![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies U.S. flag](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/coreutils/uswds/img/favicons/favicon-57.png)
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.
- Publications
- Account settings
- My Bibliography
- Collections
- Citation manager
![](http://nandemo.space/777/templates/cheerup1/res/banner1.gif)
Save citation to file
Email citation, add to collections.
- Create a new collection
- Add to an existing collection
Add to My Bibliography
Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.
- Search in PubMed
- Search in NLM Catalog
- Add to Search
Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs
Affiliations.
- 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. [email protected].
- 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.
- 5 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.
- 6 Centre for Epidemiology versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
- PMID: 34962112
- PMCID: PMC8728594
- DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e338
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).
Keywords: Hypotheses; Pandemic; Research Ethics; Study Design.
© 2021 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.
PubMed Disclaimer
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Fig. 1. Types of studies that help…
Fig. 1. Types of studies that help to generate and test hypotheses.
Similar articles
- The SARS-CoV-2 Ivermectin Navarra-ISGlobal Trial (SAINT) to Evaluate the Potential of Ivermectin to Reduce COVID-19 Transmission in low risk, non-severe COVID-19 patients in the first 48 hours after symptoms onset: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized control pilot trial. Chaccour C, Ruiz-Castillo P, Richardson MA, Moncunill G, Casellas A, Carmona-Torre F, Giráldez M, Mota JS, Yuste JR, Azanza JR, Fernández M, Reina G, Dobaño C, Brew J, Sadaba B, Hammann F, Rabinovich R. Chaccour C, et al. Trials. 2020 Jun 8;21(1):498. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04421-z. Trials. 2020. PMID: 32513289 Free PMC article.
- Controlled, double-blind, randomized trial to assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine chemoprophylaxis in SARS CoV2 infection in healthcare personnel in the hospital setting: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Cuadrado-Lavín A, Olmos JM, Cifrian JM, Gimenez T, Gandarillas MA, García-Saiz M, Rebollo MH, Martínez-Taboada V, López-Hoyos M, Fariñas MC, Crespo J. Cuadrado-Lavín A, et al. Trials. 2020 Jun 3;21(1):472. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04400-4. Trials. 2020. PMID: 32493494 Free PMC article.
- Norwegian Coronavirus Disease 2019 (NO COVID-19) Pragmatic Open label Study to assess early use of hydroxychloroquine sulphate in moderately severe hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Lyngbakken MN, Berdal JE, Eskesen A, Kvale D, Olsen IC, Rangberg A, Jonassen CM, Omland T, Røsjø H, Dalgard O. Lyngbakken MN, et al. Trials. 2020 Jun 5;21(1):485. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04420-0. Trials. 2020. PMID: 32503662 Free PMC article.
- Efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19. Meo SA, Klonoff DC, Akram J. Meo SA, et al. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020 Apr;24(8):4539-4547. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202004_21038. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020. PMID: 32373993 Review.
- COVID-19 Pandemic - A Narrative Review of the Potential Roles of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine. de Barros CM, Almeida CAF, Pereira B, Costa KCM, Pinheiro FA, Maia LDB, Trindade CM, Garcia RCT, Torres LH, Diwan S, Boralli VB. de Barros CM, et al. Pain Physician. 2020 Aug;23(4S):S351-S366. Pain Physician. 2020. PMID: 32942793 Review.
- Data-Driven Hypothesis Generation in Clinical Research: What We Learned from a Human Subject Study? Jing X, Cimino JJ, Patel VL, Zhou Y, Shubrook JH, Liu C, De Lacalle S. Jing X, et al. Med Res Arch. 2024 Feb;12(2):10.18103/mra.v12i2.5132. doi: 10.18103/mra.v12i2.5132. Epub 2024 Feb 28. Med Res Arch. 2024. PMID: 39211055 Free PMC article.
- What does artificial intelligence mean in rheumatology? Chandwar K, Prasanna Misra D. Chandwar K, et al. Arch Rheumatol. 2024 Feb 12;39(1):1-9. doi: 10.46497/ArchRheumatol.2024.10664. eCollection 2024 Mar. Arch Rheumatol. 2024. PMID: 38774703 Free PMC article. Review.
- Data-driven hypothesis generation among inexperienced clinical researchers: A comparison of secondary data analyses with visualization (VIADS) and other tools. Jing X, Cimino JJ, Patel VL, Zhou Y, Shubrook JH, De Lacalle S, Draghi BN, Ernst MA, Weaver A, Sekar S, Liu C. Jing X, et al. J Clin Transl Sci. 2024 Jan 4;8(1):e13. doi: 10.1017/cts.2023.708. eCollection 2024. J Clin Transl Sci. 2024. PMID: 38384898 Free PMC article.
- How do clinical researchers generate data-driven scientific hypotheses? Cognitive events using think-aloud protocol. Jing X, Draghi BN, Ernst MA, Patel VL, Cimino JJ, Shubrook JH, Zhou Y, Liu C, De Lacalle S. Jing X, et al. medRxiv [Preprint]. 2023 Oct 31:2023.10.31.23297860. doi: 10.1101/2023.10.31.23297860. medRxiv. 2023. PMID: 37961555 Free PMC article. Preprint.
- Conducting and Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ, Furuta A, Arima M, Tsuchiya S, Kawahara C, Takamiya Y, Izumi M. Barroga E, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Sep 18;38(37):e291. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e291. J Korean Med Sci. 2023. PMID: 37724495 Free PMC article. Review.
- Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Mukanova U, Yessirkepov M, Kitas GD. Scientific hypotheses: writing, promoting, and predicting implications. J Korean Med Sci. 2019;34(45):e300. - PMC - PubMed
- Misra DP, Agarwal V. Generating working hypotheses for original research studies. Cent Asian J Med Hypotheses Ethics. 2020;1(1):14–19.
- Misra DP, Zimba O, Gasparyan AY. Statistical data presentation: a primer for rheumatology researchers. Rheumatol Int. 2021;41(1):43–55. - PubMed
- Yessirkepov M, Gasparyan AY. Embracing social media for generating and testing hypotheses. Cent Asian J Med Hypotheses Ethics. 2021;2(3):133–136.
- Holshue ML, DeBolt C, Lindquist S, Lofy KH, Wiesman J, Bruce H, et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(10):929–936. - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
- Search in MeSH
Related information
Linkout - more resources, full text sources.
- Europe PubMed Central
- Korean Academy of Medical Sciences
- PubMed Central
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies full text provider logo](https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corehtml/query/egifs/https:--jkms.org-image-jkmslogo2.jpg)
- Citation Manager
NCBI Literature Resources
MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer
The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.
A concise guide to reproducible research using secondary data
Chapter 2 formulating a hypothesis.
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies](https://katblankart.github.io/images/idea4.png)
“There is no single best way to develop a research idea.” ( Pischke 2012 )
2.1 How do you develop a research question and formulate a hypothesis?
You decide to undertake a scientific project. Where do you start? First, you need to find a research question that interests you and formulate a hypothesis. We will introduce some key terminology, steps you can take, and examples how to develop research questions. Note that .
What if someone assigns a topic to me? For students attending undergraduate and graduate courses that often pick topics from a list, all of these steps are equally important and necessary. You still need to formulate a research question and a hypothesis. And it is important to clarify the relevance of your topic for yourself.
When thinking about a research question, you need to identify a topic that is:
- Relevant , important in the world and interesting to you as a researcher: Does working on the topic excites you? You will spend many hours thinking about it and working on it. Therefore, it should be interesting and engaging enough for you to motivate your continued work on this topic.
- Specific : not too broad and not too narrow
- Feasible to research within a given time frame: Is it possible to answer the research question based on your time budget, data and additional resources.
How do you find a topic or develop a feasible research idea in the first place? Finding an idea is not difficult, the critical part is to find a good idea. How do you do that? There is no one specific way how one gets an idea, rather there is a myriad of ways how people come up with potential ideas (for example, as stated by Varian ( 2016 ) ).
You can find inspiration by
- Looking at insights from the world around you: your own life and experiences, observe the behavior of people around you
- Talking to people around you, experts, other students, family members
- Talking to individuals outside your field (non-economists)
- Talking to professionals working in the area you are interested in (you may use social media and professional platforms like LinkedIN or Twitter to make contact)
- Reading journal articles from other non-economic social sciences and the medical literature
- What are the issues being discussed?
- How do these issues affect people’s lives?
In addition you could
- Go to virtual and in-person seminars, for example, the Essen Health Economics Seminar
- Look at abstracts of scientific articles and working papers
- Look at the literature in a specific field you are interested in, for example, screening complete issues of journals or editorials about certain research advancements. By reading this literature you might come up with the idea on how to extend and refine previous research.
Once you identified a research question that is of interest to you, you need to define a hypothesis.
2.2 What is a hypothesis?
A hypothesis is a statement that introduces your research question and suggests the results you might find. It is an educated guess. You start by posing an economic question and formulate a hypothesis about this question. Then you test it with your data and empirical analysis and either accept or reject the hypothesis. It constitutes the main basis of your scientific investigation and you should be careful when creating it.
2.2.1 Develop a hypothesis
Before you formulate your hypothesis, read up on the topic of interest. This should provide you with sufficient information to narrow down your research question. Once you find your question you need to develop a hypothesis, which contains a statement of your expectations regarding your research question’s results. You propose to prove your hypothesis with your research by testing the relationship between two variables of interest. Thus, a hypothesis should be testable with the data at hand. There are two types of hypotheses: alternative or null. Null states that there is no effect. Alternative states that there is an effect.
There is an alternative view on this that suggests one should not look at the literature too early on in the idea-generating process to not be influenced and shaped by someone else’s ideas ( Varian 2016 ) . According to this view you can spend some time (i.e. a few weeks) trying to develop your own original idea. Even if you end up with an idea that has already been pursued by someone else, this will still provide you with good practice in developing publishable ideas. After you have developed an idea and made sure that it was not yet investigated in the literature, you can start conducting a systematic literature review. By doing this, you can find some other interesting insights from the work of others that you can synthesize in your own work to produce something novel and original.
2.2.2 Identify relevant literature
For your research project you will need to identify and collect previous relevant literature. It should involve a thorough search of the keywords in relevant databases and journals. Place emphasis on articles from high-ranking journals with significant numbers of citations. This will give you an indication of the most influential and important work in the field. Once you identify and collect the relevant literature for your topic, you will need to critically synthesize it in your literature review.
When you perform your literature review, consider theories that may inform your research question. For example, when studying physician behavior you may consider principal-agent theory.
2.2.3 Research question or literature review: the chicken or the egg problem?
Whether you start reading the literature first or by developing an idea may depend on your level (graduate student, early career researcher) and other goals. However, thinking freely about what you like to investigate first may help to critically develop a feasible and interesting research question.
We highlight an example how to start with investigating the real world and subsequently posing a research question ( “How to Write a Strong Hypothesis Steps and Examples ” 2019 ; “Developing Strong Research Questions Criteria and Examples ” 2019 ; Schilbach 2019 ) . For example, based on your observation you notice that people spend extensive amount of time looking at their smartphones. Maybe even you yourself engage in the same behavior. In addition, you read a BBC News article Social media damages teenagers’ mental health, report says .
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Social media and mental health](https://katblankart.github.io/images/Social_media.png)
(#fig:social_media)Social media and mental health
Source: BBC
You decide to translate this article and your observations into a research question : How does social media use affect mental health? Before you formulate your hypothesis, read up on the topic of interest. Read economic, medical and other social science literature on the topic. There is likely to be a vast amount of literature from non-economic fields that are doing research on your topic of interest, for example, psychology or neuroscience. Familiarize yourself with it and master it. Do not get distracted by different scientific methodologies and techniques that might seem not up-to-par to the economic studies (small sample sizes, endogeneity, uncovering association rather than causation, etc.), but rather focus on suggestions of potential mechanisms.
A hypothesis is then your research question distilled into a one sentence statement, which presents your expectations regarding the results. You propose to prove your hypothesis by testing the relationship between two variables of interest with the data at hand. There are two types of hypotheses: alternative or null. The null hypothesis states that there is no effect. The alternative hypothesis states that there is an effect.
A hypothesis related to the above-stated research question could be: The increased use of social media among teenagers leads to (is associated with) worse mental health outcomes, i.e. increased incidence of depression, eating disorders, worse well-being and lower self-esteem. It suggests a direction of a relationship that you expect to find that is guided by your observations and existing evidence. It is testable with scientific research methods by using statistical analysis of the relevant data.
Your hypothesis suggests a relationship between two variables: social media use (your independent variable \(X\) ) and mental health (dependent variable \(Y\) ). It could be framed in terms of correlation (is associated with) or causation (leads to). This should be reflected in the choice of scientific investigation you decide to undertake.
The null hypothesis is: There is no relationship between social media use among teenagers and their mental health .
2.3 Resources box
2.3.1 how to develop strong research questions.
- The form of the research process
- Varian, H. R. (2016). How to build an economic model in your spare time. The American Economist, 61(1), 81-90.
2.3.2 Identify relevant literature from major general interest and field literature
To identify the relevant literature you can
- use academic search engines such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, EconLit, PubMed.
- search working paper series such as the National Bureau of Economic Research , NetEc or IZA
- search more general resource sites such as Resources for Economists
- go to the library/use library database
2.3.3 Assess the quality of a journal article
Several rankings may help to assess the quality of research you consider
- Journals of general interest and by field in economics and management - For German-speaking countries, consider the VWL / BWL Handelsblatt Ranking for economics and management - The German Association of Management Scholars provides an expert-based ranking VHB JourQual 3.0, Teilranking Management im Gesundheitswesen - Web of Science Impact Factors - Scimago
- Health Economics, Health Services and Health Care Managment Research: Health Economics Journals List
- Be aware that like in any other domain there are predatory publishing practices .
Use tools to investigate how a journal article is connected to other works
- Citationgecko
- Connected papers
- scite_ – a tool to get a first impression whether a study is disputed or academic consensus
2.3.4 Organize your literature
- Zotero (free of charge)
- Mendeley (free of charge)
- EndNote (potentially free of charge via your university)
- Citavi (potentially free of charge via your university)
- BibTEX if you work with TEX
- Excel spread sheet
2.4 Checklist to get started with formulating your hypothesis
- Find an interesting and relevant research topic, if not assigned
- Try to suck up all information you can easily obtain from various sources within and outside academic literature
- Formulate one compelling research question
- Find the best available empirical and theoretical evidence that is related to your research question
- Formulate a hypothesis
- Check whether data are available for analysis
- Challenge your idea with your fellows or senior researchers
2.5 Example: Hellerstein ( 1998 )
As an illustration of the research process of formulating a hypothesis, designing a study, running a study, collecting and analyzing the data and, finally, reporting the study, we provide an example by replicating Judith K. Hellerstein’s paper “The Importance of the Physician in the Generic versus Trade-Name Prescription Decision” that was published in 1998 in the RAND Journal of Economics.
