what is research hypothesis in quantitative research

What Is A Research (Scientific) Hypothesis? A plain-language explainer + examples

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA)  | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020

If you’re new to the world of research, or it’s your first time writing a dissertation or thesis, you’re probably noticing that the words “research hypothesis” and “scientific hypothesis” are used quite a bit, and you’re wondering what they mean in a research context .

“Hypothesis” is one of those words that people use loosely, thinking they understand what it means. However, it has a very specific meaning within academic research. So, it’s important to understand the exact meaning before you start hypothesizing. 

Research Hypothesis 101

• What is a hypothesis ?
• What is a research hypothesis (scientific hypothesis)?
• Requirements for a research hypothesis
• Definition of a research hypothesis
• The null hypothesis

What is a hypothesis?

Let’s start with the general definition of a hypothesis (not a research hypothesis or scientific hypothesis), according to the Cambridge Dictionary:

Hypothesis: an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved.

In other words, it’s a statement that provides an explanation for why or how something works, based on facts (or some reasonable assumptions), but that has not yet been specifically tested . For example, a hypothesis might look something like this:

Hypothesis: sleep impacts academic performance.

This statement predicts that academic performance will be influenced by the amount and/or quality of sleep a student engages in – sounds reasonable, right? It’s based on reasonable assumptions , underpinned by what we currently know about sleep and health (from the existing literature). So, loosely speaking, we could call it a hypothesis, at least by the dictionary definition.

But that’s not good enough…

Unfortunately, that’s not quite sophisticated enough to describe a research hypothesis (also sometimes called a scientific hypothesis), and it wouldn’t be acceptable in a dissertation, thesis or research paper . In the world of academic research, a statement needs a few more criteria to constitute a true research hypothesis .

What is a research hypothesis?

A research hypothesis (also called a scientific hypothesis) is a statement about the expected outcome of a study (for example, a dissertation or thesis). To constitute a quality hypothesis, the statement needs to have three attributes – specificity , clarity and testability .

Let’s take a look at these more closely.

Need a helping hand?

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

A good research hypothesis needs to be extremely clear and articulate about both what’ s being assessed (who or what variables are involved ) and the expected outcome (for example, a difference between groups, a relationship between variables, etc.).

Let’s stick with our sleepy students example and look at how this statement could be more specific and clear.

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.

As you can see, the statement is very specific as it identifies the variables involved (sleep hours and test grades), the parties involved (two groups of students), as well as the predicted relationship type (a positive relationship). There’s no ambiguity or uncertainty about who or what is involved in the statement, and the expected outcome is clear.

Contrast that to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – and you can see the difference. “Sleep” and “academic performance” are both comparatively vague , and there’s no indication of what the expected relationship direction is (more sleep or less sleep). As you can see, specificity and clarity are key.

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

A statement must be testable to qualify as a research hypothesis. In other words, there needs to be a way to prove (or disprove) the statement. If it’s not testable, it’s not a hypothesis – simple as that.

For example, consider the hypothesis we mentioned earlier:

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.  

We could test this statement by undertaking a quantitative study involving two groups of students, one that gets 8 or more hours of sleep per night for a fixed period, and one that gets less. We could then compare the standardised test results for both groups to see if there’s a statistically significant difference. 

Again, if you compare this to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – you can see that it would be quite difficult to test that statement, primarily because it isn’t specific enough. How much sleep? By who? What type of academic performance?

So, remember the mantra – if you can’t test it, it’s not a hypothesis 🙂

Defining A Research Hypothesis

You’re still with us? Great! Let’s recap and pin down a clear definition of a hypothesis.

A research hypothesis (or scientific hypothesis) is a statement about an expected relationship between variables, or explanation of an occurrence, that is clear, specific and testable.

So, when you write up hypotheses for your dissertation or thesis, make sure that they meet all these criteria. If you do, you’ll not only have rock-solid hypotheses but you’ll also ensure a clear focus for your entire research project.

What about the null hypothesis?

You may have also heard the terms null hypothesis , alternative hypothesis, or H-zero thrown around. At a simple level, the null hypothesis is the counter-proposal to the original hypothesis.

