesis, it is necessary to test it to prove its validity. Thus, hypothesis can be defined as a proposed mechanism of a naturally occurring event or a proposed outcome of an intervention. 1 , 2
Hypothesis testing requires choosing the most appropriate methodology and adequately powering statistically the study to be able to “prove” or “disprove” it within predetermined and widely accepted levels of certainty. This entails sample size calculation that often takes into account previously published observations and pilot studies. 2 , 3 In the era of digitization, hypothesis generation and testing may benefit from the availability of numerous platforms for data dissemination, social networking, and expert validation. Related expert evaluations may reveal strengths and limitations of proposed ideas at early stages of post-publication promotion, preventing the implementation of unsupported controversial points. 4
Thus, hypothesis generation is an important initial step in the research workflow, reflecting accumulating evidence and experts' stance. In this article, we overview the genesis and importance of scientific hypotheses and their relevance in the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
Broadly, research can be categorized as primary or secondary. In the context of medicine, primary research may include real-life observations of disease presentations and outcomes. Single case descriptions, which often lead to new ideas and hypotheses, serve as important starting points or justifications for case series and cohort studies. The importance of case descriptions is particularly evident in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic when unique, educational case reports have heralded a new era in clinical medicine. 5
Case series serve similar purpose to single case reports, but are based on a slightly larger quantum of information. Observational studies, including online surveys, describe the existing phenomena at a larger scale, often involving various control groups. Observational studies include variable-scale epidemiological investigations at different time points. Interventional studies detail the results of therapeutic interventions.
Secondary research is based on already published literature and does not directly involve human or animal subjects. Review articles are generated by secondary research. These could be systematic reviews which follow methods akin to primary research but with the unit of study being published papers rather than humans or animals. Systematic reviews have a rigid structure with a mandatory search strategy encompassing multiple databases, systematic screening of search results against pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, critical appraisal of study quality and an optional component of collating results across studies quantitatively to derive summary estimates (meta-analysis). 6 Narrative reviews, on the other hand, have a more flexible structure. Systematic literature searches to minimise bias in selection of articles are highly recommended but not mandatory. 7 Narrative reviews are influenced by the authors' viewpoint who may preferentially analyse selected sets of articles. 8
In relation to primary research, case studies and case series are generally not driven by a working hypothesis. Rather, they serve as a basis to generate a hypothesis. Observational or interventional studies should have a hypothesis for choosing research design and sample size. The results of observational and interventional studies further lead to the generation of new hypotheses, testing of which forms the basis of future studies. Review articles, on the other hand, may not be hypothesis-driven, but form fertile ground to generate future hypotheses for evaluation. Fig. 1 summarizes which type of studies are hypothesis-driven and which lead on to hypothesis generation.
A review of the published literature did not enable the identification of clearly defined standards for working and scientific hypotheses. It is essential to distinguish influential versus not influential hypotheses, evidence-based hypotheses versus a priori statements and ideas, ethical versus unethical, or potentially harmful ideas. The following points are proposed for consideration while generating working and scientific hypotheses. 1 , 2 Table 1 summarizes these points.
Points to be considered while evaluating the validity of hypotheses |
---|
Backed by evidence-based data |
Testable by relevant study designs |
Supported by preliminary (pilot) studies |
Testable by ethical studies |
Maintaining a balance between scientific temper and controversy |
A scientific hypothesis should have a sound basis on previously published literature as well as the scientist's observations. Randomly generated (a priori) hypotheses are unlikely to be proven. A thorough literature search should form the basis of a hypothesis based on published evidence. 7
Unless a scientific hypothesis can be tested, it can neither be proven nor be disproven. Therefore, a scientific hypothesis should be amenable to testing with the available technologies and the present understanding of science.
If a hypothesis is based purely on a novel observation by the scientist in question, it should be grounded on some preliminary studies to support it. For example, if a drug that targets a specific cell population is hypothesized to be useful in a particular disease setting, then there must be some preliminary evidence that the specific cell population plays a role in driving that disease process.
The hypothesis should be testable by experiments that are ethically acceptable. 9 For example, a hypothesis that parachutes reduce mortality from falls from an airplane cannot be tested using a randomized controlled trial. 10 This is because it is obvious that all those jumping from a flying plane without a parachute would likely die. Similarly, the hypothesis that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer cannot be tested by a clinical trial that makes people take up smoking (since there is considerable evidence for the health hazards associated with smoking). Instead, long-term observational studies comparing outcomes in those who smoke and those who do not, as was performed in the landmark epidemiological case control study by Doll and Hill, 11 are more ethical and practical.