Hellerstein’s 1998 paper has impacted discussion about behavioral factors of physician decisions and pharmaceutical markets over two decades. The study received 448 citations on Google Scholar since 1998 by 27/03/2022, including recent mentions in top field journals such as Journal of Public Economics (2021) , Journal of Health Economics (2019) , and Health Economics (2019) .
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Connected graph of @hellerstein_importance_1998, February 2022](https://katblankart.github.io/images/Hellerstein-connected-papers.jpg)
Figure 2.1: Connected graph of Hellerstein ( 1998 ) , February 2022
Figure 2.1 shows a connected graph of prior and derivative works related to the study.
The work has impacted the literature researching the role of physician behavior and its influence on access, adoption and diffusion of health services, moral hazard and incentives in prescription and treatment decisions and the influence of different payment schemes, and a vast body of literature studying the pharmaceutical market.
The research that has been influenced by Hellerstein includes evidence on:
- generic drug entries and market efficiency
- the effectiveness of pharmaceutical promotion
- the effectiveness of price regulations
- the role of patents and dynamics of market segmentation
At the end of each chapter, we demonstrate insights into this study that we replicate.
2.5.1 Context of the study - escalating health expenditures
In the United States, the total prescription drug expenditure in 2020 marked about 358.7 billion US Dollars ( Statista n.d. ) . The prescription of generic drugs in comparison to more expensive brand-name versions is an option in reducing the total health care expenditure. Generic drugs are bioequivalent in the active ingredients and can serve as a channel to contain prescription expenditure ( Kesselheim 2008 ) as generic drugs are between 20 and 90% cheaper than their trade-name alternatives ( Dunne et al. 2013 ) .
2.5.2 Research question - How does a patient’s insurance status influence the physician’s choice between generic compared to brand-name drugs?
Physicians are faced with a multitude of medication options, including the choice between generic and trade-name drugs. Physicians ideally act as agents for their patients to identify the best available treatment option based on their needs. Choosing the best treatment entails cost of coordination and cognition. The prescription of generic drugs may serve as an example to what extent physicians customize treatments according to patients’ needs with regards to cost. From an economic point of view we may expect that once a generic drug is available, a perfectly rational agent (i.e. physician) would prescribe a generic drug instead of the trade-name version if therapeutically identical ( Dranove 1989 ) . This leads to the following research question: “Do physicians vary their prescription decisions on a patient-by-patient basis or do they systematically prescribe the same version, trade-name or generic, to all patients?” .
The 1998 Hellerstein’s study examines two hypotheses:
- The physician prescribing choice influences the selection of a generic over a brand-name drug
- The patient’s insurance status influences the physician’s choice between generic and brand-name drugs.
For the purpose of this example and in the replication exercise we focus on the second aspect.
2.5.3 Hypothesis
The paper formulates the following hypothesis:
Physicians are more likely to prescribe generics to patients who do not have insurance coverage for prescription pharmaceuticals (moral hazard in insurance)
Hellerstein ( 1998 ) discusses that, based on insurance status, some patients may demand certain care more than others. If, for example, the prescription drug is reimbursed by the patient’s health insurance, this may cause overconsumption. This behavior can potentially differ by the patient’s insurance scheme. A patient that has no insurance and, thus, does not get any reimbursement for prescription drugs, might have a higher incentive to demand cheaper generic drugs ( Danzon and Furukawa 2011 ) than a patient with insurance that covers prescription drugs, either generic or trade-name. Given that the United States have different insurance schemes with varying prescription drug coverage, it is of interest to investigate the role of a patient’s insurance status in the physician’s choice between generic compared to brand-name drugs.
Hellerstein ( 1998 ) considers a patient’s insurance status as a matter of dividing the study population in groups for which the choice between generic and brand-name drugs differs. She suggests that There is a relationship between the prescription of a generic drug and insurance status of a patient. ( Hellerstein 1998 ) .
Providing answers to a research question requires formulating and testing a hypothesis. Based on logic, theory or previous research, a hypothesis proposes an expected relationship within the given data. According to her research question, Hellerstein hypothesizes that: Physicians are more likely to prescribe generics to patients who do not have insurance coverage for prescription pharmaceuticals.
Specifically, she writes “if there is moral hazard in insurance when it comes to physician prescription behavior, there will be differences in the propensity of physicians to prescribe low-cost generic drugs, and these differences will be (partially) a function of the insurance held by the patient. In particular, if moral hazard exists, patients with extensive insurance coverage for prescription drugs (like those on Medicaid in 1989) should receive prescriptions written for generic drugs less frequently than patients with no prescription drug coverage.” ( Hellerstein 1998, 113 )
Based on Hellerstein’s considerations, we expect the effect of the insurance status on whether a patient receives a generic to be different from zero. To obtain a testable null hypothesis, we reformulate this relationship so that we reject the hypothesis if our expectations are correct. This means, if we expect to see an effect of insurance on prescriptions of generics, our null hypothesis is that insurance status has no effect on the outcome (prescription of generic drugs). No moral hazard arises from having obtained insurance.
- Thesis Action Plan New
- Academic Project Planner
Literature Navigator
Thesis dialogue blueprint, writing wizard's template, research proposal compass.
- Why students love us
- Rebels Blog
- Why we are different
- All Products
- Coming Soon
What Is Formulation of Hypothesis in Research? Key Concepts and Steps
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Researcher thinking with lightbulb and question mark](https://research-rebels.com/cdn/shop/articles/thumbnail_997d9452-2759-48e1-9849-6ae3f1964f52_1100x.jpg?v=1722613950)
Formulating a hypothesis is a crucial part of any research project. It acts like a roadmap, guiding the direction of the study. By making a prediction based on existing knowledge, researchers can design experiments and collect data to test their ideas. This article will explore the key concepts and steps involved in creating a solid hypothesis.
Key Takeaways
- A hypothesis is a prediction that guides the research process.
- Formulating a hypothesis helps focus data collection and analysis.
- Background research is essential for developing a good hypothesis.
- There are different types of hypotheses, like null and alternative.
- Ethical considerations are important when making a hypothesis.
Understanding the Concept of Hypothesis in Research
A hypothesis is a statement that predicts what you expect to find in your research. It is a testable statement that explains what is happening or observed. The hypothesis proposes the relationship between the various participating variables. In scientific research, a hypothesis must meet certain criteria to be considered acceptable. If a hypothesis is disregarded, the research may be rejected by the scientific community.
Importance of Hypothesis Formulation in Research
Guiding the research process.
Formulating a hypothesis is crucial as it guides the entire research process . It provides a clear direction and helps you stay focused on your research objectives. By having a hypothesis, you can systematically plan your study and ensure that every step is aligned with your research goals.
Providing a Focus for Data Collection
A well-defined hypothesis helps in determining what data needs to be collected. It acts as a blueprint, ensuring that you gather relevant information that directly addresses your research question. This focused approach not only saves time but also enhances the efficiency of your research.
Facilitating Data Analysis
When you have a hypothesis, it simplifies the data analysis process. You can use statistical methods to test your hypothesis and draw meaningful conclusions. This is particularly important in hypothesis testing , where you assess the validity of your assumptions based on the collected data.
Investigating Background Research
Reviewing existing literature.
Before you start your research, it's crucial to review existing literature . This step helps you understand what has already been studied and where there might be gaps. You can use various sources like books, academic journals, and online databases. Knowing how to find literature efficiently will save you time and effort.
Identifying Research Gaps
Once you've reviewed the literature, the next step is identifying research gaps . These are areas that haven't been explored yet or need further investigation. Recognizing these gaps can inspire focused and relevant research questions. Discussing your ideas with peers or mentors can also help refine your questions.
Formulating Research Questions
After identifying the gaps, you can start formulating your research questions . These questions should be specific and feasible. They will guide your entire research process, from data collection to analysis. A well-defined research question is the foundation of a strong research proposal .
Developing a Theoretical Framework
A [ theoretical framework provides the theoretical assumptions](https://resources.nu.edu/c.php?g=1109615&p=10328334) for the larger context of a study, and is the foundation or 'lens' by which a study is developed. It helps you understand the theories related to your research topic and integrate them into your hypothesis formulation. This framework must demonstrate an understanding of theories and concepts that are relevant to the topic of your research paper and that relate to your study's objectives. Creating an effective theoretical framework involves establishing a research design aligned with objectives , ensuring quality and rigor in data collection.
Steps in Formulating a Hypothesis
Formulating a hypothesis is a crucial step in the research process. It involves several key steps that help in shaping a clear and testable statement. Each step is essential for ensuring that your hypothesis is well-founded and researchable.
Identifying Variables
The first step in formulating a hypothesis is identifying the variables involved in your study. Variables are the elements that you will measure, manipulate, or control in your research. These can be classified into independent variables (which you manipulate) and dependent variables (which you measure). Understanding the difference between these variables is fundamental to demystifying research .
Establishing Relationships Between Variables
Once you have identified your variables, the next step is to establish the relationships between them. This involves determining how the independent variable might affect the dependent variable. This step is crucial for creating clear statements and focusing on specific research questions. It is important to distinguish and formulate clear objectives in research to ensure that your hypothesis is testable.
Predicting Outcomes
The final step in formulating a hypothesis is predicting the outcomes of your research. This involves making an educated guess about what you expect to happen during your experiment. This step is often referred to as stating your hypothesis . Your prediction should be based on existing literature and theoretical frameworks related to your research topic. This is crucial for informed decision-making in research and helps in designing experiments to test hypotheses effectively.
Types of Hypotheses in Research
When conducting research, you will encounter various types of hypotheses, each serving a unique purpose in guiding your investigation . Understanding these types will help you formulate your own hypotheses more effectively.
Testing the Hypothesis
Testing hypotheses is a crucial part of research. It’s where you see if your ideas hold up in the real world. Good clinical research starts from a plausible hypothesis supported by contemporary scientific knowledge that makes a testable prediction. Let's explore the main steps in hypothesis testing:
Common Challenges in Hypothesis Formulation
When formulating a hypothesis, it's crucial to remain objective. Bias can skew your results and lead to incorrect conclusions. To avoid this, challenge your assumptions and evaluate how likely they are to affect your decisions and actions .
Creating untestable hypotheses is a common pitfall. Hypotheses that can't be empirically tested, either due to abstract constructs or lack of measurement methods, pose significant challenges. Ensure all variables can be measured or manipulated with existing research methods.
Research often involves complex variables that can be difficult to define and measure. Clearly operationalize abstract concepts and consider the feasibility of empirical testing during the hypothesis formulation stage .
Examples of Hypotheses in Various Research Fields
Hypotheses in social sciences.
In social sciences, hypotheses often explore relationships between social behaviors and societal factors. For instance, a hypothesis might state that increased social media use leads to higher levels of anxiety among teenagers. This type of hypothesis helps in understanding complex social dynamics and can guide interventions.
Hypotheses in Natural Sciences
Natural sciences frequently use hypotheses to explain natural phenomena. For example, a hypothesis in biology might propose that [a specific gene affects flower color ](https://www.examples.com/english/hypothesis.html), predicting that altering this gene will change the flower's hue. Such hypotheses are crucial for advancing scientific knowledge and can lead to significant discoveries.
Hypotheses in Applied Sciences
In applied sciences, hypotheses are often practical and solution-oriented. An example could be hypothesizing that a new type of renewable energy source will reduce carbon emissions more effectively than current methods. These hypotheses drive innovation and can result in real-world applications that address pressing issues.
Ethical Considerations in Hypothesis Formulation
Ensuring integrity and honesty.
When formulating a hypothesis, it is crucial to maintain integrity and honesty . This means you should honestly report data, results, methods, and procedures . Avoid manipulating data to fit your hypothesis, as this compromises the validity of your research. Remember, both the question and the hypothesis should be formulated before the study is planned and should not be generated retrospectively based on data .
Avoiding Plagiarism
Plagiarism is a serious ethical violation in research. Always give proper credit to the original authors of the ideas and findings you use. This not only respects the intellectual property of others but also upholds the academic standards of your work. Ethical considerations in Ph.D. thesis research are essential for protecting participants' rights, maintaining integrity, and upholding academic standards .
Respecting Confidentiality
Respecting the confidentiality of your research participants is paramount. Ensure that personal information is kept secure and used only for the purposes of your study. This is especially important when dealing with sensitive data. Ethical considerations and unforeseen variables in experimental research emphasize integrity, transparency, and adaptability .
When forming a hypothesis, it's crucial to think about the ethical side of things. This means making sure your research is fair and honest. If you're a student struggling with this, don't worry! Our Thesis Action Plan can guide you through every step. Visit our website to learn more and get started today.
In summary, formulating a hypothesis is a crucial step in the research process. It involves investigating background research, developing a theory, and determining how to test it. This process helps researchers make predictions and guide their studies. By following these steps, researchers can create testable hypotheses that provide a clear direction for their work. Understanding how to formulate a hypothesis is essential for conducting effective and meaningful research.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the steps in formulating a hypothesis.
To form a hypothesis, researchers usually follow these steps: 1. Investigate background research in the area of interest. 2. Develop or examine a theory. 3. Decide how the theory will be tested and predict what the researcher expects to find based on previous studies.
Why is formulating a hypothesis important in research?
Formulating a hypothesis is crucial because it guides the research process, provides a focus for data collection, and makes it easier to analyze data.
What is a hypothesis in research?
A hypothesis is a predictive statement about what the researcher expects to find when testing the research question. It is based on background research and theories.
What are the characteristics of a good hypothesis?
A good hypothesis should be clear, testable, and based on existing theories or knowledge. It should also be specific and focused on a particular relationship between variables.
What are the different types of hypotheses in research?
There are several types of hypotheses, including null hypotheses, alternative hypotheses, and directional vs. non-directional hypotheses.
How do researchers test a hypothesis?
Researchers test a hypothesis by designing experiments, collecting data, and analyzing the results to see if they support the hypothesis.
What challenges do researchers face when formulating a hypothesis?
Common challenges include avoiding bias, ensuring the hypothesis is testable, and dealing with complex variables.
What ethical considerations are involved in formulating a hypothesis?
Researchers must ensure integrity and honesty, avoid plagiarism, and respect confidentiality when formulating a hypothesis.