For example, if the hypothesis predicts that there is a relationship between two variables (for example, sleep and academic performance), the null hypothesis would predict that there is no relationship between those variables.

At a more technical level, the null hypothesis proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations and that any differences are due to chance alone.

And there you have it – hypotheses in a nutshell. 

If you have any questions, be sure to leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to help you. If you need hands-on help developing and testing your hypotheses, consider our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research journey.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

Very useful information. I benefit more from getting more information in this regard.

Very great insight,educative and informative. Please give meet deep critics on many research data of public international Law like human rights, environment, natural resources, law of the sea etc

In a book I read a distinction is made between null, research, and alternative hypothesis. As far as I understand, alternative and research hypotheses are the same. Can you please elaborate? Best Afshin

This is a self explanatory, easy going site. I will recommend this to my friends and colleagues.

Very good definition. How can I cite your definition in my thesis? Thank you. Is nul hypothesis compulsory in a research?

It’s a counter-proposal to be proven as a rejection

Please what is the difference between alternate hypothesis and research hypothesis?

It is a very good explanation. However, it limits hypotheses to statistically tasteable ideas. What about for qualitative researches or other researches that involve quantitative data that don’t need statistical tests?

In qualitative research, one typically uses propositions, not hypotheses.

could you please elaborate it more

I’ve benefited greatly from these notes, thank you.

This is very helpful

well articulated ideas are presented here, thank you for being reliable sources of information

Excellent. Thanks for being clear and sound about the research methodology and hypothesis (quantitative research)

I have only a simple question regarding the null hypothesis. – Is the null hypothesis (Ho) known as the reversible hypothesis of the alternative hypothesis (H1? – How to test it in academic research?

this is very important note help me much more

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is Research Methodology? Simple Definition (With Examples) - Grad Coach - […] Contrasted to this, a quantitative methodology is typically used when the research aims and objectives are confirmatory in nature. For example,…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Research Questions & Hypotheses

Generally, in quantitative studies, reviewers expect hypotheses rather than research questions. However, both research questions and hypotheses serve different purposes and can be beneficial when used together.

Research Questions

Clarify the research’s aim (farrugia et al., 2010).

• Research often begins with an interest in a topic, but a deep understanding of the subject is crucial to formulate an appropriate research question.
• Descriptive: “What factors most influence the academic achievement of senior high school students?”
• Comparative: “What is the performance difference between teaching methods A and B?”
• Relationship-based: “What is the relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement?”
• Increasing knowledge about a subject can be achieved through systematic literature reviews, in-depth interviews with patients (and proxies), focus groups, and consultations with field experts.
• Some funding bodies, like the Canadian Institute for Health Research, recommend conducting a systematic review or a pilot study before seeking grants for full trials.
• The presence of multiple research questions in a study can complicate the design, statistical analysis, and feasibility.
• It’s advisable to focus on a single primary research question for the study.
• The primary question, clearly stated at the end of a grant proposal’s introduction, usually specifies the study population, intervention, and other relevant factors.
• The FINER criteria underscore aspects that can enhance the chances of a successful research project, including specifying the population of interest, aligning with scientific and public interest, clinical relevance, and contribution to the field, while complying with ethical and national research standards.
• The P ICOT approach is crucial in developing the study’s framework and protocol, influencing inclusion and exclusion criteria and identifying patient groups for inclusion.
• Defining the specific population, intervention, comparator, and outcome helps in selecting the right outcome measurement tool.
• The more precise the population definition and stricter the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the more significant the impact on the interpretation, applicability, and generalizability of the research findings.
• A restricted study population enhances internal validity but may limit the study’s external validity and generalizability to clinical practice.
• A broadly defined study population may better reflect clinical practice but could increase bias and reduce internal validity.
• An inadequately formulated research question can negatively impact study design, potentially leading to ineffective outcomes and affecting publication prospects.

Checklist: Good research questions for social science projects (Panke, 2018)

Research Hypotheses

Present the researcher’s predictions based on specific statements.