Novel findings, including novel hypotheses, particularly those that challenge established norms, are bound to face resistance for their wider acceptance. Such resistance is inevitable until the time such findings are proven with appropriate scientific rigor. However, hypotheses that generate controversy are generally unwelcome. For example, at the time the pandemic of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS was taking foot, there were numerous deniers that refused to believe that HIV caused AIDS. 12 , 13 Similarly, at a time when climate change is causing catastrophic changes to weather patterns worldwide, denial that climate change is occurring and consequent attempts to block climate change are certainly unwelcome. 14 The denialism and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, including unfortunate examples of vaccine hesitancy, are more recent examples of controversial hypotheses not backed by science. 15 , 16 An example of a controversial hypothesis that was a revolutionary scientific breakthrough was the hypothesis put forth by Warren and Marshall that Helicobacter pylori causes peptic ulcers. Initially, the hypothesis that a microorganism could cause gastritis and gastric ulcers faced immense resistance. When the scientists that proposed the hypothesis themselves ingested H. pylori to induce gastritis in themselves, only then could they convince the wider world about their hypothesis. Such was the impact of the hypothesis was that Barry Marshall and Robin Warren were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2005 for this discovery. 17 , 18
Influential hypotheses are those that have stood the test of time. An archetype of an influential hypothesis is that proposed by Edward Jenner in the eighteenth century that cowpox infection protects against smallpox. While this observation had been reported for nearly a century before this time, it had not been suitably tested and publicised until Jenner conducted his experiments on a young boy by demonstrating protection against smallpox after inoculation with cowpox. 19 These experiments were the basis for widespread smallpox immunization strategies worldwide in the 20th century which resulted in the elimination of smallpox as a human disease today. 20
Other influential hypotheses are those which have been read and cited widely. An example of this is the hygiene hypothesis proposing an inverse relationship between infections in early life and allergies or autoimmunity in adulthood. An analysis reported that this hypothesis had been cited more than 3,000 times on Scopus. 1
The COVID-19 pandemic devastated the world like no other in recent memory. During this period, various hypotheses emerged, understandably so considering the public health emergency situation with innumerable deaths and suffering for humanity. Within weeks of the first reports of COVID-19, aberrant immune system activation was identified as a key driver of organ dysfunction and mortality in this disease. 21 Consequently, numerous drugs that suppress the immune system or abrogate the activation of the immune system were hypothesized to have a role in COVID-19. 22 One of the earliest drugs hypothesized to have a benefit was hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine was proposed to interfere with Toll-like receptor activation and consequently ameliorate the aberrant immune system activation leading to pathology in COVID-19. 22 The drug was also hypothesized to have a prophylactic role in preventing infection or disease severity in COVID-19. It was also touted as a wonder drug for the disease by many prominent international figures. However, later studies which were well-designed randomized controlled trials failed to demonstrate any benefit of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 Subsequently, azithromycin 27 , 28 and ivermectin 29 were hypothesized as potential therapies for COVID-19, but were not supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials. The role of vitamin D in preventing disease severity was also proposed, but has not been proven definitively until now. 30 , 31 On the other hand, randomized controlled trials identified the evidence supporting dexamethasone 32 and interleukin-6 pathway blockade with tocilizumab as effective therapies for COVID-19 in specific situations such as at the onset of hypoxia. 33 , 34 Clues towards the apparent effectiveness of various drugs against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro but their ineffectiveness in vivo have recently been identified. Many of these drugs are weak, lipophilic bases and some others induce phospholipidosis which results in apparent in vitro effectiveness due to non-specific off-target effects that are not replicated inside living systems. 35 , 36
Another hypothesis proposed was the association of the routine policy of vaccination with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) with lower deaths due to COVID-19. This hypothesis emerged in the middle of 2020 when COVID-19 was still taking foot in many parts of the world. 37 , 38 Subsequently, many countries which had lower deaths at that time point went on to have higher numbers of mortality, comparable to other areas of the world. Furthermore, the hypothesis that BCG vaccination reduced COVID-19 mortality was a classic example of ecological fallacy. Associations between population level events (ecological studies; in this case, BCG vaccination and COVID-19 mortality) cannot be directly extrapolated to the individual level. Furthermore, such associations cannot per se be attributed as causal in nature, and can only serve to generate hypotheses that need to be tested at the individual level. 39
Traditionally, publication after peer review has been considered the gold standard before any new idea finds acceptability amongst the scientific community. Getting a work (including a working or scientific hypothesis) reviewed by experts in the field before experiments are conducted to prove or disprove it helps to refine the idea further as well as improve the experiments planned to test the hypothesis. 40 A route towards this has been the emergence of journals dedicated to publishing hypotheses such as the Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics. 41 Another means of publishing hypotheses is through registered research protocols detailing the background, hypothesis, and methodology of a particular study. If such protocols are published after peer review, then the journal commits to publishing the completed study irrespective of whether the study hypothesis is proven or disproven. 42 In the post-pandemic world, online research methods such as online surveys powered via social media channels such as Twitter and Instagram might serve as critical tools to generate as well as to preliminarily test the appropriateness of hypotheses for further evaluation. 43 , 44
Some radical hypotheses might be difficult to publish after traditional peer review. These hypotheses might only be acceptable by the scientific community after they are tested in research studies. Preprints might be a way to disseminate such controversial and ground-breaking hypotheses. 45 However, scientists might prefer to keep their hypotheses confidential for the fear of plagiarism of ideas, avoiding online posting and publishing until they have tested the hypotheses.
Publication of hypotheses is important, however, a balance is required between scientific temper and controversy. Journal editors and reviewers might keep in mind these specific points, summarized in Table 2 and detailed hereafter, while judging the merit of hypotheses for publication. Keeping in mind the ethical principle of primum non nocere, a hypothesis should be published only if it is testable in a manner that is ethically appropriate. 46 Such hypotheses should be grounded in reality and lend themselves to further testing to either prove or disprove them. It must be considered that subsequent experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis have an equal chance of failing or succeeding, akin to tossing a coin. A pre-conceived belief that a hypothesis is unlikely to be proven correct should not form the basis of rejection of such a hypothesis for publication. In this context, hypotheses generated after a thorough literature search to identify knowledge gaps or based on concrete clinical observations on a considerable number of patients (as opposed to random observations on a few patients) are more likely to be acceptable for publication by peer-reviewed journals. Also, hypotheses should be considered for publication or rejection based on their implications for science at large rather than whether the subsequent experiments to test them end up with results in favour of or against the original hypothesis.