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Student using laptop for dissertation writing tools](https://research-rebels.com/cdn/shop/articles/thumbnail_10608161-9764-4f1d-b8fd-86607d64f00c_360x.jpg?v=1722613950)
Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics: A Fun and Informative Guide
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Unlocking the Power of Data: A Review of 'Essentials of Modern Business Statistics with Microsoft Excel'](https://research-rebels.com/cdn/shop/articles/6112DAbMK1L._AC_US60_SCLZZZZZZZ_533x.jpg?v=1723659142)
![](http://nandemo.space/777/templates/cheerup1/res/banner1.gif)
Unlocking the Power of Data: A Review of 'Essentials of Modern Business Statistics with Microsoft Excel'
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Discovering Statistics Using SAS: A Comprehensive Review](https://research-rebels.com/cdn/shop/articles/41OC7cMqg9L._SX342_SY445_533x.jpg?v=1723659141)
Discovering Statistics Using SAS: A Comprehensive Review
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Trending Topics for Your Thesis: What's Hot in 2024](https://research-rebels.com/cdn/shop/articles/Research_Rebels_48_efc52879-9ca2-4812-aaba-1782fe218b31_533x.png?v=1725345531)
Trending Topics for Your Thesis: What's Hot in 2024
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies How to Deal with a Total Lack of Motivation, Stress, and Anxiety When Finishing Your Master's Thesis](https://research-rebels.com/cdn/shop/articles/Research_Rebels_49_533x.png?v=1724664573)
How to Deal with a Total Lack of Motivation, Stress, and Anxiety When Finishing Your Master's Thesis
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Confident student with laptop and colorful books](https://research-rebels.com/cdn/shop/articles/Research_Rebels_48_954653aa-b6d9-4260-b575-d70971f39b05_533x.png?v=1724663743)
Mastering the First Step: How to Start Your Thesis with Confidence
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Thesis Action Plan](https://research-rebels.com/cdn/shop/files/Product_view_1_f50ecbc0-d8f5-4f21-ae3b-8599d4fc7fd5_533x.jpg?v=1724870279)
Thesis Action Plan
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Research Proposal Compass](https://research-rebels.com/cdn/shop/files/ResearchProposalCompass_533x.jpg?v=1700604199)
- Blog Articles
- Affiliate Program
- Terms and Conditions
- Payment and Shipping Terms
- Privacy Policy
- Return Policy
© 2024 Research Rebels, All rights reserved.
Your cart is currently empty.
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies paper cover thumbnail](https://0.academia-photos.com/attachment_thumbnails/117919136/mini_magick20240903-1-dh2tlp.png?1725347407)
How to Formulate a Research Question, Hypothesis and Objective for a Clinical Study?
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Profile image of Sada N Dwivedi](https://0.academia-photos.com/49301839/12970014/14333170/s65_sada.dwivedi.jpg)
2023, Central India Journal of Medical Research
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
RELATED TOPICS
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
- Find new research papers in:
- Health Sciences
- Earth Sciences
- Cognitive Science
- Mathematics
- Computer Science
- Academia ©2024
Formulating the Research Question and Framing the Hypothesis
- Respiratory Care 68(8):respcare.10975
- 68(8):respcare.10975
- This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Discover the world's research
- 25+ million members
- 160+ million publication pages
- 2.3+ billion citations
No full-text available
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Request Full-text Paper PDF](https://www.researchgate.net/images/symbols/publication/publication_pdf_icon.png)
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Carlos Manterola](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/654428315078657-1533039277516_Q64/Carlos-Manterola-2.jpg)
- Dave Walton
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Ruby Grewal](https://c5.rgstatic.net/m/4671872220764/images/template/default/profile/profile_default_m.jpg)
- Alba Gilabert-Cerdá
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Andrew G Miller](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/292087573565441-1446650512344_Q64/Andrew-Miller-84.jpg)
- Ramandeep Kaur
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Jie Li](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/955990899949569-1604937400858_Q64/Jie-Li-230.jpg)
- Fazal Raheman
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Josep M Garcia-Alamino](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/758584660983808-1557872085113_Q64/Josep-M-Garcia-Alamino.jpg)
- L Denise Willis
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Lynda Goodfellow](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/336984649289730-1457354809640_Q64/Lynda-Goodfellow.jpg)
- Thomas C Blakeman
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies J. Brady Scott](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/1149238763368449-1651011281499_Q64/J-Scott-5.jpg)
- Mark A Yoder
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Shawna L Strickland](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/277773798133760-1443237842029_Q64/Shawna-Strickland.jpg)
- Sara W Parker
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Kathleen Deakins](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/11431281244659458-1715973154068_Q64/Kathleen-Deakins.jpg)
- Bradley A. Petrisor
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Forough Farrokhyar](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/1165044083630081-1654779563158_Q64/Forough-Farrokhyar.jpg)
- Mohit Bhandari
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Jonathon Timothy Newton](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/272363837194243-1441948007079_Q64/Jonathon-Newton.jpg)
- Dana L Evans
- Emily Capellari
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Beverly Spray](https://c5.rgstatic.net/m/4671872220764/images/template/default/profile/profile_default_m.jpg)
- Emme Edmondson
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Supriya Jambhekar](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/705567987363842-1545231925636_Q64/Supriya-Jambhekar-2.jpg)
- Michael D Wilson
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies John D Davies](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/277534425010179-1443180771584_Q64/John-Davies-10.jpg)
- Neil R MacIntyre
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Owen Doody](https://c5.rgstatic.net/m/4671872220764/images/template/default/profile/profile_default_m.jpg)
- Nurs Stand Spec Suppl
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Leslie Gelling](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/272451154214960-1441968825989_Q64/Leslie-Gelling.jpg)
- SOUTH MED J
- Nouansy K Wilton
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Ahmad M. Slim](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/330152681721856-1455725941224_Q64/Ahmad-Slim-2.jpg)
- AM J HEALTH-SYST PH
- Earlene E. Lipowski
- W. Scott Richardson
- J Nishikawa
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Robert S Hayward](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/279064049930269-1443545462612_Q64/Robert-Hayward-5.jpg)
- D J Pierson
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Richard Branson](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/323613918466049-1454166978582_Q64/Richard-Branson.jpg)
- Charles G Durbin
- J WOUND OSTOMY CONT
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Janice M Beitz](https://i1.rgstatic.net/ii/profile.image/272775046758410-1442046047689_Q64/Janice-Beitz.jpg)
- Recruit researchers
- Join for free
- Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up
Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies U.S. flag](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/coreutils/uswds/img/favicons/favicon-57.png)
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.
- Publications
- Account settings
- Browse Titles
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies Cover of StatPearls](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corehtml/pmc/pmcgifs/bookshelf/thumbs/th-statpearls-lrg.png)
StatPearls [Internet].
Hypothesis testing, p values, confidence intervals, and significance.
Jacob Shreffler ; Martin R. Huecker .
Affiliations
Last Update: March 13, 2023 .
- Definition/Introduction
Medical providers often rely on evidence-based medicine to guide decision-making in practice. Often a research hypothesis is tested with results provided, typically with p values, confidence intervals, or both. Additionally, statistical or research significance is estimated or determined by the investigators. Unfortunately, healthcare providers may have different comfort levels in interpreting these findings, which may affect the adequate application of the data.
- Issues of Concern
Without a foundational understanding of hypothesis testing, p values, confidence intervals, and the difference between statistical and clinical significance, it may affect healthcare providers' ability to make clinical decisions without relying purely on the research investigators deemed level of significance. Therefore, an overview of these concepts is provided to allow medical professionals to use their expertise to determine if results are reported sufficiently and if the study outcomes are clinically appropriate to be applied in healthcare practice.
Hypothesis Testing
Investigators conducting studies need research questions and hypotheses to guide analyses. Starting with broad research questions (RQs), investigators then identify a gap in current clinical practice or research. Any research problem or statement is grounded in a better understanding of relationships between two or more variables. For this article, we will use the following research question example:
Research Question: Is Drug 23 an effective treatment for Disease A?
Research questions do not directly imply specific guesses or predictions; we must formulate research hypotheses. A hypothesis is a predetermined declaration regarding the research question in which the investigator(s) makes a precise, educated guess about a study outcome. This is sometimes called the alternative hypothesis and ultimately allows the researcher to take a stance based on experience or insight from medical literature. An example of a hypothesis is below.
Research Hypothesis: Drug 23 will significantly reduce symptoms associated with Disease A compared to Drug 22.
The null hypothesis states that there is no statistical difference between groups based on the stated research hypothesis.
Researchers should be aware of journal recommendations when considering how to report p values, and manuscripts should remain internally consistent.
Regarding p values, as the number of individuals enrolled in a study (the sample size) increases, the likelihood of finding a statistically significant effect increases. With very large sample sizes, the p-value can be very low significant differences in the reduction of symptoms for Disease A between Drug 23 and Drug 22. The null hypothesis is deemed true until a study presents significant data to support rejecting the null hypothesis. Based on the results, the investigators will either reject the null hypothesis (if they found significant differences or associations) or fail to reject the null hypothesis (they could not provide proof that there were significant differences or associations).
To test a hypothesis, researchers obtain data on a representative sample to determine whether to reject or fail to reject a null hypothesis. In most research studies, it is not feasible to obtain data for an entire population. Using a sampling procedure allows for statistical inference, though this involves a certain possibility of error. [1] When determining whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis, mistakes can be made: Type I and Type II errors. Though it is impossible to ensure that these errors have not occurred, researchers should limit the possibilities of these faults. [2]
Significance
Significance is a term to describe the substantive importance of medical research. Statistical significance is the likelihood of results due to chance. [3] Healthcare providers should always delineate statistical significance from clinical significance, a common error when reviewing biomedical research. [4] When conceptualizing findings reported as either significant or not significant, healthcare providers should not simply accept researchers' results or conclusions without considering the clinical significance. Healthcare professionals should consider the clinical importance of findings and understand both p values and confidence intervals so they do not have to rely on the researchers to determine the level of significance. [5] One criterion often used to determine statistical significance is the utilization of p values.
P values are used in research to determine whether the sample estimate is significantly different from a hypothesized value. The p-value is the probability that the observed effect within the study would have occurred by chance if, in reality, there was no true effect. Conventionally, data yielding a p<0.05 or p<0.01 is considered statistically significant. While some have debated that the 0.05 level should be lowered, it is still universally practiced. [6] Hypothesis testing allows us to determine the size of the effect.
An example of findings reported with p values are below:
Statement: Drug 23 reduced patients' symptoms compared to Drug 22. Patients who received Drug 23 (n=100) were 2.1 times less likely than patients who received Drug 22 (n = 100) to experience symptoms of Disease A, p<0.05.
Statement:Individuals who were prescribed Drug 23 experienced fewer symptoms (M = 1.3, SD = 0.7) compared to individuals who were prescribed Drug 22 (M = 5.3, SD = 1.9). This finding was statistically significant, p= 0.02.
For either statement, if the threshold had been set at 0.05, the null hypothesis (that there was no relationship) should be rejected, and we should conclude significant differences. Noticeably, as can be seen in the two statements above, some researchers will report findings with < or > and others will provide an exact p-value (0.000001) but never zero [6] . When examining research, readers should understand how p values are reported. The best practice is to report all p values for all variables within a study design, rather than only providing p values for variables with significant findings. [7] The inclusion of all p values provides evidence for study validity and limits suspicion for selective reporting/data mining.
While researchers have historically used p values, experts who find p values problematic encourage the use of confidence intervals. [8] . P-values alone do not allow us to understand the size or the extent of the differences or associations. [3] In March 2016, the American Statistical Association (ASA) released a statement on p values, noting that scientific decision-making and conclusions should not be based on a fixed p-value threshold (e.g., 0.05). They recommend focusing on the significance of results in the context of study design, quality of measurements, and validity of data. Ultimately, the ASA statement noted that in isolation, a p-value does not provide strong evidence. [9]
When conceptualizing clinical work, healthcare professionals should consider p values with a concurrent appraisal study design validity. For example, a p-value from a double-blinded randomized clinical trial (designed to minimize bias) should be weighted higher than one from a retrospective observational study [7] . The p-value debate has smoldered since the 1950s [10] , and replacement with confidence intervals has been suggested since the 1980s. [11]
Confidence Intervals
A confidence interval provides a range of values within given confidence (e.g., 95%), including the accurate value of the statistical constraint within a targeted population. [12] Most research uses a 95% CI, but investigators can set any level (e.g., 90% CI, 99% CI). [13] A CI provides a range with the lower bound and upper bound limits of a difference or association that would be plausible for a population. [14] Therefore, a CI of 95% indicates that if a study were to be carried out 100 times, the range would contain the true value in 95, [15] confidence intervals provide more evidence regarding the precision of an estimate compared to p-values. [6]
In consideration of the similar research example provided above, one could make the following statement with 95% CI:
Statement: Individuals who were prescribed Drug 23 had no symptoms after three days, which was significantly faster than those prescribed Drug 22; there was a mean difference between the two groups of days to the recovery of 4.2 days (95% CI: 1.9 – 7.8).
It is important to note that the width of the CI is affected by the standard error and the sample size; reducing a study sample number will result in less precision of the CI (increase the width). [14] A larger width indicates a smaller sample size or a larger variability. [16] A researcher would want to increase the precision of the CI. For example, a 95% CI of 1.43 – 1.47 is much more precise than the one provided in the example above. In research and clinical practice, CIs provide valuable information on whether the interval includes or excludes any clinically significant values. [14]
Null values are sometimes used for differences with CI (zero for differential comparisons and 1 for ratios). However, CIs provide more information than that. [15] Consider this example: A hospital implements a new protocol that reduced wait time for patients in the emergency department by an average of 25 minutes (95% CI: -2.5 – 41 minutes). Because the range crosses zero, implementing this protocol in different populations could result in longer wait times; however, the range is much higher on the positive side. Thus, while the p-value used to detect statistical significance for this may result in "not significant" findings, individuals should examine this range, consider the study design, and weigh whether or not it is still worth piloting in their workplace.
Similarly to p-values, 95% CIs cannot control for researchers' errors (e.g., study bias or improper data analysis). [14] In consideration of whether to report p-values or CIs, researchers should examine journal preferences. When in doubt, reporting both may be beneficial. [13] An example is below:
Reporting both: Individuals who were prescribed Drug 23 had no symptoms after three days, which was significantly faster than those prescribed Drug 22, p = 0.009. There was a mean difference between the two groups of days to the recovery of 4.2 days (95% CI: 1.9 – 7.8).
- Clinical Significance
Recall that clinical significance and statistical significance are two different concepts. Healthcare providers should remember that a study with statistically significant differences and large sample size may be of no interest to clinicians, whereas a study with smaller sample size and statistically non-significant results could impact clinical practice. [14] Additionally, as previously mentioned, a non-significant finding may reflect the study design itself rather than relationships between variables.
Healthcare providers using evidence-based medicine to inform practice should use clinical judgment to determine the practical importance of studies through careful evaluation of the design, sample size, power, likelihood of type I and type II errors, data analysis, and reporting of statistical findings (p values, 95% CI or both). [4] Interestingly, some experts have called for "statistically significant" or "not significant" to be excluded from work as statistical significance never has and will never be equivalent to clinical significance. [17]
The decision on what is clinically significant can be challenging, depending on the providers' experience and especially the severity of the disease. Providers should use their knowledge and experiences to determine the meaningfulness of study results and make inferences based not only on significant or insignificant results by researchers but through their understanding of study limitations and practical implications.