• These statements define the research problem or issue and indicate the direction of the researcher’s predictions.
• Formulating the research question and hypothesis from existing data (e.g., a database) can lead to multiple statistical comparisons and potentially spurious findings due to chance.
• The research or clinical hypothesis, derived from the research question, shapes the study’s key elements: sampling strategy, intervention, comparison, and outcome variables.
• Hypotheses can express a single outcome or multiple outcomes.
• After statistical testing, the null hypothesis is either rejected or not rejected based on whether the study’s findings are statistically significant.
• Hypothesis testing helps determine if observed findings are due to true differences and not chance.
• Hypotheses can be 1-sided (specific direction of difference) or 2-sided (presence of a difference without specifying direction).
• 2-sided hypotheses are generally preferred unless there’s a strong justification for a 1-sided hypothesis.
• A solid research hypothesis, informed by a good research question, influences the research design and paves the way for defining clear research objectives.

Types of Research Hypothesis

• In a Y-centered research design, the focus is on the dependent variable (DV) which is specified in the research question. Theories are then used to identify independent variables (IV) and explain their causal relationship with the DV.
• Example: “An increase in teacher-led instructional time (IV) is likely to improve student reading comprehension scores (DV), because extensive guided practice under expert supervision enhances learning retention and skill mastery.”
• Hypothesis Explanation: The dependent variable (student reading comprehension scores) is the focus, and the hypothesis explores how changes in the independent variable (teacher-led instructional time) affect it.
• In X-centered research designs, the independent variable is specified in the research question. Theories are used to determine potential dependent variables and the causal mechanisms at play.
• Example: “Implementing technology-based learning tools (IV) is likely to enhance student engagement in the classroom (DV), because interactive and multimedia content increases student interest and participation.”
• Hypothesis Explanation: The independent variable (technology-based learning tools) is the focus, with the hypothesis exploring its impact on a potential dependent variable (student engagement).
• Probabilistic hypotheses suggest that changes in the independent variable are likely to lead to changes in the dependent variable in a predictable manner, but not with absolute certainty.
• Example: “The more teachers engage in professional development programs (IV), the more their teaching effectiveness (DV) is likely to improve, because continuous training updates pedagogical skills and knowledge.”
• Hypothesis Explanation: This hypothesis implies a probable relationship between the extent of professional development (IV) and teaching effectiveness (DV).
• Deterministic hypotheses state that a specific change in the independent variable will lead to a specific change in the dependent variable, implying a more direct and certain relationship.
• Example: “If the school curriculum changes from traditional lecture-based methods to project-based learning (IV), then student collaboration skills (DV) are expected to improve because project-based learning inherently requires teamwork and peer interaction.”
• Hypothesis Explanation: This hypothesis presumes a direct and definite outcome (improvement in collaboration skills) resulting from a specific change in the teaching method.
• Example : “Students who identify as visual learners will score higher on tests that are presented in a visually rich format compared to tests presented in a text-only format.”
• Explanation : This hypothesis aims to describe the potential difference in test scores between visual learners taking visually rich tests and text-only tests, without implying a direct cause-and-effect relationship.
• Example : “Teaching method A will improve student performance more than method B.”
• Explanation : This hypothesis compares the effectiveness of two different teaching methods, suggesting that one will lead to better student performance than the other. It implies a direct comparison but does not necessarily establish a causal mechanism.
• Example : “Students with higher self-efficacy will show higher levels of academic achievement.”
• Explanation : This hypothesis predicts a relationship between the variable of self-efficacy and academic achievement. Unlike a causal hypothesis, it does not necessarily suggest that one variable causes changes in the other, but rather that they are related in some way.

Tips for developing research questions and hypotheses for research studies

• Perform a systematic literature review (if one has not been done) to increase knowledge and familiarity with the topic and to assist with research development.
• Learn about current trends and technological advances on the topic.
• Seek careful input from experts, mentors, colleagues, and collaborators to refine your research question as this will aid in developing the research question and guide the research study.
• Use the FINER criteria in the development of the research question.
• Ensure that the research question follows PICOT format.
• Develop a research hypothesis from the research question.
• Ensure that the research question and objectives are answerable, feasible, and clinically relevant.

If your research hypotheses are derived from your research questions, particularly when multiple hypotheses address a single question, it’s recommended to use both research questions and hypotheses. However, if this isn’t the case, using hypotheses over research questions is advised. It’s important to note these are general guidelines, not strict rules. If you opt not to use hypotheses, consult with your supervisor for the best approach.