Points to be considered before a hypothesis is acceptable for publication |
---|
Experiments required to test hypotheses should be ethically acceptable as per the World Medical Association declaration on ethics and related statements |
Pilot studies support hypotheses |
Single clinical observations and expert opinion surveys may support hypotheses |
Testing hypotheses requires robust methodology and statistical power |
Hypotheses that challenge established views and concepts require proper evidence-based justification |
Hypotheses form an important part of the scientific literature. The COVID-19 pandemic has reiterated the importance and relevance of hypotheses for dealing with public health emergencies and highlighted the need for evidence-based and ethical hypotheses. A good hypothesis is testable in a relevant study design, backed by preliminary evidence, and has positive ethical and clinical implications. General medical journals might consider publishing hypotheses as a specific article type to enable more rapid advancement of science.
Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Author Contributions:
In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
We have heard of many hypotheses which have led to great inventions in science. Assumptions that are made on the basis of some evidence are known as hypotheses. In this article, let us learn in detail about the hypothesis and the type of hypothesis with examples.
A hypothesis is an assumption that is made based on some evidence. This is the initial point of any investigation that translates the research questions into predictions. It includes components like variables, population and the relation between the variables. A research hypothesis is a hypothesis that is used to test the relationship between two or more variables.
Following are the characteristics of the hypothesis:
Following are the sources of hypothesis:
There are six forms of hypothesis and they are:
It shows a relationship between one dependent variable and a single independent variable. For example – If you eat more vegetables, you will lose weight faster. Here, eating more vegetables is an independent variable, while losing weight is the dependent variable.
It shows the relationship between two or more dependent variables and two or more independent variables. Eating more vegetables and fruits leads to weight loss, glowing skin, and reduces the risk of many diseases such as heart disease.
It shows how a researcher is intellectual and committed to a particular outcome. The relationship between the variables can also predict its nature. For example- children aged four years eating proper food over a five-year period are having higher IQ levels than children not having a proper meal. This shows the effect and direction of the effect.
It is used when there is no theory involved. It is a statement that a relationship exists between two variables, without predicting the exact nature (direction) of the relationship.
It provides a statement which is contrary to the hypothesis. It’s a negative statement, and there is no relationship between independent and dependent variables. The symbol is denoted by “H O ”.
Associative hypothesis occurs when there is a change in one variable resulting in a change in the other variable. Whereas, the causal hypothesis proposes a cause and effect interaction between two or more variables.
Following are the examples of hypotheses based on their types:
Following are the functions performed by the hypothesis:
Researchers use hypotheses to put down their thoughts directing how the experiment would take place. Following are the steps that are involved in the scientific method:
What is hypothesis.
A hypothesis is an assumption made based on some evidence.
What are the types of hypothesis.
Types of hypothesis are:
Define complex hypothesis..
A complex hypothesis shows the relationship between two or more dependent variables and two or more independent variables.
Put your understanding of this concept to test by answering a few MCQs. Click ‘Start Quiz’ to begin!
Select the correct answer and click on the “Finish” button Check your score and answers at the end of the quiz
Visit BYJU’S for all Physics related queries and study materials
Your result is as below
Request OTP on Voice Call
PHYSICS Related Links | |
Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Post My Comment
Register with byju's & watch live videos.
Free Al Office Suite with PDF Editor
Edit Word, Excel, and PPT for FREE.
Read, edit, and convert PDFs with the powerful PDF toolkit.
Microsoft-like interface, easy to use.
Windows • MacOS • Linux • iOS • Android
Select areas that need to improve
Fields marked * are required please
Please leave your suggestions below
Click here if you have ever found yourself in the position of having to wrestle with the development of a hypothesis for your research paper. As an expert writer, I have seen that this is where most students begin to sweat. It is a potpourri of theory and practice, hence rather intimidating. But not to worry because I have got your back. This guide is a pool of tips and tricks for writing a hypothesis to set the stage for compelling research.
A hypothesis is a tentative statement, usually in the form of an educated guess, that provides a probable explanation for something either a phenomenon or a relationship between variables. This will, therefore, form a basis for conducting experiments and research studies, hence laying down the course of your investigation and mainly laying the ground for your conclusion.
A good hypothesis should be:
Specific and clear
Testable and falsifiable
Based upon existing knowledge
Logically consistent
There are different kinds of hypotheses used in research, all of which serve different purposes depending on the nature of the study. Here are eight common types:
1. The null hypothesis (H0): asserts that there is no effect or relationship between variables. This forms a baseline for comparison. Example: "There is no difference in test scores for students who study music and for those who do not."
2. Alternative Hypothesis (H1): The hypothesis that postulates some effect or relationship between variables; it is, therefore, the opposite of the null hypothesis. For instance, "Students who study with music have different test scores than those who study in silence."
3. Simple Hypothesis: The hypothesis that states a relationship between two variables: one independent and one dependent. For example, "More sunlight increases plant growth."
4. Complex Hypothesis: This hypothesis involves the relationship of more than one variable. For example, "More sunlight and water increase plant growth."
5. Directional Hypothesis: The hypothesis which specifies the direction of the effect between variables. For instance, "Students who study with music will have higher test scores than students who study in silence."
6. Non-Directional Hypothesis: This is a hypothesis used where the relationship is indicated, but the direction is not specified. For example, "There is a difference in test scores between students who study with music and those who study in silence."
7. Associative Hypothesis: This hypothesis merely states that the change in one variable is associated with a change in another. It does not indicate cause and effect. For example: "There is a relationship between study habits and academic performance."