- Nursing, Allied Health, and Interprofessional Team Interventions
All physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals should strive to understand the concepts in this chapter. These individuals should maintain the ability to review and incorporate new literature for evidence-based and safe care.
- Review Questions
- Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
- Comment on this article.
Disclosure: Jacob Shreffler declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.
Disclosure: Martin Huecker declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.
This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.
- Cite this Page Shreffler J, Huecker MR. Hypothesis Testing, P Values, Confidence Intervals, and Significance. [Updated 2023 Mar 13]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.
In this Page
Bulk download.
- Bulk download StatPearls data from FTP
Related information
- PMC PubMed Central citations
- PubMed Links to PubMed
Similar articles in PubMed
- The reporting of p values, confidence intervals and statistical significance in Preventive Veterinary Medicine (1997-2017). [PeerJ. 2021] The reporting of p values, confidence intervals and statistical significance in Preventive Veterinary Medicine (1997-2017). Messam LLM, Weng HY, Rosenberger NWY, Tan ZH, Payet SDM, Santbakshsing M. PeerJ. 2021; 9:e12453. Epub 2021 Nov 24.
- Review Clinical versus statistical significance: interpreting P values and confidence intervals related to measures of association to guide decision making. [J Pharm Pract. 2010] Review Clinical versus statistical significance: interpreting P values and confidence intervals related to measures of association to guide decision making. Ferrill MJ, Brown DA, Kyle JA. J Pharm Pract. 2010 Aug; 23(4):344-51. Epub 2010 Apr 13.
- Interpreting "statistical hypothesis testing" results in clinical research. [J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2012] Interpreting "statistical hypothesis testing" results in clinical research. Sarmukaddam SB. J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2012 Apr; 3(2):65-9.
- Confidence intervals in procedural dermatology: an intuitive approach to interpreting data. [Dermatol Surg. 2005] Confidence intervals in procedural dermatology: an intuitive approach to interpreting data. Alam M, Barzilai DA, Wrone DA. Dermatol Surg. 2005 Apr; 31(4):462-6.
- Review Is statistical significance testing useful in interpreting data? [Reprod Toxicol. 1993] Review Is statistical significance testing useful in interpreting data? Savitz DA. Reprod Toxicol. 1993; 7(2):95-100.
Recent Activity
- Hypothesis Testing, P Values, Confidence Intervals, and Significance - StatPearl... Hypothesis Testing, P Values, Confidence Intervals, and Significance - StatPearls
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
Turn recording back on
Connect with NLM
National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894
Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure
Help Accessibility Careers
How Do You Formulate (Important) Hypotheses?
- Open Access
- First Online: 03 December 2022
Cite this chapter
You have full access to this open access chapter
- James Hiebert 6 ,
- Jinfa Cai 7 ,
- Stephen Hwang 7 ,
- Anne K Morris 6 &
- Charles Hohensee 6
Part of the book series: Research in Mathematics Education ((RME))
12k Accesses
Building on the ideas in Chap. 1, we describe formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses as a continuing cycle of clarifying what you want to study, making predictions about what you might find together with developing your reasons for these predictions, imagining tests of these predictions, revising your predictions and rationales, and so on. Many resources feed this process, including reading what others have found about similar phenomena, talking with colleagues, conducting pilot studies, and writing drafts as you revise your thinking. Although you might think you cannot predict what you will find, it is always possible—with enough reading and conversations and pilot studies—to make some good guesses. And, once you guess what you will find and write out the reasons for these guesses you are on your way to scientific inquiry. As you refine your hypotheses, you can assess their research importance by asking how connected they are to problems your research community really wants to solve.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Part I. Getting Started
We want to begin by addressing a question you might have had as you read the title of this chapter. You are likely to hear, or read in other sources, that the research process begins by asking research questions . For reasons we gave in Chap. 1 , and more we will describe in this and later chapters, we emphasize formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses. However, it is important to know that asking and answering research questions involve many of the same activities, so we are not describing a completely different process.
We acknowledge that many researchers do not actually begin by formulating hypotheses. In other words, researchers rarely get a researchable idea by writing out a well-formulated hypothesis. Instead, their initial ideas for what they study come from a variety of sources. Then, after they have the idea for a study, they do lots of background reading and thinking and talking before they are ready to formulate a hypothesis. So, for readers who are at the very beginning and do not yet have an idea for a study, let’s back up. Where do research ideas come from?
There are no formulas or algorithms that spawn a researchable idea. But as you begin the process, you can ask yourself some questions. Your answers to these questions can help you move forward.
What are you curious about? What are you passionate about? What have you wondered about as an educator? These are questions that look inward, questions about yourself.
What do you think are the most pressing educational problems? Which problems are you in the best position to address? What change(s) do you think would help all students learn more productively? These are questions that look outward, questions about phenomena you have observed.
What are the main areas of research in the field? What are the big questions that are being asked? These are questions about the general landscape of the field.
What have you read about in the research literature that caught your attention? What have you read that prompted you to think about extending the profession’s knowledge about this? What have you read that made you ask, “I wonder why this is true?” These are questions about how you can build on what is known in the field.
What are some research questions or testable hypotheses that have been identified by other researchers for future research? This, too, is a question about how you can build on what is known in the field. Taking up such questions or hypotheses can help by providing some existing scaffolding that others have constructed.
What research is being done by your immediate colleagues or your advisor that is of interest to you? These are questions about topics for which you will likely receive local support.
Exercise 2.1
Brainstorm some answers for each set of questions. Record them. Then step back and look at the places of intersection. Did you have similar answers across several questions? Write out, as clearly as you can, the topic that captures your primary interest, at least at this point. We will give you a chance to update your responses as you study this book.
Part II. Paths from a General Interest to an Informed Hypothesis
There are many different paths you might take from conceiving an idea for a study, maybe even a vague idea, to formulating a prediction that leads to an informed hypothesis that can be tested. We will explore some of the paths we recommend.
We will assume you have completed Exercise 2.1 in Part I and have some written answers to the six questions that preceded it as well as a statement that describes your topic of interest. This very first statement could take several different forms: a description of a problem you want to study, a question you want to address, or a hypothesis you want to test. We recommend that you begin with one of these three forms, the one that makes most sense to you. There is an advantage to using all three and flexibly choosing the one that is most meaningful at the time and for a particular study. You can then move from one to the other as you think more about your research study and you develop your initial idea. To get a sense of how the process might unfold, consider the following alternative paths.
Beginning with a Prediction If You Have One
Sometimes, when you notice an educational problem or have a question about an educational situation or phenomenon, you quickly have an idea that might help solve the problem or answer the question. Here are three examples.
You are a teacher, and you noticed a problem with the way the textbook presented two related concepts in two consecutive lessons. Almost as soon as you noticed the problem, it occurred to you that the two lessons could be taught more effectively in the reverse order. You predicted better outcomes if the order was reversed, and you even had a preliminary rationale for why this would be true.
You are a graduate student and you read that students often misunderstand a particular aspect of graphing linear functions. You predicted that, by listening to small groups of students working together, you could hear new details that would help you understand this misconception.
You are a curriculum supervisor and you observed sixth-grade classrooms where students were learning about decimal fractions. After talking with several experienced teachers, you predicted that beginning with percentages might be a good way to introduce students to decimal fractions.
We begin with the path of making predictions because we see the other two paths as leading into this one at some point in the process (see Fig. 2.1 ). Starting with this path does not mean you did not sense a problem you wanted to solve or a question you wanted to answer.
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies The process flow diagram of initiation of hypothesis. It starts with a problem situation and leads to a prediction following the question to the hypothesis.](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-031-19078-0_2/MediaObjects/535452_1_En_2_Fig1_HTML.png)
Three Pathways to Formulating Informed Hypotheses
Notice that your predictions can come from a variety of sources—your own experience, reading, and talking with colleagues. Most likely, as you write out your predictions you also think about the educational problem for which your prediction is a potential solution. Writing a clear description of the problem will be useful as you proceed. Notice also that it is easy to change each of your predictions into a question. When you formulate a prediction, you are actually answering a question, even though the question might be implicit. Making that implicit question explicit can generate a first draft of the research question that accompanies your prediction. For example, suppose you are the curriculum supervisor who predicts that teaching percentages first would be a good way to introduce decimal fractions. In an obvious shift in form, you could ask, “In what ways would teaching percentages benefit students’ initial learning of decimal fractions?”
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies The picture has a difference between a question and a prediction: a question simply asks what you will find whereas a prediction also says what you expect to find; written.](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-031-19078-0_2/MediaObjects/535452_1_En_2_Figa_HTML.png)
There are advantages to starting with the prediction form if you can make an educated guess about what you will find. Making a prediction forces you to think now about several things you will need to think about at some point anyway. It is better to think about them earlier rather than later. If you state your prediction clearly and explicitly, you can begin to ask yourself three questions about your prediction: Why do I expect to observe what I am predicting? Why did I make that prediction? (These two questions essentially ask what your rationale is for your prediction.) And, how can I test to see if it’s right? This is where the benefits of making predictions begin.
Asking yourself why you predicted what you did, and then asking yourself why you answered the first “why” question as you did, can be a powerful chain of thought that lays the groundwork for an increasingly accurate prediction and an increasingly well-reasoned rationale. For example, suppose you are the curriculum supervisor above who predicted that beginning by teaching percentages would be a good way to introduce students to decimal fractions. Why did you make this prediction? Maybe because students are familiar with percentages in everyday life so they could use what they know to anchor their thinking about hundredths. Why would that be helpful? Because if students could connect hundredths in percentage form with hundredths in decimal fraction form, they could bring their meaning of percentages into decimal fractions. But how would that help? If students understood that a decimal fraction like 0.35 meant 35 of 100, then they could use their understanding of hundredths to explore the meaning of tenths, thousandths, and so on. Why would that be useful? By continuing to ask yourself why you gave the previous answer, you can begin building your rationale and, as you build your rationale, you will find yourself revisiting your prediction, often making it more precise and explicit. If you were the curriculum supervisor and continued the reasoning in the previous sentences, you might elaborate your prediction by specifying the way in which percentages should be taught in order to have a positive effect on particular aspects of students’ understanding of decimal fractions.
Developing a Rationale for Your Predictions
Keeping your initial predictions in mind, you can read what others already know about the phenomenon. Your reading can now become targeted with a clear purpose.
|
|
By reading and talking with colleagues, you can develop more complete reasons for your predictions. It is likely that you will also decide to revise your predictions based on what you learn from your reading. As you develop sound reasons for your predictions, you are creating your rationales, and your predictions together with your rationales become your hypotheses. The more you learn about what is already known about your research topic, the more refined will be your predictions and the clearer and more complete your rationales. We will use the term more informed hypotheses to describe this evolution of your hypotheses.
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies The picture says you develop sound reasons for your predictions, you are creating your rationales, and your predictions together with your rationales become your hypotheses.](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-031-19078-0_2/MediaObjects/535452_1_En_2_Figc_HTML.png)
Developing more informed hypotheses is a good thing because it means: (1) you understand the reasons for your predictions; (2) you will be able to imagine how you can test your hypotheses; (3) you can more easily convince your colleagues that they are important hypotheses—they are hypotheses worth testing; and (4) at the end of your study, you will be able to more easily interpret the results of your test and to revise your hypotheses to demonstrate what you have learned by conducting the study.
Imagining Testing Your Hypotheses
Because we have tied together predictions and rationales to constitute hypotheses, testing hypotheses means testing predictions and rationales. Testing predictions means comparing empirical observations, or findings, with the predictions. Testing rationales means using these comparisons to evaluate the adequacy or soundness of the rationales.
Imagining how you might test your hypotheses does not mean working out the details for exactly how you would test them. Rather, it means thinking ahead about how you could do this. Recall the descriptor of scientific inquiry: “experience carefully planned in advance” (Fisher, 1935). Asking whether predictions are testable and whether rationales can be evaluated is simply planning in advance.
You might read that testing hypotheses means simply assessing whether predictions are correct or incorrect. In our view, it is more useful to think of testing as a means of gathering enough information to compare your findings with your predictions, revise your rationales, and propose more accurate predictions. So, asking yourself whether hypotheses can be tested means asking whether information could be collected to assess the accuracy of your predictions and whether the information will show you how to revise your rationales to sharpen your predictions.
Cycles of Building Rationales and Planning to Test Your Predictions
Scientific reasoning is a dialogue between the possible and the actual, an interplay between hypotheses and the logical expectations they give rise to: there is a restless to-and-fro motion of thought, the formulation and rectification of hypotheses (Medawar, 1982 , p.72).
As you ask yourself about how you could test your predictions, you will inevitably revise your rationales and sharpen your predictions. Your hypotheses will become more informed, more targeted, and more explicit. They will make clearer to you and others what, exactly, you plan to study.
When will you know that your hypotheses are clear and precise enough? Because of the way we define hypotheses, this question asks about both rationales and predictions. If a rationale you are building lets you make a number of quite different predictions that are equally plausible rather than a single, primary prediction, then your hypothesis needs further refinement by building a more complete and precise rationale. Also, if you cannot briefly describe to your colleagues a believable way to test your prediction, then you need to phrase it more clearly and precisely.
Each time you strengthen your rationales, you might need to adjust your predictions. And, each time you clarify your predictions, you might need to adjust your rationales. The cycle of going back and forth to keep your predictions and rationales tightly aligned has many payoffs down the road. Every decision you make from this point on will be in the interests of providing a transparent and convincing test of your hypotheses and explaining how the results of your test dictate specific revisions to your hypotheses. As you make these decisions (described in the succeeding chapters), you will probably return to clarify your hypotheses even further. But, you will be in a much better position, at each point, if you begin with well-informed hypotheses.
Beginning by Asking Questions to Clarify Your Interests
Instead of starting with predictions, a second path you might take devotes more time at the beginning to asking questions as you zero in on what you want to study. Some researchers suggest you start this way (e.g., Gournelos et al., 2019 ). Specifically, with this second path, the first statement you write to express your research interest would be a question. For example, you might ask, “Why do ninth-grade students change the way they think about linear equations after studying quadratic equations?” or “How do first graders solve simple arithmetic problems before they have been taught to add and subtract?”