Farrugia, P., Petrisor, B. A., Farrokhyar, F., & Bhandari, M. (2010). Practical tips for surgical research: Research questions, hypotheses and objectives.  Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie ,  53 (4), 278–281.

Hulley, S. B., Cummings, S. R., Browner, W. S., Grady, D., & Newman, T. B. (2007). Designing clinical research. Philadelphia.

Panke, D. (2018). Research design & method selection: Making good choices in the social sciences.  Research Design & Method Selection , 1-368.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

• The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

• Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

• Collecting Data

A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process.

Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test performance. The hypothesis might be: "This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that sleep-deprived people will perform worse on a test than individuals who are not sleep-deprived."

At a Glance

A hypothesis is crucial to scientific research because it offers a clear direction for what the researchers are looking to find. This allows them to design experiments to test their predictions and add to our scientific knowledge about the world. This article explores how a hypothesis is used in psychology research, how to write a good hypothesis, and the different types of hypotheses you might use.

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

In the scientific method , whether it involves research in psychology, biology, or some other area, a hypothesis represents what the researchers think will happen in an experiment. The scientific method involves the following steps:

• Forming a question
• Performing background research
• Creating a hypothesis
• Designing an experiment
• Collecting data
• Analyzing the results
• Drawing conclusions
• Communicating the results

The hypothesis is a prediction, but it involves more than a guess. Most of the time, the hypothesis begins with a question which is then explored through background research. At this point, researchers then begin to develop a testable hypothesis.

Unless you are creating an exploratory study, your hypothesis should always explain what you  expect  to happen.

In a study exploring the effects of a particular drug, the hypothesis might be that researchers expect the drug to have some type of effect on the symptoms of a specific illness. In psychology, the hypothesis might focus on how a certain aspect of the environment might influence a particular behavior.

Remember, a hypothesis does not have to be correct. While the hypothesis predicts what the researchers expect to see, the goal of the research is to determine whether this guess is right or wrong. When conducting an experiment, researchers might explore numerous factors to determine which ones might contribute to the ultimate outcome.

In many cases, researchers may find that the results of an experiment  do not  support the original hypothesis. When writing up these results, the researchers might suggest other options that should be explored in future studies.

In many cases, researchers might draw a hypothesis from a specific theory or build on previous research. For example, prior research has shown that stress can impact the immune system. So a researcher might hypothesize: "People with high-stress levels will be more likely to contract a common cold after being exposed to the virus than people who have low-stress levels."

In other instances, researchers might look at commonly held beliefs or folk wisdom. "Birds of a feather flock together" is one example of folk adage that a psychologist might try to investigate. The researcher might pose a specific hypothesis that "People tend to select romantic partners who are similar to them in interests and educational level."

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

So how do you write a good hypothesis? When trying to come up with a hypothesis for your research or experiments, ask yourself the following questions:

• Is your hypothesis based on your research on a topic?
• Can your hypothesis be tested?
• Does your hypothesis include independent and dependent variables?

Before you come up with a specific hypothesis, spend some time doing background research. Once you have completed a literature review, start thinking about potential questions you still have. Pay attention to the discussion section in the  journal articles you read . Many authors will suggest questions that still need to be explored.

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

• Collect as many observations about a topic or problem as you can.
• Evaluate these observations and look for possible causes of the problem.
• Create a list of possible explanations that you might want to explore.
• After you have developed some possible hypotheses, think of ways that you could confirm or disprove each hypothesis through experimentation. This is known as falsifiability.

In the scientific method ,  falsifiability is an important part of any valid hypothesis. In order to test a claim scientifically, it must be possible that the claim could be proven false.

Students sometimes confuse the idea of falsifiability with the idea that it means that something is false, which is not the case. What falsifiability means is that  if  something was false, then it is possible to demonstrate that it is false.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it makes claims that cannot be refuted or proven false.

The Importance of Operational Definitions

A variable is a factor or element that can be changed and manipulated in ways that are observable and measurable. However, the researcher must also define how the variable will be manipulated and measured in the study.

Operational definitions are specific definitions for all relevant factors in a study. This process helps make vague or ambiguous concepts detailed and measurable.