8. Causal Hypothesis: This hypothesis states that one variable causes a change in another. For example: "Increased study time results in higher test scores."
Understanding such types of hypotheses will help in the selection of the correct hypothesis for your research and in making your analysis clear and effective.
An excellent hypothesis provides a backbone to any scientific research. Leave some help behind in writing one? Follow this easy guide:
Step 1: Ask a Question
First, you must understand what your research question is. Suppose you want to carry out an experiment on plant growth. Your question can be, "How does sunlight affect plant growth?"
Use WPS AI to help when you get stuck. Feed it a topic, and it will come up with related questions to ask.
Step 2: Do Preliminary Research
Do some research to see what's already known about your topic. That way, you can build upon existing knowledge.
Research information in journals, books and credible websites. Then summarize what you read. This will help you formulate your hypothesis.
Step 3: Define Variables
Identify your variables:
Independent Variable: What you manipulate. For example, the amount of sun.
Dependent Variable: What you measure. For example, plant growth rate.
Clearly defining these makes your hypothesis specific and testable.
Step 4: State Your Hypothesis
State your question in the form of a hypothesis. Here are some examples:
If then: "If plants receive more sunlight, then they will grow faster."
Comparative statements: "Plants receiving more sunlight grow faster than plants receiving less."
Correlation statements: "There is positive correlation between sunlight and plant growth." This kind of pattern makes your hypothesis easy to test.
Step 5: Refine Your Hypothesis
Revise your hypothesis to be clear and specific, and elicit feedback to improve it.
You will also need a null hypothesis, which says that there is no effect or relationship between variables. An example would be, "Sunlight has no effect on the growth of plants."
With these steps, you are now bound to come up with a testable hypothesis. WPS AI can help you in this process more efficiently.
A good hypothesis is seen as the backbone of doing effective research. Following are some key characteristics that define a good hypothesis:
A good hypothesis has to be testable either by experimentation or observation. The hypothesis should clearly predict what can be measured or observed. For example, "If it receives more sunlight, the plant will grow taller" is a testable hypothesis since it states what can be measured.
Falsifiable
A hypothesis has to be falsifiable: it should be able to prove it wrong. This feature is important because it accommodates testing in science. For example, the statement "All swans are white" is falsifiable since it just takes one black swan to disprove the claim.
A good hypothesis should be grounded in current knowledge and should be properly reasoned. It should be broad or reasonable within existing knowledge. For example, "Increasing the amount of sunlight will boost plant growth" makes sense, in that it tallies with generally known facts about photosynthesis.
Specific and Clear
What is needed is clarity and specificity. A hypothesis has to be brief, yet free from ambiguity. For instance, "Increased sunlight leads to taller plants" is clear and specific whereas "Sunlight affects plants" is too vague.
Built upon Prior Knowledge
A good hypothesis is informed by prior research and existing theories. The available knowledge enlightens it to build on what is known to find new relationships or effects. For example, "Given photosynthesis requires sunlight, increasing sunlight will enhance plant growth" is informed by available scientific understanding.
Ethical Considerations
Finally, a good hypothesis needs to consider the ethics involved. The research should not bring damage to participants or the environment. For instance, "How the new drug will affect a human when tested without testing it on animals" may present an ethical concern.
Checklist for Reviewing Your Hypothesis
To be certain that your hypothesis has the following characteristics, use this checklist to review your hypothesis:
1. Is the hypothesis testable through experimentation or observation?
2. Can the hypothesis be proven false?
3. Is the hypothesis logically deduced from known facts?
4. Is your hypothesis clear and specific?
5. Does your hypothesis relate to previous research or theories?
6. Will there be any ethical issues with the proposed research?
7. Are your independent and dependent variables well defined?
8. Is your hypothesis concise and ambiguity free?
9. Did you get feedback to help in refining your hypothesis?
10. Does your hypothesis contain a null hypothesis for comparison?
By making sure that your hypothesis has these qualities, you are much more likely to set yourself on the course of higher-quality research and larger impacts. WPS AI can help fine-tune a hypothesis to ensure it is well-structured and clear.
Drafting a good hypothesis is the real inception of any research project. WPS AI, with its advanced language functions, can very strongly improve this stage of your study. Here's how WPS AI can help you perfect your hypothesis:
Check Grammar and Syntax
Grammar and punctuation errors can make your hypothesis weak. WPS AI checks and corrects this with the assurance that your hypothesis is as clear as possible and professional in its presentation. For example, when your hypothesis is written, "If the temperature increases then plant growth will increases", WPS AI can correct it to "If the temperature increases, then plant growth will increase."
Rewrite Your Hypothesis for Clarity
There needs to be a clear hypothesis. WPS AI can suggest ways to reword your hypothesis so that it makes sense. If your original hypothesis is, "More sunlight will result in more significant plant growth due to photosynthesis," WPS AI can suggest, "Increased sunlight will lead to greater plant growth through enhanced photosynthesis."
Automatic Content Expansion
Sometimes, your hypothesis or the related paragraphs may require more detail. WPS AI's [Continue Writing] feature can help enlarge the content. For example, after having written, "This study will examine the effects of sunlight on plant growth", using [Continue Writing] it can enlarge it to, "This research paper is going to study how sunlight affects the growth of plants by measuring their height and their health under different amounts of sunlight over a period of six weeks."
WPS AI is a great tool that can help you in drafting a good hypothesis for your research. It will help you check grammar, syntax, clarity, and completeness. Using WPS AI , you will be assured that the results of your hypothesis will be well-written and clear to understand.