The first phrasing of your question might be quite general or vague. As you think about your question and what you really want to know, you are likely to ask follow-up questions. These questions will almost always be more specific than your first question. The questions will also express more clearly what you want to know. So, the question “How do first graders solve simple arithmetic problems before they have been taught to add and subtract” might evolve into “Before first graders have been taught to solve arithmetic problems, what strategies do they use to solve arithmetic problems with sums and products below 20?” As you read and learn about what others already know about your questions, you will continually revise your questions toward clearer and more explicit and more precise versions that zero in on what you really want to know. The question above might become, “Before they are taught to solve arithmetic problems, what strategies do beginning first graders use to solve arithmetic problems with sums and products below 20 if they are read story problems and given physical counters to help them keep track of the quantities?”
Imagining Answers to Your Questions
If you monitor your own thinking as you ask questions, you are likely to begin forming some guesses about answers, even to the early versions of the questions. What do students learn about quadratic functions that influences changes in their proportional reasoning when dealing with linear functions? It could be that if you analyze the moments during instruction on quadratic equations that are extensions of the proportional reasoning involved in solving linear equations, there are times when students receive further experience reasoning proportionally. You might predict that these are the experiences that have a “backward transfer” effect (Hohensee, 2014 ).
These initial guesses about answers to your questions are your first predictions. The first predicted answers are likely to be hunches or fuzzy, vague guesses. This simply means you do not know very much yet about the question you are asking. Your first predictions, no matter how unfocused or tentative, represent the most you know at the time about the question you are asking. They help you gauge where you are in your thinking.
Shifting to the Hypothesis Formulation and Testing Path
Research questions can play an important role in the research process. They provide a succinct way of capturing your research interests and communicating them to others. When colleagues want to know about your work, they will often ask “What are your research questions?” It is good to have a ready answer.
However, research questions have limitations. They do not capture the three images of scientific inquiry presented in Chap. 1 . Due, in part, to this less expansive depiction of the process, research questions do not take you very far. They do not provide a guide that leads you through the phases of conducting a study.
Consequently, when you can imagine an answer to your research question, we recommend that you move onto the hypothesis formulation and testing path. Imagining an answer to your question means you can make plausible predictions. You can now begin clarifying the reasons for your predictions and transform your early predictions into hypotheses (predictions along with rationales). We recommend you do this as soon as you have guesses about the answers to your questions because formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses offers a tool that puts you squarely on the path of scientific inquiry. It is a tool that can guide you through the entire process of conducting a research study.
This does not mean you are finished asking questions. Predictions are often created as answers to questions. So, we encourage you to continue asking questions to clarify what you want to know. But your target shifts from only asking questions to also proposing predictions for the answers and developing reasons the answers will be accurate predictions. It is by predicting answers, and explaining why you made those predictions, that you become engaged in scientific inquiry.
Cycles of Refining Questions and Predicting Answers
An example might provide a sense of how this process plays out. Suppose you are reading about Vygotsky’s ( 1987 ) zone of proximal development (ZPD), and you realize this concept might help you understand why your high school students had trouble learning exponential functions. Maybe they were outside this zone when you tried to teach exponential functions. In order to recognize students who would benefit from instruction, you might ask, “How can I identify students who are within the ZPD around exponential functions?” What would you predict? Maybe students in this ZPD are those who already had knowledge of related functions. You could write out some reasons for this prediction, like “students who understand linear and quadratic functions are more likely to extend their knowledge to exponential functions.” But what kind of data would you need to test this? What would count as “understanding”? Are linear and quadratic the functions you should assess? Even if they are, how could you tell whether students who scored well on tests of linear and quadratic functions were within the ZPD of exponential functions? How, in the end, would you measure what it means to be in this ZPD? So, asking a series of reasonable questions raised some red flags about the way your initial question was phrased, and you decide to revise it.
You set the stage for revising your question by defining ZPD as the zone within which students can solve an exponential function problem by making only one additional conceptual connection between what they already know and exponential functions. Your revised question is, “Based on students’ knowledge of linear and quadratic functions, which students are within the ZPD of exponential functions?” This time you know what kind of data you need: the number of conceptual connections students need to bridge from their knowledge of related functions to exponential functions. How can you collect these data? Would you need to see into the minds of the students? Or, are there ways to test the number of conceptual connections someone makes to move from one topic to another? Do methods exist for gathering these data? You decide this is not realistic, so you now have a choice: revise the question further or move your research in a different direction.
Notice that we do not use the term research question for all these early versions of questions that begin clarifying for yourself what you want to study. These early versions are too vague and general to be called research questions. In this book, we save the term research question for a question that comes near the end of the work and captures exactly what you want to study . By the time you are ready to specify a research question, you will be thinking about your study in terms of hypotheses and tests. When your hypotheses are in final form and include clear predictions about what you will find, it will be easy to state the research questions that accompany your predictions.
To reiterate one of the key points of this chapter: hypotheses carry much more information than research questions. Using our definition, hypotheses include predictions about what the answer might be to the question plus reasons for why you think so. Unlike research questions, hypotheses capture all three images of scientific inquiry presented in Chap. 1 (planning, observing and explaining, and revising one’s thinking). Your hypotheses represent the most you know, at the moment, about your research topic. The same cannot be said for research questions.
Beginning with a Research Problem
When you wrote answers to the six questions at the end of Part I of this chapter, you might have identified a research interest by stating it as a problem. This is the third path you might take to begin your research. Perhaps your description of your problem might look something like this: “When I tried to teach my middle school students by presenting them with a challenging problem without showing them how to solve similar problems, they didn’t exert much effort trying to find a solution but instead waited for me to show them how to solve the problem.” You do not have a specific question in mind, and you do not have an idea for why the problem exists, so you do not have a prediction about how to solve it. Writing a statement of this problem as clearly as possible could be the first step in your research journey.
As you think more about this problem, it will feel natural to ask questions about it. For example, why did some students show more initiative than others? What could I have done to get them started? How could I have encouraged the students to keep trying without giving away the solution? You are now on the path of asking questions—not research questions yet, but questions that are helping you focus your interest.
As you continue to think about these questions, reflect on your own experience, and read what others know about this problem, you will likely develop some guesses about the answers to the questions. They might be somewhat vague answers, and you might not have lots of confidence they are correct, but they are guesses that you can turn into predictions. Now you are on the hypothesis-formulation-and-testing path. This means you are on the path of asking yourself why you believe the predictions are correct, developing rationales for the predictions, asking what kinds of empirical observations would test your predictions, and refining your rationales and predictions as you read the literature and talk with colleagues.
A simple diagram that summarizes the three paths we have described is shown in Fig. 2.1 . Each row of arrows represents one pathway for formulating an informed hypothesis. The dotted arrows in the first two rows represent parts of the pathways that a researcher may have implicitly travelled through already (without an intent to form a prediction) but that ultimately inform the researcher’s development of a question or prediction.
Part III. One Researcher’s Experience Launching a Scientific Inquiry
Martha was in her third year of her doctoral program and beginning to identify a topic for her dissertation. Based on (a) her experience as a high school mathematics teacher and a curriculum supervisor, (b) the reading she has done to this point, and (c) her conversations with her colleagues, she has developed an interest in what kinds of professional development experiences (let’s call them learning opportunities [LOs] for teachers) are most effective. Where does she go from here?
Exercise 2.2
Before you continue reading, please write down some suggestions for Martha about where she should start.
A natural thing for Martha to do at this point is to ask herself some additional questions, questions that specify further what she wants to learn: What kinds of LOs do most teachers experience? How do these experiences change teachers’ practices and beliefs? Are some LOs more effective than others? What makes them more effective?
To focus her questions and decide what she really wants to know, she continues reading but now targets her reading toward everything she can find that suggests possible answers to these questions. She also talks with her colleagues to get more ideas about possible answers to these or related questions. Over several weeks or months, she finds herself being drawn to questions about what makes LOs effective, especially for helping teachers teach more conceptually. She zeroes in on the question, “What makes LOs for teachers effective for improving their teaching for conceptual understanding?”
This question is more focused than her first questions, but it is still too general for Martha to define a research study. How does she know it is too general? She uses two criteria. First, she notices that the predictions she makes about the answers to the question are all over the place; they are not constrained by the reasons she has assembled for her predictions. One prediction is that LOs are more effective when they help teachers learn content. Martha makes this guess because previous research suggests that effective LOs for teachers include attention to content. But this rationale allows lots of different predictions. For example, LOs are more effective when they focus on the content teachers will teach; LOs are more effective when they focus on content beyond what teachers will teach so teachers see how their instruction fits with what their students will encounter later; and LOs are more effective when they are tailored to the level of content knowledge participants have when they begin the LOs. The rationale she can provide at this point does not point to a particular prediction.
A second measure Martha uses to decide her question is too general is that the predictions she can make regarding the answers seem very difficult to test. How could she test, for example, whether LOs should focus on content beyond what teachers will teach? What does “content beyond what teachers teach” mean? How could you tell whether teachers use their new knowledge of later content to inform their teaching?
Before anticipating what Martha’s next question might be, it is important to pause and recognize how predicting the answers to her questions moved Martha into a new phase in the research process. As she makes predictions, works out the reasons for them, and imagines how she might test them, she is immersed in scientific inquiry. This intellectual work is the main engine that drives the research process. Also notice that revisions in the questions asked, the predictions made, and the rationales built represent the updated thinking (Chap. 1 ) that occurs as Martha continues to define her study.
Based on all these considerations and her continued reading, Martha revises the question again. The question now reads, “Do LOs that engage middle school mathematics teachers in studying mathematics content help teachers teach this same content with more of a conceptual emphasis?” Although she feels like the question is more specific, she realizes that the answer to the question is either “yes” or “no.” This, by itself, is a red flag. Answers of “yes” or “no” would not contribute much to understanding the relationships between these LOs for teachers and changes in their teaching. Recall from Chap. 1 that understanding how things work, explaining why things work, is the goal of scientific inquiry.
Martha continues by trying to understand why she believes the answer is “yes.” When she tries to write out reasons for predicting “yes,” she realizes that her prediction depends on a variety of factors. If teachers already have deep knowledge of the content, the LOs might not affect them as much as other teachers. If the LOs do not help teachers develop their own conceptual understanding, they are not likely to change their teaching. By trying to build the rationale for her prediction—thus formulating a hypothesis—Martha realizes that the question still is not precise and clear enough.
Martha uses what she learned when developing the rationale and rephrases the question as follows: “ Under what conditions do LOs that engage middle school mathematics teachers in studying mathematics content help teachers teach this same content with more of a conceptual emphasis?” Through several additional cycles of thinking through the rationale for her predictions and how she might test them, Martha specifies her question even further: “Under what conditions do middle school teachers who lack conceptual knowledge of linear functions benefit from LOs that engage them in conceptual learning of linear functions as assessed by changes in their teaching toward a more conceptual emphasis on linear functions?”
Each version of Martha’s question has become more specific. This has occurred as she has (a) identified a starting condition for the teachers—they lack conceptual knowledge of linear functions, (b) specified the mathematics content as linear functions, and (c) included a condition or purpose of the LO—it is aimed at conceptual learning.
Because of the way Martha’s question is now phrased, her predictions will require thinking about the conditions that could influence what teachers learn from the LOs and how this learning could affect their teaching. She might predict that if teachers engaged in LOs that extended over multiple sessions, they would develop deeper understanding which would, in turn, prompt changes in their teaching. Or she might predict that if the LOs included examples of how their conceptual learning could translate into different instructional activities for their students, teachers would be more likely to change their teaching. Reasons for these predictions would likely come from research about the effects of professional development on teachers’ practice.
As Martha thinks about testing her predictions, she realizes it will probably be easier to measure the conditions under which teachers are learning than the changes in the conceptual emphasis in their instruction. She makes a note to continue searching the literature for ways to measure the “conceptualness” of teaching.
As she refines her predictions and expresses her reasons for the predictions, she formulates a hypothesis (in this case several hypotheses) that will guide her research. As she makes predictions and develops the rationales for these predictions, she will probably continue revising her question. She might decide, for example, that she is not interested in studying the condition of different numbers of LO sessions and so decides to remove this condition from consideration by including in her question something like “. . . over five 2-hour sessions . . .”
At this point, Martha has developed a research question, articulated a number of predictions, and developed rationales for them. Her current question is: “Under what conditions do middle school teachers who lack conceptual knowledge of linear functions benefit from five 2-hour LO sessions that engage them in conceptual learning of linear functions as assessed by changes in their teaching toward a more conceptual emphasis on linear functions?” Her hypothesis is:
Prediction: Participating teachers will show changes in their teaching with a greater emphasis on conceptual understanding, with larger changes on linear function topics directly addressed in the LOs than on other topics.
Brief Description of Rationale: (1) Past research has shown correlations between teachers’ specific mathematics knowledge of a topic and the quality of their teaching of that topic. This does not mean an increase in knowledge causes higher quality teaching but it allows for that possibility. (2) Transfer is usually difficult for teachers, but the examples developed during the LO sessions will help them use what they learned to teach for conceptual understanding. This is because the examples developed during the LO sessions are much like those that will be used by the teachers. So larger changes will be found when teachers are teaching the linear function topics addressed in the LOs.
Notice it is more straightforward to imagine how Martha could test this prediction because it is more precise than previous predictions. Notice also that by asking how to test a particular prediction, Martha will be faced with a decision about whether testing this prediction will tell her something she wants to learn. If not, she can return to the research question and consider how to specify it further and, perhaps, constrain further the conditions that could affect the data.
As Martha formulates her hypotheses and goes through multiple cycles of refining her question(s), articulating her predictions, and developing her rationales, she is constantly building the theoretical framework for her study. Because the theoretical framework is the topic for Chap. 3 , we will pause here and pick up Martha’s story in the next chapter. Spoiler alert: Martha’s experience contains some surprising twists and turns.
Before leaving Martha, however, we point out two aspects of the process in which she has been engaged. First, it can be useful to think about the process as identifying (1) the variables targeted in her predictions, (2) the mechanisms she believes explain the relationships among the variables, and (3) the definitions of all the terms that are special to her educational problem. By variables, we mean things that can be measured and, when measured, can take on different values. In Martha’s case, the variables are the conceptualness of teaching and the content topics addressed in the LOs. The mechanisms are cognitive processes that enable teachers to see the relevance of what they learn in PD to their own teaching and that enable the transfer of learning from one setting to another. Definitions are the precise descriptions of how the important ideas relevant to the research are conceptualized. In Martha’s case, definitions must be provided for terms like conceptual understanding, linear functions, LOs, each of the topics related to linear functions, instructional setting, and knowledge transfer.
A second aspect of the process is a practice that Martha acquired as part of her graduate program, a practice that can go unnoticed. Martha writes out, in full sentences, her thinking as she wrestles with her research question, her predictions of the answers, and the rationales for her predictions. Writing is a tool for organizing thinking and we recommend you use it throughout the scientific inquiry process. We say more about this at the end of the chapter.
Here are the questions Martha wrote as she developed a clearer sense of what question she wanted to answer and what answer she predicted. The list shows the increasing refinement that occurred as she continued to read, think, talk, and write.