For example, a researcher might operationally define the variable " test anxiety " as the results of a self-report measure of anxiety experienced during an exam. A "study habits" variable might be defined by the amount of studying that actually occurs as measured by time.

These precise descriptions are important because many things can be measured in various ways. Clearly defining these variables and how they are measured helps ensure that other researchers can replicate your results.

Replicability

One of the basic principles of any type of scientific research is that the results must be replicable.

Replication means repeating an experiment in the same way to produce the same results. By clearly detailing the specifics of how the variables were measured and manipulated, other researchers can better understand the results and repeat the study if needed.

Some variables are more difficult than others to define. For example, how would you operationally define a variable such as aggression ? For obvious ethical reasons, researchers cannot create a situation in which a person behaves aggressively toward others.

To measure this variable, the researcher must devise a measurement that assesses aggressive behavior without harming others. The researcher might utilize a simulated task to measure aggressiveness in this situation.

Hypothesis Checklist

• Does your hypothesis focus on something that you can actually test?
• Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
• Can you manipulate the variables?
• Can your hypothesis be tested without violating ethical standards?

The hypothesis you use will depend on what you are investigating and hoping to find. Some of the main types of hypotheses that you might use include:

• Simple hypothesis : This type of hypothesis suggests there is a relationship between one independent variable and one dependent variable.
• Complex hypothesis : This type suggests a relationship between three or more variables, such as two independent and dependent variables.
• Null hypothesis : This hypothesis suggests no relationship exists between two or more variables.
• Alternative hypothesis : This hypothesis states the opposite of the null hypothesis.
• Statistical hypothesis : This hypothesis uses statistical analysis to evaluate a representative population sample and then generalizes the findings to the larger group.
• Logical hypothesis : This hypothesis assumes a relationship between variables without collecting data or evidence.

A hypothesis often follows a basic format of "If {this happens} then {this will happen}." One way to structure your hypothesis is to describe what will happen to the  dependent variable  if you change the  independent variable .

The basic format might be: "If {these changes are made to a certain independent variable}, then we will observe {a change in a specific dependent variable}."

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

• "Students who eat breakfast will perform better on a math exam than students who do not eat breakfast."
• "Students who experience test anxiety before an English exam will get lower scores than students who do not experience test anxiety."​
• "Motorists who talk on the phone while driving will be more likely to make errors on a driving course than those who do not talk on the phone."
• "Children who receive a new reading intervention will have higher reading scores than students who do not receive the intervention."

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

• "People with high-sugar diets and sedentary activity levels are more likely to develop depression."
• "Younger people who are regularly exposed to green, outdoor areas have better subjective well-being than older adults who have limited exposure to green spaces."

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

• "There is no difference in anxiety levels between people who take St. John's wort supplements and those who do not."
• "There is no difference in scores on a memory recall task between children and adults."
• "There is no difference in aggression levels between children who play first-person shooter games and those who do not."

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

• "People who take St. John's wort supplements will have less anxiety than those who do not."
• "Adults will perform better on a memory task than children."
• "Children who play first-person shooter games will show higher levels of aggression than children who do not." 

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

Once a researcher has formed a testable hypothesis, the next step is to select a research design and start collecting data. The research method depends largely on exactly what they are studying. There are two basic types of research methods: descriptive research and experimental research.

Descriptive Research Methods

Descriptive research such as  case studies ,  naturalistic observations , and surveys are often used when  conducting an experiment is difficult or impossible. These methods are best used to describe different aspects of a behavior or psychological phenomenon.

Once a researcher has collected data using descriptive methods, a  correlational study  can examine how the variables are related. This research method might be used to investigate a hypothesis that is difficult to test experimentally.

Experimental Research Methods

Experimental methods  are used to demonstrate causal relationships between variables. In an experiment, the researcher systematically manipulates a variable of interest (known as the independent variable) and measures the effect on another variable (known as the dependent variable).

Unlike correlational studies, which can only be used to determine if there is a relationship between two variables, experimental methods can be used to determine the actual nature of the relationship—whether changes in one variable actually  cause  another to change.