The hypothesis is one single testable prediction regarding some phenomenon. The theory is an explanation for some part of the natural world which is well-substantiated by a body of evidence, together with multiple hypotheses.
If your results turn out not to support your hypothesis, analyze the data again to see why your result rejects your hypothesis. Do not manipulate the observations or experiment so that it leads to your hypothesis.
Yes, there may be more than one hypothesis, especially when one research study is examining several interrelated phenomena or variables. Each hypothesis has to be separately and clearly stated and tested.
Correct formulation of a strong, testable hypothesis is one of the most critical steps in the application of the scientific method and within academic research. The steps provided in this article will help you write a hypothesis that is clear, specific, and based on available knowledge. Give the tools and tips a try to elevate your academic writing and kick your research up a notch.
15 years of office industry experience, tech lover and copywriter. Follow me for product reviews, comparisons, and recommendations for new apps and software.
share this!
July 25, 2024
This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:
fact-checked
peer-reviewed publication
trusted source
In new research published in PeerJ , researchers from the University of Washington, University of Texas at Austin and Oregon Institute of Technology, led by undergraduate student Abby Burtner, have advanced our understanding of the evolutionary origins of flight in bats.
The study, titled "Gliding toward an Understanding of the Origin of Flight in Bats," employs phylogenetic comparative methods to explore the evolutionary transition from gliding to powered flight in these unique mammals.
Bats are the only mammals capable of powered flight, a feat enabled by their highly specialized limb morphology. However, the evolutionary pathway that led to this capability has remained elusive due to an incomplete fossil record. The team's research provides significant insights by testing the hypothesis that bats evolved from gliding ancestors.
The research team analyzed a comprehensive dataset of limb bone measurements that included four extinct bats and 231 extant mammals with various locomotor modes. Their findings reveal that gliders exhibit relatively elongate forelimb and narrower hindlimb bones that are intermediate between those of bats and non-gliding arboreal mammals. Evolutionary modeling of these data offers support for the hypothesis that selection may be strong on certain forelimb traits, pulling them from a glider towards a flyer adaptive zone in bats.
"We propose an adaptive landscape of limb bone traits across locomotor modes based on the results from our modeling analyses," said Dr. Santana. "Our results, combined with previous research on bat wing development and aerodynamics, support a hypothetical evolutionary pathway wherein a glider-like forelimb morphology preceded the evolution of specialized bat wings."
This study not only supports the gliding-to-flying hypothesis but also challenges the traditional view of bat and glider limb evolution. The researchers emphasize the need for future studies to test the biomechanical implications of these bone morphologies and to consider the complex genetic and ecological factors that influenced the evolution of bat-powered flight.
"Our findings contribute to the hypothesis that bats evolved from gliding ancestors and lay a morphological foundation in our understanding of bat flight," Dr. Law added. "However, we stress that additional fossils are necessary to truly unravel the mysteries of this remarkable evolutionary transition."
Journal information: PeerJ
Provided by PeerJ
Explore further
Feedback to editors
9 hours ago
10 hours ago
11 hours ago
Relevant physicsforums posts, the predictive brain (stimulus-specific error prediction neurons).
Jul 21, 2024
The cass report (uk).
Jul 19, 2024
Innovative ideas and technologies to help folks with disabilities.
Jul 18, 2024
Jul 15, 2024
More from Biology and Medical
Jun 5, 2023
Jul 16, 2024
Feb 18, 2020
Apr 24, 2024
Nov 29, 2021
Sep 23, 2019
12 hours ago
14 hours ago
Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).
Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request
Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.
Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.
Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.
Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.
More information Privacy policy
We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.
Article sidebar.
© Bachudo Science Co. Ltd. This work is licensed under the creative commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
Department of Curriculum and Teaching University of Calabar,
Cross River State, Nigeria.
Department of Curriculum and Teaching, Faculty Educational Foundation
Studies University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria
Department of Curriculum and Teaching, Faculty Educational
Foundation Studies University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria
Managerial characteristics of principals: a panacea for secondary school teachers’ job performance in cross river state, nigeria.
This study investigated Principals’ managerial characteristics: A panacea for teachers’ job performance in Cross River State, Nigeria. To achieve the aim of the research, three hypotheses were raised and tested at .05 significance level. The research design used in this study was survey design. The population of the study consist of all serving teachers with government secondary schools in Cross River State. Records available at Ministry of Education (State Secondary Education Board) shows that there are 5,057 serving teachers with the State. The population comprises 2,732 junior school teachers and 2,325 senior school teachers respectively. The sample for this study comprises 147 teachers comprising 73 female and 74 male teachers proportionally selected from the population. A Questionnaire title Principals’ Administrative Variables and Teachers’ Job Performance Questionnaire (PAVTPQ) was used for data collection. Data were analyzed with Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (PPMCC) for hypothesis one and One-Way Analysis of Variance for hypotheses two and three. The findings of the study showed that there is a significant influence of variables of Principles’ managerial characteristic and teachers’ performance Cross River State, Nigeria. The researcher recommended that among other things that there is need for the principals of secondary schools to enhance their supervisory skills by having a regular or periodic assessment of the teachers with reference to instructional method and punctuality.
AJOL is a Non Profit Organisation that cannot function without donations. AJOL and the millions of African and international researchers who rely on our free services are deeply grateful for your contribution. AJOL is annually audited and was also independently assessed in 2019 by E&Y.
Your donation is guaranteed to directly contribute to Africans sharing their research output with a global readership.