Early questions: What kinds of LOs do most teachers experience? How do these experiences change teachers’ practices and beliefs? Are some LOs more effective than others? What makes them more effective?
First focused question: What makes LOs for teachers effective for improving their teaching for conceptual understanding?
Question after trying to predict the answer and imagining how to test the prediction: Do LOs that engage middle school mathematics teachers in studying mathematics content help teachers teach this same content with more of a conceptual emphasis?
Question after developing an initial rationale for her prediction: Under what conditions do LOs that engage middle school mathematics teachers in studying mathematics content help teachers teach this same content with more of a conceptual emphasis?
Question after developing a more precise prediction and richer rationale: Under what conditions do middle school teachers who lack conceptual knowledge of linear functions benefit from five 2-hour LO sessions that engage them in conceptual learning of linear functions as assessed by changes in their teaching toward a more conceptual emphasis on linear functions?
Part IV. An Illustrative Dialogue
The story of Martha described the major steps she took to refine her thinking. However, there is a lot of work that went on behind the scenes that wasn’t part of the story. For example, Martha had conversations with fellow students and professors that sharpened her thinking. What do these conversations look like? Because they are such an important part of the inquiry process, it will be helpful to “listen in” on the kinds of conversations that students might have with their advisors.
Here is a dialogue between a beginning student, Sam (S), and their advisor, Dr. Avery (A). They are meeting to discuss data Sam collected for a course project. The dialogue below is happening very early on in Sam’s conceptualization of the study, prior even to systematic reading of the literature.
Thanks for meeting with me today. As you know, I was able to collect some data for a course project a few weeks ago, but I’m having trouble analyzing the data, so I need your help. Let me try to explain the problem. As you know, I wanted to understand what middle-school teachers do to promote girls’ achievement in a mathematics class. I conducted four observations in each of three teachers’ classrooms. I also interviewed each teacher once about the four lessons I observed, and I interviewed two girls from each of the teachers’ classes. Obviously, I have a ton of data. But when I look at all these data, I don’t really know what I learned about my topic. When I was observing the teachers, I thought I might have observed some ways the teachers were promoting girls’ achievement, but then I wasn’t sure how to interpret my data. I didn’t know if the things I was observing were actually promoting girls’ achievement.
What were some of your observations?
Well, in a couple of my classroom observations, teachers called on girls to give an answer, even when the girls didn’t have their hands up. I thought that this might be a way that teachers were promoting the girls’ achievement. But then the girls didn’t say anything about that when I interviewed them and also the teachers didn’t do it in every class. So, it’s hard to know what effect, if any, this might have had on their learning or their motivation to learn. I didn’t want to ask the girls during the interview specifically about the teacher calling on them, and without the girls bringing it up themselves, I didn’t know if it had any effect.
Well, why didn’t you want to ask the girls about being called on?
Because I wanted to leave it as open as possible; I didn’t want to influence what they were going to say. I didn’t want to put words in their mouths. I wanted to know what they thought the teacher was doing that promoted their mathematical achievement and so I only asked the girls general questions, like “Do you think the teacher does things to promote girls’ mathematical achievement?” and “Can you describe specific experiences you have had that you believe do and do not promote your mathematical achievement?”
So then, how did they answer those general questions?
Well, with very general answers, such as that the teacher knows their names, offers review sessions, grades their homework fairly, gives them opportunities to earn extra credit, lets them ask questions, and always answers their questions. Nothing specific that helps me know what teaching actions specifically target girls’ mathematics achievement.
OK. Any ideas about what you might do next?
Well, I remember that when I was planning this data collection for my course, you suggested I might want to be more targeted and specific about what I was looking for. I can see now that more targeted questions would have made my data more interpretable in terms of connecting teaching actions to the mathematical achievement of girls. But I just didn’t want to influence what the girls would say.
Yes, I remember when you were planning your course project, you wanted to keep it open. You didn’t want to miss out on discovering something new and interesting. What do you think now about this issue?
Well, I still don’t want to put words in their mouths. I want to know what they think. But I see that if I ask really open questions, I have no guarantee they will talk about what I want them to talk about. I guess I still like the idea of an open study, but I see that it’s a risky approach. Leaving the questions too open meant I didn’t constrain their responses and there were too many ways they could interpret and answer the questions. And there are too many ways I could interpret their responses.
By this point in the dialogue, Sam has realized that open data (i.e., data not testing a specific prediction) is difficult to interpret. In the next part, Dr. Avery explains why collecting open data was not helping Sam achieve goals for her study that had motivated collecting open data in the first place.
Yes, I totally agree. Even for an experienced researcher, it can be difficult to make sense of this kind of open, messy data. However, if you design a study with a more specific focus, you can create questions for participants that are more targeted because you will be interested in their answers to these specific questions. Let’s reflect back on your data collection. What can you learn from it for the future?
When I think about it now, I realize that I didn’t think about the distinction between all the different constructs at play in my study, and I didn’t choose which one I was focusing on. One construct was the teaching moves that teachers think could be promoting achievement. Another is what teachers deliberately do to promote girls’ mathematics achievement, if anything. Another was the teaching moves that actually do support girls’ mathematics achievement. Another was what teachers were doing that supported girls’ mathematics achievement versus the mathematics achievement of all students. Another was students’ perception of what their teacher was doing to promote girls’ mathematics achievement. I now see that any one of these constructs could have been the focus of a study and that I didn’t really decide which of these was the focus of my course project prior to collecting data.
So, since you told me that the topic of this course project is probably what you’ll eventually want to study for your dissertation, which of these constructs are you most interested in?
I think I’m more interested in the teacher moves that teachers deliberately do to promote girls’ achievement. But I’m still worried about asking teachers directly and getting too specific about what they do because I don’t want to bias what they will say. And I chose qualitative methods and an exploratory design because I thought it would allow for a more open approach, an approach that helps me see what’s going on and that doesn’t bias or predetermine the results.
Well, it seems to me you are conflating three issues. One issue is how to conduct an unbiased study. Another issue is how specific to make your study. And the third issue is whether or not to choose an exploratory or qualitative study design. Those three issues are not the same. For example, designing a study that’s more open or more exploratory is not how researchers make studies fair and unbiased. In fact, it would be quite easy to create an open study that is biased. For example, you could ask very open questions and then interpret the responses in a way that unintentionally, and even unknowingly, aligns with what you were hoping the findings would say. Actually, you could argue that by adding more specificity and narrowing your focus, you’re creating constraints that prevent bias. The same goes for an exploratory or qualitative study; they can be biased or unbiased. So, let’s talk about what is meant by getting more specific. Within your new focus on what teachers deliberately do, there are many things that would be interesting to look at, such as teacher moves that address math anxiety, moves that allow girls to answer questions more frequently, moves that are specifically fitted to student thinking about specific mathematical content, and so on. What are one or two things that are most interesting to you? One way to answer this question is by thinking back to where your interest in this topic began.
In the preceding part of the dialogue, Dr. Avery explained how the goals Sam had for their study were not being met with open data. In the next part, Sam begins to articulate a prediction, which Sam and Dr. Avery then sharpen.
Actually, I became interested in this topic because of an experience I had in college when I was in a class of mostly girls. During whole class discussions, we were supposed to critically evaluate each other’s mathematical thinking, but we were too polite to do that. Instead, we just praised each other’s work. But it was so different in our small groups. It seemed easier to critique each other’s thinking and to push each other to better solutions in small groups. I began wondering how to get girls to be more critical of each other’s thinking in a whole class discussion in order to push everyone’s thinking.
Okay, this is great information. Why not use this idea to zoom-in on a more manageable and interpretable study? You could look specifically at how teachers support girls in critically evaluating each other’s thinking during whole class discussions. That would be a much more targeted and specific topic. Do you have predictions about what teachers could do in that situation, keeping in mind that you are looking specifically at girls’ mathematical achievement, not students in general?
Well, what I noticed was that small groups provided more social and emotional support for girls, whereas the whole class discussion did not provide that same support. The girls felt more comfortable critiquing each other’s thinking in small groups. So, I guess I predict that when the social and emotional supports that are present in small groups are extended to the whole class discussion, girls would be more willing to evaluate each other’s mathematical thinking critically during whole class discussion . I guess ultimately, I’d like to know how the whole class discussion could be used to enhance, rather than undermine, the social and emotional support that is present in the small groups.
Okay, then where would you start? Would you start with a study of what the teachers say they will do during whole class discussion and then observe if that happens during whole class discussion?
But part of my prediction also involves the small groups. So, I’d also like to include small groups in my study if possible. If I focus on whole groups, I won’t be exploring what I am interested in. My interest is broader than just the whole class discussion.
That makes sense, but there are many different things you could look at as part of your prediction, more than you can do in one study. For instance, if your prediction is that when the social and emotional supports that are present in small groups are extended to whole class discussions, girls would be more willing to evaluate each other’s mathematical thinking critically during whole class discussions , then you could ask the following questions: What are the social and emotional supports that are present in small groups?; In which small groups do they exist?; Is it groups that are made up only of girls?; Does every small group do this, and for groups that do this, when do these supports get created?; What kinds of small group activities that teachers ask them to work on are associated with these supports?; Do the same social and emotional supports that apply to small groups even apply to whole group discussion?
All your questions make me realize that my prediction about extending social and emotional supports to whole class discussions first requires me to have a better understanding of the social and emotional supports that exist in small groups. In fact, I first need to find out whether those supports commonly exist in small groups or is that just my experience working in small groups. So, I think I will first have to figure out what small groups do to support each other and then, in a later study, I could ask a teacher to implement those supports during whole class discussions and find out how you can do that. Yeah, now I’m seeing that.
The previous part of the dialogue illustrates how continuing to ask questions about one’s initial prediction is a good way to make it more and more precise (and researchable). In the next part, we see how developing a precise prediction has the added benefit of setting the researcher up for future studies.
Yes, I agree that for your first study, you should probably look at small groups. In other words, you should focus on only a part of your prediction for now, namely the part that says there are social and emotional supports in small groups that support girls in critiquing each other’s thinking . That begins to sharpen the focus of your prediction, but you’ll want to continue to refine it. For example, right now, the question that this prediction leads to is a question with a yes or no answer, but what you’ve said so far suggests to me that you are looking for more than that.
Yes, I want to know more than just whether there are supports. I’d like to know what kinds. That’s why I wanted to do a qualitative study.
Okay, this aligns more with my thinking about research as being prediction driven. It’s about collecting data that would help you revise your existing predictions into better ones. What I mean is that you would focus on collecting data that would allow you to refine your prediction, make it more nuanced, and go beyond what is already known. Does that make sense, and if so, what would that look like for your prediction?
Oh yes, I like that. I guess that would mean that, based on the data I collect for this next study, I could develop a more refined prediction that, for example, more specifically identifies and differentiates between different kinds of social and emotional supports that are present in small groups, or maybe that identifies the kinds of small groups that they occur in, or that predicts when and how frequently or infrequently they occur, or about the features of the small group tasks in which they occur, etc. I now realize that, although I chose qualitative research to make my study be more open, really the reason qualitative research fits my purposes is because it will allow me to explore fine-grained aspects of social and emotional supports that may exist for girls in small groups.
Yes, exactly! And then, based on the data you collect, you can include in your revised prediction those new fine-grained aspects. Furthermore, you will have a story to tell about your study in your written report, namely the story about your evolving prediction. In other words, your written report can largely tell how you filled out and refined your prediction as you learned more from carrying out the study. And even though you might not use them right away, you are also going to be able to develop new predictions that you would not have even thought of about social and emotional supports in small groups and your aim of extending them to whole-class discussions, had you not done this study. That will set you up to follow up on those new predictions in future studies. For example, you might have more refined ideas after you collect the data about the goals for critiquing student thinking in small groups versus the goals for critiquing student thinking during whole class discussion. You might even begin to think that some of the social and emotional supports you observe are not even replicable or even applicable to or appropriate for whole-class discussions, because the supports play different roles in different contexts. So, to summarize what I’m saying, what you look at in this study, even though it will be very focused, sets you up for a research program that will allow you to more fully investigate your broader interest in this topic, where each new study builds on your prior body of work. That’s why it is so important to be explicit about the best place to start this research, so that you can build on it.
I see what you are saying. We started this conversation talking about my course project data. What I think I should have done was figure out explicitly what I needed to learn with that study with the intention of then taking what I learned and using it as the basis for the next study. I didn’t do that, and so I didn’t collect data that pushed forward my thinking in ways that would guide my next study. It would be as if I was starting over with my next study.
Sam and Dr. Avery have just explored how specifying a prediction reveals additional complexities that could become fodder for developing a systematic research program. Next, we watch Sam beginning to recognize the level of specificity required for a prediction to be testable.
One thing that would have really helped would have been if you had had a specific prediction going into your data collection for your course project.
Well, I didn’t really have much of an explicit prediction in mind when I designed my methods.
Think back, you must have had some kind of prediction, even if it was implicit.
Well, yes, I guess I was predicting that teachers would enact moves that supported girls’ mathematical achievement. And I observed classrooms to identify those teacher moves, I interviewed teachers to ask them about the moves I observed, and I interviewed students to see if they mentioned those moves as promoting their mathematical achievement. The goal of my course project was to identify teacher moves that support girls’ mathematical achievement. And my specific research question was: What teacher moves support girls’ mathematical achievement?
So, really you were asking the teacher and students to show and tell you what those moves are and the effects of those moves, as a result putting the onus on your participants to provide the answers to your research question for you. I have an idea, let’s try a thought experiment. You come up with data collection methods for testing the prediction that there are social and emotional supports in small groups that support girls in critiquing each other’s thinking that still puts the onus on the participants. And then I’ll see if I can think of data collection methods that would not put the onus on the participants.
Hmm, well. .. I guess I could simply interview girls who participated in small groups and ask them “are there social and emotional supports that you use in small groups that support your group in critiquing each other’s thinking and if so, what are they?” In that case, I would be putting the onus on them to be aware of the social dynamics of small groups and to have thought about these constructs as much as I have. Okay now can you continue the thought experiment? What might the data collection methods look like if I didn’t put the onus on the participants?
First, I would pick a setting in which it was only girls at this point to reduce the number of variables. Then, personally I would want to observe a lot of groups of girls interacting in groups around tasks. I would be looking for instances when the conversation about students’ ideas was shut down and instances when the conversation about students’ ideas involved critiquing of ideas and building on each other’s thinking. I would also look at what happened just before and during those instances, such as: did the student continue to talk after their thinking was critiqued, did other students do anything to encourage the student to build on their own thinking (i.e., constructive criticism) or how did they support or shut down continued participation. In fact, now that I think about it, “critiquing each other’s thinking” can be defined in a number of different ways. I could mean just commenting on someone’s thinking, judging correctness and incorrectness, constructive criticism that moves the thinking forward, etc. If you put the onus on the participants to answer your research question, you are stuck with their definition, and they won’t have thought about this very much, if at all.