The hypothesis is a critical part of any scientific exploration. It represents what researchers expect to find in a study or experiment. In situations where the hypothesis is unsupported by the research, the research still has value. Such research helps us better understand how different aspects of the natural world relate to one another. It also helps us develop new hypotheses that can then be tested in the future.

Thompson WH, Skau S. On the scope of scientific hypotheses .  R Soc Open Sci . 2023;10(8):230607. doi:10.1098/rsos.230607

Taran S, Adhikari NKJ, Fan E. Falsifiability in medicine: what clinicians can learn from Karl Popper [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jun 17;:].  Intensive Care Med . 2021;47(9):1054-1056. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06432-z

Eyler AA. Research Methods for Public Health . 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company; 2020. doi:10.1891/9780826182067.0004

Nosek BA, Errington TM. What is replication ?  PLoS Biol . 2020;18(3):e3000691. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691

Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 2 - Descriptive studies .  Perspect Clin Res . 2019;10(1):34-36. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_154_18

Nevid J. Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Wadworth, 2013.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

How to Develop a Good Research Hypothesis

The story of a research study begins by asking a question. Researchers all around the globe are asking curious questions and formulating research hypothesis. However, whether the research study provides an effective conclusion depends on how well one develops a good research hypothesis. Research hypothesis examples could help researchers get an idea as to how to write a good research hypothesis.

This blog will help you understand what is a research hypothesis, its characteristics and, how to formulate a research hypothesis

Table of Contents

What is Hypothesis?

Hypothesis is an assumption or an idea proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested. It is a precise, testable statement of what the researchers predict will be outcome of the study.  Hypothesis usually involves proposing a relationship between two variables: the independent variable (what the researchers change) and the dependent variable (what the research measures).

What is a Research Hypothesis?

Research hypothesis is a statement that introduces a research question and proposes an expected result. It is an integral part of the scientific method that forms the basis of scientific experiments. Therefore, you need to be careful and thorough when building your research hypothesis. A minor flaw in the construction of your hypothesis could have an adverse effect on your experiment. In research, there is a convention that the hypothesis is written in two forms, the null hypothesis, and the alternative hypothesis (called the experimental hypothesis when the method of investigation is an experiment).

Characteristics of a Good Research Hypothesis

As the hypothesis is specific, there is a testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. You may consider drawing hypothesis from previously published research based on the theory.

A good research hypothesis involves more effort than just a guess. In particular, your hypothesis may begin with a question that could be further explored through background research.

To help you formulate a promising research hypothesis, you should ask yourself the following questions:

• Is the language clear and focused?
• What is the relationship between your hypothesis and your research topic?
• Is your hypothesis testable? If yes, then how?
• What are the possible explanations that you might want to explore?
• Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
• Can you manipulate your variables without hampering the ethical standards?
• Does your research predict the relationship and outcome?
• Is your research simple and concise (avoids wordiness)?
• Is it clear with no ambiguity or assumptions about the readers’ knowledge
• Is your research observable and testable results?
• Is it relevant and specific to the research question or problem?

The questions listed above can be used as a checklist to make sure your hypothesis is based on a solid foundation. Furthermore, it can help you identify weaknesses in your hypothesis and revise it if necessary.

Source: Educational Hub

How to formulate a research hypothesis.

A testable hypothesis is not a simple statement. It is rather an intricate statement that needs to offer a clear introduction to a scientific experiment, its intentions, and the possible outcomes. However, there are some important things to consider when building a compelling hypothesis.

1. State the problem that you are trying to solve.

Make sure that the hypothesis clearly defines the topic and the focus of the experiment.

2. Try to write the hypothesis as an if-then statement.

Follow this template: If a specific action is taken, then a certain outcome is expected.

3. Define the variables

Independent variables are the ones that are manipulated, controlled, or changed. Independent variables are isolated from other factors of the study.

Dependent variables , as the name suggests are dependent on other factors of the study. They are influenced by the change in independent variable.

4. Scrutinize the hypothesis

Evaluate assumptions, predictions, and evidence rigorously to refine your understanding.

Types of Research Hypothesis

The types of research hypothesis are stated below:

1. Simple Hypothesis

It predicts the relationship between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable.

2. Complex Hypothesis

It predicts the relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables.