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
Regulatory fit to enhance user engagement with an app promoting healthy and sustainable eating. an experimental study to match regulatory concern and anticipated emotions.
2. theoretical background, 2.1. message framing, 2.2. cognitive and affective argumentation, 2.3. matching messages to the regulatory focus of the user, 3. the present study, 4. materials and methods, 4.1. procedure, 4.2. participants, 4.3. pre-test, 4.4. message condition, 4.5. post-test, 4.6. data analysis, 5.1. preliminary analyses, 5.2. main analyses, 5.2.1. the moderating role of promotion focus, 5.2.2. interaction between prevention focus and message conditions, 6. discussion, 6.1. practical implications, 6.2. limitations and future research, 7. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
Click here to enlarge figure
Cronbach’s α | |
---|---|
Promotion Regulatory Focus (adapted from [ ]) | 0.88 |
I frequently imagine how I will achieve my hopes and aspirations | |
I often think about the person I would ideally like to be in the future | |
I typically focus on the success I hope to achieve in the future | |
I often think about how I will achieve success | |
My major goal right now is to achieve my results and ambitions | |
I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to reach my “ideal self”—to fulfill my hopes, wishes, and aspirations | |
In general, I am focused on achieving positive outcomes in my life | |
I often imagine myself experiencing good things that I hope will happen to me | |
Overall, I am more oriented toward achieving success than preventing failure | |
Prevention Regulatory Focus (adapted from [ ]) | 0.83 |
In general, I am focused on preventing negative events in my life (R) | |
I am anxious that I will fall short of my responsibilities and obligations | |
I often think about the person I am afraid I might become in the future | |
I often worry that I will fail to accomplish my goals | |
I often imagine myself experiencing bad things that I fear might happen to me | |
I frequently think about how I can prevent failures in my life (R) | |
I am more focused toward preventing losses than I am toward achieving gains (R) | |
My major goal right now is to avoid becoming a failure | |
I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to become the self I “ought” to be—to fulfill my duties, responsibilities, and obligations |
Growth Concern + Positive Anticipated Emotion Message (GP Message) | Growth Concern + Negative Anticipated Emotion Message (GN Message) | Safety Concern + Positive Anticipated Emotion Message (SP Message) | Safety Concern + Negative Anticipated Emotion Message (GN Message) |
---|---|---|---|
The content of this app can be a source of inspiration for many who want to embark on a food journey to achieve greater well-being, be more independent and creative with their diet, and become more aware of the impact of their food choices on the environment. If you use this app, you may feel satisfied that you have the opportunity to take care of your well-being, happy that you can better manage your food choices, and even proud that you have the opportunity to actively contribute to protecting the environment. | The content of this app can be a source of inspiration for many who want to embark on a food journey to achieve greater well-being, become more independent and creative with their diet, and become more aware of the impact of their food choices on the environment. If you don’t use this app, you may feel dissatisfied because you missed the opportunity to take care of your well-being, anxious about having neglected to better manage your food choices, and even guilty because you missed the opportunity to actively contribute to protecting the environment. | The content of this app can be a useful source of recommendation for many who want to embark on a health-oriented food journey, be more responsible and careful with their diet, and be informed about the impact of their food choices on the environment. If you use this app, you may feel satisfied that you have the opportunity to take care of your well-being, happy that you can better manage your food choices, and even proud that you have the opportunity to actively contribute to protecting the environment. | The content of this app can be a useful source of recommendation for many who want to embark on a health-oriented food journey, be more responsible and careful with their diet, and be informed about the impact of their food choices on the environment. If you don’t use this app, you may feel dissatisfied because you have missed the opportunity to take care of your well-being, anxious about having neglected to better manage your food choices, and even guilty because you missed the opportunity to actively contribute to protecting the environment. |
Cronbach’s α | |
---|---|
adapted from [ ]) | 0.94 |
The use of this app is… | |
… negative–positive | |
… a bad idea–a good idea | |
… unfavorable–favorable | |
(adapted from Perugini and Bagozzi [ ]) | 0.96 |
I would like to use such an app | |
I would like to be able to use this app as soon as possible | |
I would be excited to start using this app | |
(adapted from Min et al. [ ]). | 0.92 |
I am interested in downloading this app to explore its features | |
I intend to use this app to make healthy and sustainable food choices | |
I am very likely to use this app | |
After completing the questionnaire, I would like to be redirected to the app download page |
GP Message (n = 78) | GN Message (n = 82) | SP Message (n = 81) | SN Message (n = 75) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | |
Promotion Focus | 3.29 (0.73) | 3.50 (0.77) | 3.37 (0.80) | 3.44 (0.71) |
Prevention Focus | 2.94 (0.79) | 3.03 (0.78) | 3.01 (0.72) | 2.92 (0.72) |
Attitude towards Using the App | 4.73 (1.60) | 4.62 (1.68) | 4.70 (1.10) | 4.40 (1.77) |
Desire to Use the App | 3.84 (1.61) | 3.54 (1.58) | 3.72 (1.52) | 3.60 (1.48) |
Future Usage Intention | 4.13 (1.56) | 3.85 (1.57) | 4.05 (1.49) | 3.96 (1.42) |
App Download | 1.46 (0.50) | 1.40 (0.49) | 1.36 (0.48) | 1.38 (0.49) |
2.45 | 4161 | 0.77 | 0.01 | ||||||
GP versus SN | −0.53 | 1.36 | −0.39 | 0.69 | [−3.21, 2.15] | ||||
Promotion Focus | −0.03 | 0.65 | −0.05 | 0.96 | [−0.32, 1.26] | ||||
GP versus SN * Promotion Focus | 0.06 | 0.40 | 0.15 | 0.88 | [−0.73, 0.85] | ||||
Prevention Focus | 0.04 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.854 | [−0.31, 0.39] | ||||
4.59 | 5161 | 0.01 | 0.12 | ||||||
GP versus SN | 2.49 | 1.17 | 2.12 | 0.03 | [0.17, 4.80] | ||||
Attitude | 0.27 | 0.07 | 3.95 | 0.001 | [0.13, 0.40] | ||||
Promotion Focus | 1.31 | 0.56 | 2.341 | 0.02 | [0.19, 2.42] | ||||
GP versus SN * Promotion Focus | −0.80 | 0.34 | −2.33 | 0.02 | [−1.48, −0.12] | ||||
Prevention Focus | −0.19 | 0.15 | −1.23 | 0.22 | [−0.49, 0.12] | ||||
2.67 | 0.34 | 0.32 | 1.06 | [−0.30, 0.99] | |||||
3.33 | −0.28 | 0.24 | −0.82 | [−0.65, 0.27] | |||||
4.00 | −0.81 | 0.34 | −2.21 | [−1.38, −0.08] | |||||
132.53 | 6160 | 0.001 | 0.82 | ||||||
GP versus SN | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.84 | 0.40 | [−0.11, 0.28] | ||||
Attitude | 0.28 | 0.14 | 2.07 | 0.04 | [0.01, 0.55] | ||||
Desire | 0.87 | 0.03 | 26.52 | 0.001 | [0.80, 0.93] | ||||
Promotion Focus | 0.24 | 0.21 | 1.12 | 0.26 | [−0.18, 0.66] | ||||
GP versus SN * Promotion Focus | −0.07 | 0.04 | −1.85 | 0.06 | [−0.15, 0.00] | ||||
Prevention Focus | 0.11 | 0.06 | 1.730.08 | 0.07 | [−0.01, 0.25] | ||||
2.67 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 2.12 | [0.00, 0.16] | |||||
3.33 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 1.09 | [−0.02, 0.10] | |||||
4.00 | −0.01 | 0.04 | −0.41 | [−1.10, 0.06] | |||||
| |||||||||
7 | 0.001 | 0.39 | |||||||
GP versus SN | 1.54 | 2.26 | 0.68 | 0.49 | [−2.88, 5.97] | ||||
Attitude | −0.04 | 0.13 | −0.33 | 0.74 | [−0.30, 0.21] | ||||
Desire | 0.39 | 0.32 | 1.21 | 0.22 | [−0.24, 1.02] | ||||
Future Usage Intention | 1.14 | 0.37 | 3.10 | 0.001 | [0.42, 1.86] | ||||
GP versus SN * Promotion Focus | −0.50 | 0.65 | −0.77 | 0.44 | [−1.80, 0.78] | ||||
Prevention Focus | −0.36 | 0.29 | −1.25 | 0.21 | [−0.93, 0.21] | ||||
2.67 | 0.34 | 0.47 | [−0.45, 1.46] | ||||||
3.33 | −0.19 | 0.30 | [−0.90, 0.32] | ||||||
4.00 | 0.72 | 0.50 | [−2.03, −0.11] | ||||||
−0.80 | 0.56 | [−2.25, −0.10] |
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Carfora, V.; Festa, S.; Pompili, S.; Azzena, I.; Guidetti, M.; Scaglioni, G.; Carraro, L.; Lenzi, M.; Scatolon, A.; Cavazza, N.; et al. Regulatory Fit to Enhance User Engagement with an App Promoting Healthy and Sustainable Eating. An Experimental Study to Match Regulatory Concern and Anticipated Emotions. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 6388. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156388
Carfora V, Festa S, Pompili S, Azzena I, Guidetti M, Scaglioni G, Carraro L, Lenzi M, Scatolon A, Cavazza N, et al. Regulatory Fit to Enhance User Engagement with an App Promoting Healthy and Sustainable Eating. An Experimental Study to Match Regulatory Concern and Anticipated Emotions. Sustainability . 2024; 16(15):6388. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156388
Carfora, Valentina, Simone Festa, Sara Pompili, Italo Azzena, Margherita Guidetti, Giulia Scaglioni, Luciana Carraro, Michela Lenzi, Andrea Scatolon, Nicoletta Cavazza, and et al. 2024. "Regulatory Fit to Enhance User Engagement with an App Promoting Healthy and Sustainable Eating. An Experimental Study to Match Regulatory Concern and Anticipated Emotions" Sustainability 16, no. 15: 6388. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156388
Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Simple hypothesis. A simple hypothesis is a statement made to reflect the relation between exactly two variables. One independent and one dependent. Consider the example, "Smoking is a prominent cause of lung cancer." The dependent variable, lung cancer, is dependent on the independent variable, smoking. 4.
It seeks to explore and understand a particular aspect of the research subject. In contrast, a research hypothesis is a specific statement or prediction that suggests an expected relationship between variables. It is formulated based on existing knowledge or theories and guides the research design and data analysis. 7.
Developing a hypothesis (with example) Step 1. Ask a question. Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project. Example: Research question.
A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process. Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test ...
A research hypothesis (also called a scientific hypothesis) is a statement about the expected outcome of a study (for example, a dissertation or thesis). To constitute a quality hypothesis, the statement needs to have three attributes - specificity, clarity and testability. Let's take a look at these more closely.
A research study starts with a question. Researchers worldwide ask questions and create research hypotheses. The effectiveness of research relies on developing a good research hypothesis. ... Characteristics of a Good Research Hypothesis. A hypothesis is a specific idea that you can test in a study. It often comes from looking at past research ...