I think that what you are also saying is that my definitions would affect my data collection. If I think that critiquing each other’s thinking means that the group moves their thinking forward toward more valid and complete mathematical solutions, then I’m going to focus on different moves than if I define it another way, such as just making a comment on each other’s thinking and making each other feel comfortable enough to keep participating. In fact, am I going to look at individual instances of critiquing or look at entire sequences in which the critiquing leads to a goal? This seems like a unit of analysis question, and I would need to develop a more nuanced prediction that would make explicit what that unit of analysis is.
I agree, your definition of “critiquing each other’s thinking” could entirely change what you are predicting. One prediction could be based on defining critiquing as a one-shot event in which someone makes one comment on another person’s thinking. In this case the prediction would be that there are social and emotional supports in small groups that support girls in making an evaluative comment on another student’s thinking. Another prediction could be based on defining critiquing as a back-and-forth process in which the thinking gets built on and refined. In that case, the prediction would be something like that there are social and emotional supports in small groups that support girls in critiquing each other’s thinking in ways that do not shut down the conversation but that lead to sustained conversations that move each other toward more valid and complete solutions.
Well, I think I am more interested in the second prediction because it is more compatible with my long-term interests, which are that I’m interested in extending small group supports to whole class discussions. The second prediction is more appropriate for eventually looking at girls in whole class discussion. During whole class discussion, the teacher tries to get a sustained conversation going that moves the students’ thinking forward. So, if I learn about small group supports that lead to sustained conversations that move each other toward more valid and complete solutions , those supports might transfer to whole class discussions.
In the previous part of the dialogue, Dr. Avery and Sam showed how narrowing down a prediction to one that is testable requires making numerous important decisions, including how to define the constructs referred to in the prediction. In the final part of the dialogue, Dr. Avery and Sam begin to outline the reading Sam will have to do to develop a rationale for the specific prediction.
Do you see how your prediction and definitions are getting more and more specific? You now need to read extensively to further refine your prediction.
Well, I should probably read about micro dynamics of small group interactions, anything about interactions in small groups, and what is already known about small group interactions that support sustained conversations that move students’ thinking toward more valid and complete solutions. I guess I could also look at research on whole-class discussion methods that support sustained conversations that move the class to more mathematically valid and complete solutions, because it might give me ideas for what to look for in the small groups. I might also need to focus on research about how learners develop understandings about a particular subject matter so that I know what “more valid and complete solutions” look like. I also need to read about social and emotional supports but focus on how they support students cognitively, rather than in other ways.
Sounds good, let’s get together after you have processed some of this literature and we can talk about refining your prediction based on what you read and also the methods that will best suit testing that prediction.
Great! Thanks for meeting with me. I feel like I have a much better set of tools that push my own thinking forward and allow me to target something specific that will lead to more interpretable data.
Part V. Is It Always Possible to Formulate Hypotheses?
In Chap. 1 , we noted you are likely to read that research does not require formulating hypotheses. Some sources describe doing research without making predictions and developing rationales for these predictions. Some researchers say you cannot always make predictions—you do not know enough about the situation. In fact, some argue for the value of not making predictions (e.g., Glaser & Holton, 2004 ; Merton, 1968 ; Nemirovsky, 2011 ). These are important points of view, so we will devote this section to discussing them.
Can You Always Predict What You Will Find?
One reason some researchers say you do not need to make predictions is that it can be difficult to imagine what you will find. This argument comes up most often for descriptive studies. Suppose you want to describe the nature of a situation you do not know much about. Can you still make a prediction about what you will find? We believe that, although you do not know exactly what you will find, you probably have a hunch or, at a minimum, a very fuzzy idea. It would be unusual to ask a question about a situation you want to know about without at least a fuzzy inkling of what you might find. The original question just would not occur to you. We acknowledge you might have only a vague idea of what you will find and you might not have much confidence in your prediction. However, we expect if you monitor your own thinking you will discover you have developed a suspicion along the way, regardless how vague the suspicion might be. Through the cyclic process we discussed above, that suspicion or hunch gradually evolves and turns into a prediction.
The Benefits of Making Predictions Even When They Are Wrong: An Example from the 1970s
One of us was a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin in the late 1970s, assigned as a research assistant to a project that was investigating young children’s thinking about simple arithmetic. A new curriculum was being written, and the developers wanted to know how to introduce the earliest concepts and skills to kindergarten and first-grade children. The directors of the project did not know what to expect because, at the time, there was little research on five- and six-year-olds’ pre-instruction strategies for adding and subtracting.
After consulting what literature was available, talking with teachers, analyzing the nature of different types of addition and subtraction problems, and debating with each other, the research team formulated some hypotheses about children’s performance. Following the usual assumptions at the time and recognizing the new curriculum would introduce the concepts, the researchers predicted that, before instruction, most children would not be able to solve the problems. Based on the rationale that some young children did not yet recognize the simple form for written problems (e.g., 5 + 3 = ___), the researchers predicted that the best chance for success would be to read problems as stories (e.g., Jesse had 5 apples and then found 3 more. How many does she have now?). They reasoned that, even though children would have difficulty on all the problems, some story problems would be easier because the semantic structure is easier to follow. For example, they predicted the above story about adding 3 apples to 5 would be easier than a problem like, “Jesse had some apples in the refrigerator. She put in 2 more and now has 6. How many were in the refrigerator at the beginning?” Based on the rationale that children would need to count to solve the problems and that it can be difficult to keep track of the numbers, they predicted children would be more successful if they were given counters. Finally, accepting the common reasoning that larger numbers are more difficult than smaller numbers, they predicted children would be more successful if all the numbers in a problem were below 10.
Although these predictions were not very precise and the rationales were not strongly convincing, these hypotheses prompted the researchers to design the study to test their predictions. This meant they would collect data by presenting a variety of problems under a variety of conditions. Because the goal was to describe children’s thinking, problems were presented to students in individual interviews. Problems with different semantic structures were included, counters were available for some problems but not others, and some problems had sums to 9 whereas others had sums to 20 or more.
The punchline of this story is that gathering data under these conditions, prompted by the predictions, made all the difference in what the researchers learned. Contrary to predictions, children could solve addition and subtraction problems before instruction. Counters were important because almost all the solution strategies were based on counting which meant that memory was an issue because many strategies require counting in two ways simultaneously. For example, subtracting 4 from 7 was usually solved by counting down from 7 while counting up from 1 to 4 to keep track of counting down. Because children acted out the stories with their counters, the semantic structure of the story was also important. Stories that were easier to read and write were also easier to solve.
To make a very long story very short, other researchers were, at about the same time, reporting similar results about children’s pre-instruction arithmetic capabilities. A clear pattern emerged regarding the relative difficulty of different problem types (semantic structures) and the strategies children used to solve each type. As the data were replicated, the researchers recognized that kindergarten and first-grade teachers could make good use of this information when they introduced simple arithmetic. This is how Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) was born (Carpenter et al., 1989 ; Fennema et al., 1996 ).
To reiterate, the point of this example is that the study conducted to describe children’s thinking would have looked quite different if the researchers had made no predictions. They would have had no reason to choose the particular problems and present them under different conditions. The fact that some of the predictions were completely wrong is not the point. The predictions created the conditions under which the predictions were tested which, in turn, created learning opportunities for the researchers that would not have existed without the predictions. The lesson is that even research that aims to simply describe a phenomenon can benefit from hypotheses. As signaled in Chap. 1 , this also serves as another example of “failing productively.”
Suggestions for What to Do When You Do Not Have Predictions
There likely are exceptions to our claim about being able to make a prediction about what you will find. For example, there could be rare cases where researchers truly have no idea what they will find and can come up with no predictions and even no hunches. And, no research has been reported on related phenomena that would offer some guidance. If you find yourself in this position, we suggest one of three approaches: revise your question, conduct a pilot study, or choose another question.
Because there are many advantages to making predictions explicit and then writing out the reasons for these predictions, one approach is to adjust your question just enough to allow you to make a prediction. Perhaps you can build on descriptions that other researchers have provided for related situations and consider how you can extend this work. Building on previous descriptions will enable you to make predictions about the situation you want to describe.
A second approach is to conduct a small pilot study or, better, a series of small pilot studies to develop some preliminary ideas of what you might find. If you can identify a small sample of participants who are similar to those in your study, you can try out at least some of your research plans to help make and refine your predictions. As we detail later, you can also use pilot studies to check whether key aspects of your methods (e.g., tasks, interview questions, data collection methods) work as you expect.
A third approach is to return to your list of interests and choose one that has been studied previously. Sometimes this is the wisest choice. It is very difficult for beginning researchers to conduct research in brand-new areas where no hunches or predictions are possible. In addition, the contributions of this research can be limited. Recall the earlier story about one of us “failing productively” by completing a dissertation in a somewhat new area. If, after an exhaustive search, you find that no one has investigated the phenomenon in which you are interested or even related phenomena, it can be best to move in a different direction. You will read recommendations in other sources to find a “gap” in the research and develop a study to “fill the gap.” This can be helpful advice if the gap is very small. However, if the gap is large, too large to predict what you might find, the study will present severe challenges. It will be more productive to extend work that has already been done than to launch into an entirely new area.
Should You Always Try to Predict What You Will Find?
In short, our answer to the question in the heading is “yes.” But this calls for further explanation.
Suppose you want to observe a second-grade classroom in order to investigate how students talk about adding and subtracting whole numbers. You might think, “I don’t want to bias my thinking; I want to be completely open to what I see in the classroom.” Sam shared a similar point of view at the beginning of the dialogue: “I wanted to leave it as open as possible; I didn’t want to influence what they were going to say.” Some researchers say that beginning your research study by making predictions is inappropriate precisely because it will bias your observations and results. The argument is that by bringing a set of preconceptions, you will confirm what you expected to find and be blind to other observations and outcomes. The following quote illustrates this view: “The first step in gaining theoretical sensitivity is to enter the research setting with as few predetermined ideas as possible—especially logically deducted, a priori hypotheses. In this posture, the analyst is able to remain sensitive to the data by being able to record events and detect happenings without first having them filtered through and squared with pre-existing hypotheses and biases” (Glaser, 1978, pp. 2–3).
We take a different point of view. In fact, we believe there are several compelling reasons for making your predictions explicit.
Making Your Predictions Explicit Increases Your Chances of Productive Observations
Because your predictions are an extension of what is already known, they prepare you to identify more nuanced relationships that can advance our understanding of a phenomenon. For example, rather than simply noticing, in a general sense, that students talking about addition and subtraction leads them to better understandings, you might, based on your prediction, make the specific observation that talking about addition and subtraction in a particular way helps students to think more deeply about a particular concept related to addition and subtraction. Going into a study without predictions can bring less sensitivity rather than more to the study of a phenomenon. Drawing on knowledge about related phenomena by reading the literature and conducting pilot studies allows you to be much more sensitive and your observations to be more productive.
Making Your Predictions Explicit Allows You to Guard Against Biases
Some genres and methods of educational research are, in fact, rooted in philosophical traditions (e.g., Husserl, 1929/ 1973 ) that explicitly call for researchers to temporarily “bracket” or set aside existing theory as well as their prior knowledge and experience to better enter into the experience of the participants in the research. However, this does not mean ignoring one’s own knowledge and experience or turning a blind eye to what has been learned by others. Much more than the simplistic image of emptying one’s mind of preconceptions and implicit biases (arguably an impossible feat to begin with), the goal is to be as reflective as possible about one’s prior knowledge and conceptions and as transparent as possible about how they may guide observations and shape interpretations (Levitt et al., 2018 ).
We believe it is better to be honest about the predictions you are almost sure to have because then you can deliberately plan to minimize the chances they will influence what you find and how you interpret your results. For starters, it is important to recognize that acknowledging you have some guesses about what you will find does not make them more influential. Because you are likely to have them anyway, we recommend being explicit about what they are. It is easier to deal with biases that are explicit than those that lurk in the background and are not acknowledged.
What do we mean by “deal with biases”? Some journals require you to include a statement about your “positionality” with respect to the participants in your study and the observations you are making to gather data. Formulating clear hypotheses is, in our view, a direct response to this request. The reasons for your predictions are your explicit statements about your positionality. Often there are methodological strategies you can use to protect the study from undue influences of bias. In other words, making your vague predictions explicit can help you design your study so you minimize the bias of your findings.
Making Your Predictions Explicit Can Help You See What You Did Not Predict
Making your predictions explicit does not need to blind you to what is different than expected. It does not need to force you to see only what you want to see. Instead, it can actually increase your sensitivity to noticing features of the situation that are surprising, features you did not predict. Results can stand out when you did not expect to see them.
In contrast, not bringing your biases to consciousness might subtly shift your attention away from these unexpected results in ways that you are not aware of. This path can lead to claiming no biases and no unexpected findings without being conscious of them. You cannot observe everything, and some things inevitably will be overlooked. If you have predicted what you will see, you can design your study so that the unexpected results become more salient rather than less.
Returning to the example of observing a second-grade classroom, we note that the field already knows a great deal about how students talk about addition and subtraction. Being cognizant of what others have observed allows you to enter the classroom with some clear predictions about what will happen. The rationales for these predictions are based on all the related knowledge you have before stepping into the classroom, and the predictions and rationales help you to better deal with what you see. This is partly because you are likely to be surprised by the things you did not anticipate. There is almost always something that will surprise you because your predictions will almost always be incomplete or too general. This sensitivity to the unanticipated—the sense of surprise that sparks your curiosity—is an indication of your openness to the phenomenon you are studying.
Making Your Predictions Explicit Allows You to Plan in Advance
Recall from Chap. 1 the descriptor of scientific inquiry: “Experience carefully planned in advance.” If you make no predictions about what might happen, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to plan your study in advance. Again, you cannot observe everything, so you must make decisions about what you will observe. What kind of data will you plan to collect? Why would you collect these data instead of others? If you have no idea what to expect, on what basis will you make these consequential decisions? Even if your predictions are vague and your rationales for the predictions are a bit shaky, at least they provide a direction for your plan. They allow you to explain why you are planning this study and collecting these data. They allow you to “carefully plan in advance.”
Making Your Predictions Explicit Allows You to Put Your Rationales in Harm’s Way
Rationales are developed to justify the predictions. Rationales represent your best reasoning about the research problem you are studying. How can you tell whether your reasoning is sound? You can try it out with colleagues. However, the best way to test it is to put it in “harm’s way” (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003 p. 10). And the best approach to putting your reasoning in harm’s way is to test the predictions it generates. Regardless if you are conducting a qualitative or quantitative study, rationales can be improved only if they generate testable predictions. This is possible only if predictions are explicit and precise. As we described earlier, rationales are evaluated for their soundness and refined in light of the specific differences between predictions and empirical observations.
Making Your Predictions Explicit Forces You to Organize and Extend Your (and the Field’s) Thinking
By writing out your predictions (even hunches or fuzzy guesses) and by reflecting on why you have these predictions and making these reasons explicit for yourself, you are advancing your thinking about the questions you really want to answer. This means you are making progress toward formulating your research questions and your final hypotheses. Making more progress in your own thinking before you conduct your study increases the chances your study will be of higher quality and will be exactly the study you intended. Making predictions, developing rationales, and imagining tests are tools you can use to push your thinking forward before you even collect data.
Suppose you wonder how preservice teachers in your university’s teacher preparation program will solve particular kinds of math problems. You are interested in this question because you have noticed several PSTs solve them in unexpected ways. As you ask the question you want to answer, you make predictions about what you expect to see. When you reflect on why you made these predictions, you realize that some PSTs might use particular solution strategies because they were taught to use some of them in an earlier course, and they might believe you expect them to solve the problems in these ways. By being explicit about why you are making particular predictions, you realize that you might be answering a different question than you intend (“How much do PSTs remember from previous courses?” or even “To what extent do PSTs believe different instructors have similar expectations?”). Now you can either change your question or change the design of your study (i.e., the sample of students you will use) or both. You are advancing your thinking by being explicit about your predictions and why you are making them.
The Costs of Not Making Predictions
Avoiding making predictions, for whatever reason, comes with significant costs. It prevents you from learning very much about your research topic. It would require not reading related research, not talking with your colleagues, and not conducting pilot studies because, if you do, you are likely to find a prediction creeping into your thinking. Not doing these things would forego the benefits of advancing your thinking before you collect data. It would amount to conducting the study with as little forethought as possible.
Part VI. How Do You Formulate Important Hypotheses?
We provided a partial answer in Chap. 1 to the question of a hypothesis’ importance when we encouraged considering the ultimate goal to which a study’s findings might contribute. You might want to reread Part III of Chap. 1 where we offered our opinions about the purposes of doing research. We also recommend reading the March 2019 editorial in the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (Cai et al., 2019b ) in which we address what constitutes important educational research.
As we argued in Chap. 1 and in the March 2019 editorial, a worthy ultimate goal for educational research is to improve the learning opportunities for all students. However, arguments can be made for other ultimate goals as well. To gauge the importance of your hypotheses, think about how clearly you can connect them to a goal the educational community considers important. In addition, given the descriptors of scientific inquiry proposed in Chap. 1 , think about how testing your hypotheses will help you (and the community) understand what you are studying. Will you have a better explanation for the phenomenon after your study than before?
|
|
Although we address the question of importance again, and in more detail, in Chap. 5 , it is useful to know here that you can determine the significance or importance of your hypotheses when you formulate them. The importance need not depend on the data you collect or the results you report. The importance can come from the fact that, based on the results of your study, you will be able to offer revised hypotheses that help the field better understand an important issue. In large part, it is these revised hypotheses rather than the data that determine a study’s importance.
A critical caveat to this discussion is that few hypotheses are self-evidently important. They are important only if you make the case for their importance. Even if you follow closely the guidelines we suggest for formulating an important hypothesis, you must develop an argument that convinces others. This argument will be presented in the research paper you write.
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies The picture has a few hypotheses that are self-evidently important. They are important only if you make the case for their importance; written.](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-031-19078-0_2/MediaObjects/535452_1_En_2_Fige_HTML.png)
Consider Martha’s hypothesis presented earlier. When we left Martha, she predicted that “Participating teachers will show changes in their teaching with a greater emphasis on conceptual understanding with larger changes on linear function topics directly addressed in the LOs than on other topics.” For researchers and educators not intimately familiar with this area of research, it is not apparent why someone should spend a year or more conducting a dissertation to test this prediction. Her rationale, summarized earlier, begins to describe why this could be an important hypothesis. But it is by writing a clear argument that explains her rationale to readers that she will convince them of its importance.
How Martha fills in her rationale so she can create a clear written argument for its importance is taken up in Chap. 3 . As we indicated, Martha’s work in this regard led her to make some interesting decisions, in part due to her own assessment of what was important.
Part VII. Beginning to Write the Research Paper for Your Study
It is common to think that researchers conduct a study and then, after the data are collected and analyzed, begin writing the paper about the study. We recommend an alternative, especially for beginning researchers. We believe it is better to write drafts of the paper at the same time you are planning and conducting your study. The paper will gradually evolve as you work through successive phases of the scientific inquiry process. Consequently, we will call this paper your evolving research paper .
![formulation of hypothesis may not be required in clinical studies The picture has, we believe it is better to write drafts of the paper at the same time you are planning and conducting your study; written.](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-031-19078-0_2/MediaObjects/535452_1_En_2_Figf_HTML.png)
You will use your evolving research paper to communicate your study, but you can also use writing as a tool for thinking and organizing your thinking while planning and conducting the study. Used as a tool for thinking, you can write drafts of your ideas to check on the clarity of your thinking, and then you can step back and reflect on how to clarify it further. Be sure to avoid jargon and general terms that are not well defined. Ask yourself whether someone not in your field, maybe a sibling, a parent, or a friend, would be able to understand what you mean. You are likely to write multiple drafts with lots of scribbling, crossing out, and revising.
Used as a tool for communicating, writing the best version of what you know before moving to the next phase will help you record your decisions and the reasons for them before you forget important details. This best-version-for-now paper also provides the basis for your thinking about the next phase of your scientific inquiry.
At this point in the process, you will be writing your (research) questions, the answers you predict, and the rationales for your predictions. The predictions you make should be direct answers to your research questions and should flow logically from (or be directly supported by) the rationales you present. In addition, you will have a written statement of the study’s purpose or, said another way, an argument for the importance of the hypotheses you will be testing. It is in the early sections of your paper that you will convince your audience about the importance of your hypotheses.
In our experience, presenting research questions is a more common form of stating the goal of a research study than presenting well-formulated hypotheses. Authors sometimes present a hypothesis, often as a simple prediction of what they might find. The hypothesis is then forgotten and not used to guide the analysis or interpretations of the findings. In other words, authors seldom use hypotheses to do the kind of work we describe. This means that many research articles you read will not treat hypotheses as we suggest. We believe these are missed opportunities to present research in a more compelling and informative way. We intend to provide enough guidance in the remaining chapters for you to feel comfortable organizing your evolving research paper around formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses.
While we were editing one of the leading research journals in mathematics education ( JRME ), we conducted a study of reviewers’ critiques of papers submitted to the journal. Two of the five most common concerns were: (1) the research questions were unclear, and (2) the answers to the questions did not make a substantial contribution to the field. These are likely to be major concerns for the reviewers of all research journals. We hope the knowledge and skills you have acquired working through this chapter will allow you to write the opening to your evolving research paper in a way that addresses these concerns. Much of the chapter should help make your research questions clear, and the prior section on formulating “important hypotheses” will help you convey the contribution of your study.
Exercise 2.3
Look back at your answers to the sets of questions before part II of this chapter.
Think about how you would argue for the importance of your current interest.
Write your interest in the form of (1) a research problem, (2) a research question, and (3) a prediction with the beginnings of a rationale. You will update these as you read the remaining chapters.
Part VIII. The Heart of Scientific Inquiry
In this chapter, we have described the process of formulating hypotheses. This process is at the heart of scientific inquiry. It is where doing research begins. Conducting research always involves formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses. This is true regardless of your research questions and whether you are using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Without engaging in this process in a deliberate, intense, relentless way, your study will reveal less than it could. By engaging in this process, you are maximizing what you, and others, can learn from conducting your study.
In the next chapter, we build on the ideas we have developed in the first two chapters to describe the purpose and nature of theoretical frameworks . The term theoretical framework, along with closely related terms like conceptual framework, can be somewhat mysterious for beginning researchers and can seem like a requirement for writing a paper rather than an aid for conducting research. We will show how theoretical frameworks grow from formulating hypotheses—from developing rationales for the predicted answers to your research questions. We will propose some practical suggestions for building theoretical frameworks and show how useful they can be. In addition, we will continue Martha’s story from the point at which we paused earlier—developing her theoretical framework.
Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J. (2019b). Posing significant research questions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50 (2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.2.0114
Article Google Scholar
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26 (4), 385–531.
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (4), 403–434.
Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2). https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/607/1316
Gournelos, T., Hammonds, J. R., & Wilson, M. A. (2019). Doing academic research: A practical guide to research methods and analysis . Routledge.
Book Google Scholar
Hohensee, C. (2014). Backward transfer: An investigation of the influence of quadratic functions instruction on students’ prior ways of reasoning about linear functions. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16 (2), 135–174.
Husserl, E. (1973). Cartesian meditations: An introduction to phenomenology (D. Cairns, Trans.). Martinus Nijhoff. (Original work published 1929).
Google Scholar
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force report. American Psychologist, 73 (1), 26–46.
Medawar, P. (1982). Pluto’s republic [no typo]. Oxford University Press.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure (Enlarged edition). Free Press.
Nemirovsky, R. (2011). Episodic feelings and transfer of learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20 (2), 308–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.528316
Vygotsky, L. (1987). The development of scientific concepts in childhood: The design of a working hypothesis. In A. Kozulin (Ed.), Thought and language (pp. 146–209). The MIT Press.
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee
Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Reprints and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Hiebert, J., Cai, J., Hwang, S., Morris, A.K., Hohensee, C. (2023). How Do You Formulate (Important) Hypotheses?. In: Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_2
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_2
Published : 03 December 2022
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19077-3
Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19078-0
eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)
Share this chapter
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
![](http://nandemo.space/777/templates/cheerup1/res/banner1.gif)
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
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 ...
Properly designed epidemiological studies, for example, may introduce clarity to the hygiene hypothesis that was originally proposed by David Strachan in 1989.10 David Strachan studied the epidemiology of hay fever in a cohort of 17,414 British children and concluded that declining family size and improved personal hygiene had reduced the ...
1. An Overview. Broadly, preclinical research can be classified into two distinct categories depending on the aim and purpose of the experiment, namely, "hypothesis generating" (exploratory) and "hypothesis testing" (confirmatory) research (Fig. 1).Hypothesis generating studies are often scientifically-informed, curiosity and intuition-driven explorations which may generate testable ...
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 ...
Complex Hypothesis Examples. A complex hypothesis involves more than two variables. An example could be, "If students sleep for at least 8 hours and eat a healthy breakfast, then their test scores and overall well-being will improve." This type of hypothesis examines multiple factors and their combined effects.
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 7 Fig. 2 is a scientific hypothesis generation framework we developed based on literature [1,3,4,45, 56, 57], follow-up questions and answers after ...
A hypothesis is a statement that introduces your research question and suggests the results you might find. It is an educated guess. You start by posing an economic question and formulate a hypothesis about this question. Then you test it with your data and empirical analysis and either accept or reject the hypothesis.
A hypothesis provides an interim solution for a research problem. It helps a research to commence the work in a certain direction. It also forms a concrete foundation to endow the domain of study. A hypothesis enhances the selectivity of work and helps in the collection of proper evidence for the study.
The importance of formulating a sound and proper research question is summarized in three main motives: 1. Conducting an evidence-based study: Evidence-based studies, particularly, the systematic reviews in this case, rely on a research question developed to specifically address the problem with all required details. 2.
A well-designed and executed clinical trial can be one of the most powerful and definitive ways to assess the effectiveness and safety of an intervention (s). Thus, thorough knowledge of the underlying principles of clinical trials is required for any investigator choosing to embark on such an endeavor. This chapter will elaborate on three ...
A thorough review of the literature is essential on your topic of interest. With this accomplished, one may reasonably develop original and relevant (i.e., meaningful) hypotheses. Not all original and relevant hypotheses, however, are feasible (i.e., testable). Once a relevant, and feasible hypothesis has been developed, an optimal study may be ...
The process of formulating a good research question can be challenging and frustrating. While a comprehensive literature review is compulsory, the researcher usually encounters methodological difficulties in the conduct of the study, particularly if the primary study question has not been adequately selected in accordance with the clinical dilemma that needs to be addressed.
of the study. Ultimately, the hypothesis of a study determines the objectives of that study. Generally, a study's planning also relies on the primary research question/objective of that study ...
observation, deduction or induction, and the articulation of clear statements. Effective hypotheses are characterized by conceptual clarity, specificity, testability, grounding in theory, and ...
Key Takeaways. A hypothesis is a prediction that guides the research process. Formulating a hypothesis helps focus data collection and analysis. Background research is essential for developing a good hypothesis. There are different types of hypotheses, like null and alternative. Ethical considerations are important when making a hypothesis.
These are exploratory in nature that is inductive research. In fact-finding studies, the premises or the matter is to be explored and identified first so that it can become a base for hypothesis formulation. Therefore hypothesis is not mandatory for Historical studies. Therefore option 2 is the correct answer.
On the other hand, hypotheses may not predict the exact direction and are used in the absence of a theory, or when findings contradict previous studies (non-directional hypothesis).4 In addition, hypotheses can 1) define interdependency between variables (associative hypothesis),4 2) propose an effect on the dependent variable from manipulation ...
For example: if the temperature of a chamber is raised, then the time it takes to melt an ice block will decrease. In this example, the independent variable is the temperature and the dependent ...
A thorough review of the literature is essential on your topic of interest. With this accomplished, one may reasonably develop original and relevant (i.e., meaningful) hypotheses. Not all original and relevant hypotheses, however, are feasible (i.e., testable). Once an original, relevant, and feasible hypothesis has been developed, an optimal ...
As obvious, methods regarding planning of the study and data analysis along with interpretation of the results are guided by hypothesis of the study. It may be worthwhile to state that hypothesis under clinical study may be of four types: Non-superiority Trials Superiority Trials In absence of any guess about comparative efficacy of involved ...
6 Descriptive studies may not have a specific hypothesis but rather have a purpose statement. 7 The methods section is how the study was done and should include enough detail for reviewers to ...
The smaller the value, the less the chance our data agree with the null prediction. Small numbers like this can be confusing, particularly if many p-values are reported, like in many genomics works, e.g., GWAS studies. Instead of reporting vanishingly small p-values, studies may report the negative log 10 p-value, or -logP. Instead of small ...
Clinical Significance. Recall that clinical significance and statistical significance are two different concepts. Healthcare providers should remember that a study with statistically significant differences and large sample size may be of no interest to clinicians, whereas a study with smaller sample size and statistically non-significant results could impact clinical practice.
Building on the ideas in Chap. 1, we describe formulating, testing, and revising hypotheses as a continuing cycle of clarifying what you want to study, making predictions about what you might find together with developing your reasons for these predictions, imagining tests of these predictions, revising your predictions and rationales, and so ...