What they need at the start of their research is to formulate a scientific hypothesis that revisits conventional theories, real-world processes, and related evidence to propose new studies and test ideas in an ethical way.3 Such a hypothesis can be of most benefit if published in an ethical journal with wide visibility and exposure to relevant ...
Definition: Hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation for a phenomenon, based on some initial observations or data. It is a tentative statement that can be tested and potentially proven or disproven through further investigation and experimentation. Hypothesis is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments ...
A research hypothesis, in its plural form "hypotheses," is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.
A good hypothesis possesses several key characteristics. Firstly, ... In any research hypothesis, variables play a critical role. These are the elements or factors that the researcher manipulates, controls, or measures. Understanding variables is essential for crafting a clear, testable hypothesis and for the stages of research that follow ...
INTRODUCTION. Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses.1,2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results.3,4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the ...
In the realm of scientific research, a hypothesis plays a crucial role in formulating and testing ideas. A good hypothesis serves as the foundation for an experiment or study, guiding the researcher towards meaningful results. In this FAQ-style subsection, we'll explore the characteristics of a good hypothesis, their types, formulation, and more.
The steps to write a research hypothesis are: 1. Stating the problem: Ensure that the hypothesis defines the research problem. 2. Writing a hypothesis as an 'if-then' statement: Include the action and the expected outcome of your study by following a 'if-then' structure. 3.
A hypothesis (from the Greek, foundation) is a logical construct, interposed between a problem and its solution, which represents a proposed answer to a research question. It gives direction to the investigator's thinking about the problem and, therefore, facilitates a solution. Unlike facts and assumptions (presumed true and, therefore, not ...
A research hypothesis is referred to as a scientific hypothesis. This is a clear, specific, and testable statement that predicts the expected result in a scientific study. It is a prediction, reasonable guess, and logical supposition about the relationship between the variables. A research hypothesis is an integral and central part of research ...
A research hypothesis provides a clear, testable statement that guides the direction and focus of a study. The benefit is that the hypothesis makes selecting appropriate research methods or statistical means possible, making the analysis more effective and achieving a result. Above all, the idea selected for the research also makes the study ...
An effective hypothesis in research is clearly and concisely written, and any terms or definitions clarified and defined. Specific language must also be used to avoid any generalities or assumptions. Use the following points as a checklist to evaluate the effectiveness of your research hypothesis: Predicts the relationship and outcome.
A research hypothesis is a hypothesis that is tested to see if two or more variables have a relationship. Now let's have a look at the characteristics of a good hypothesis. Characteristics of Hypothesis. A good hypothesis has the following characteristics. ... Observations from previous studies, current experiences, and feedback from rivals. ...
Hypothesis is a prediction of the outcome of a study. Hypotheses are drawn from theories and research questions or from direct observations. In fact, a research problem can be formulated as a hypothesis. To test the hypothesis we need to formulate it in terms that can actually be analysed with statistical tools.
Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs. Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate ...
Characteristics of a Hypothesis A scientific hypothesis is a bit more structured than the informal examples above; though the specifics can vary by discipline, most scientific hypotheses have ...
A research hypothesis is a hypothesis that is used to test the relationship between two or more variables. Characteristics of Hypothesis. Following are the characteristics of the hypothesis: The hypothesis should be clear and precise to consider it to be reliable. ... Observations from past studies, present-day experiences and from the competitors.
Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis. Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis. A good hypothesis is seen as the backbone of doing effective research. Following are some key characteristics that define a good hypothesis: Testable. A good hypothesis has to be testable either by experimentation or observation.
In new research published in PeerJ, researchers from the University of Washington, University of Texas at Austin and Oregon Institute of Technology, led by undergraduate student Abby Burtner, have ...
Land is an important carrier of resource elements, and improving land green use efficiency (LGUE) is the key to achieving "smart growth" in cities. This study takes 269 cities in China from 2008 to 2020 as the research object and integrates multisource remote sensing data, GIS spatial analysis, and spatial econometric models to explore the evolutionary characteristics of LGUE and the ...
• Study design: The current study is a meta-research study, rather than a systematic review of systematic reviews with methodological assessment of the included systematic reviews. We assessed the completeness reporting of the included systematic reviews of prevalence in adult populations using the PRISMA 2009 checklist [3].
The demand for environmentally conscious materials has led the research on natural fiber composites as an alternative to synthetic materials in various industries. This study focuses on the optimization and preparation of alkali-treated Similax Zelanica/glass fiber and nanosilica-reinforced
This study investigated Principals' managerial characteristics: A panacea for teachers' job performance in Cross River State, Nigeria. To achieve the aim of the research, three hypotheses were raised and tested at .05 significance level. The research design used in this study was survey design. The population of the study consist of all serving teachers with government secondary schools in ...
Mobile apps can effectively promote healthy and sustainable eating, but their success depends on initial user engagement. This study aimed to increase initial user engagement by tailoring app descriptions to users' regulatory focus (prevention versus promotion). Four conditions were created by combining two types of messages: regulatory concern (safety versus growth) and anticipated emotion ...
Türkay S, Akçay H. A study of random vibration characteristics of the quarter-car model. J Sound Vib 2005; 282: 111-124. Crossref. Web of Science. Google Scholar. 8. ... Quantitative research on vehicle energy consumptions based on the longitudinal-vertical dynamics of the tracked vehicle. Proc IMechE D J Autom Eng 2023: 1-12. Google ...