3. Directional Hypothesis

It specifies the expected direction to be followed to determine the relationship between variables and is derived from theory. Furthermore, it implies the researcher’s intellectual commitment to a particular outcome.

4. Non-directional Hypothesis

It does not predict the exact direction or nature of the relationship between the two variables. The non-directional hypothesis is used when there is no theory involved or when findings contradict previous research.

5. Associative and Causal Hypothesis

The associative hypothesis defines interdependency between variables. A change in one variable results in the change of the other variable. On the other hand, the causal hypothesis proposes an effect on the dependent due to manipulation of the independent variable.

6. Null Hypothesis

Null hypothesis states a negative statement to support the researcher’s findings that there is no relationship between two variables. There will be no changes in the dependent variable due the manipulation of the independent variable. Furthermore, it states results are due to chance and are not significant in terms of supporting the idea being investigated.

7. Alternative Hypothesis

It states that there is a relationship between the two variables of the study and that the results are significant to the research topic. An experimental hypothesis predicts what changes will take place in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated. Also, it states that the results are not due to chance and that they are significant in terms of supporting the theory being investigated.

Research Hypothesis Examples of Independent and Dependent Variables

Research Hypothesis Example 1 The greater number of coal plants in a region (independent variable) increases water pollution (dependent variable). If you change the independent variable (building more coal factories), it will change the dependent variable (amount of water pollution).

Research Hypothesis Example 2 What is the effect of diet or regular soda (independent variable) on blood sugar levels (dependent variable)? If you change the independent variable (the type of soda you consume), it will change the dependent variable (blood sugar levels)

You should not ignore the importance of the above steps. The validity of your experiment and its results rely on a robust testable hypothesis. Developing a strong testable hypothesis has few advantages, it compels us to think intensely and specifically about the outcomes of a study. Consequently, it enables us to understand the implication of the question and the different variables involved in the study. Furthermore, it helps us to make precise predictions based on prior research. Hence, forming a hypothesis would be of great value to the research. Here are some good examples of testable hypotheses.

More importantly, you need to build a robust testable research hypothesis for your scientific experiments. A testable hypothesis is a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved as a result of experimentation.

Importance of a Testable Hypothesis

To devise and perform an experiment using scientific method, you need to make sure that your hypothesis is testable. To be considered testable, some essential criteria must be met:

• There must be a possibility to prove that the hypothesis is true.
• There must be a possibility to prove that the hypothesis is false.
• The results of the hypothesis must be reproducible.

Without these criteria, the hypothesis and the results will be vague. As a result, the experiment will not prove or disprove anything significant.

What are your experiences with building hypotheses for scientific experiments? What challenges did you face? How did you overcome these challenges? Please share your thoughts with us in the comments section.

Frequently Asked Questions

The steps to write a research hypothesis are: 1. Stating the problem: Ensure that the hypothesis defines the research problem 2. Writing a hypothesis as an 'if-then' statement: Include the action and the expected outcome of your study by following a ‘if-then’ structure. 3. Defining the variables: Define the variables as Dependent or Independent based on their dependency to other factors. 4. Scrutinizing the hypothesis: Identify the type of your hypothesis

Hypothesis testing is a statistical tool which is used to make inferences about a population data to draw conclusions for a particular hypothesis.

Hypothesis in statistics is a formal statement about the nature of a population within a structured framework of a statistical model. It is used to test an existing hypothesis by studying a population.

Research hypothesis is a statement that introduces a research question and proposes an expected result. It forms the basis of scientific experiments.

The different types of hypothesis in research are: • Null hypothesis: Null hypothesis is a negative statement to support the researcher’s findings that there is no relationship between two variables. • Alternate hypothesis: Alternate hypothesis predicts the relationship between the two variables of the study. • Directional hypothesis: Directional hypothesis specifies the expected direction to be followed to determine the relationship between variables. • Non-directional hypothesis: Non-directional hypothesis does not predict the exact direction or nature of the relationship between the two variables. • Simple hypothesis: Simple hypothesis predicts the relationship between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable. • Complex hypothesis: Complex hypothesis predicts the relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables. • Associative and casual hypothesis: Associative and casual hypothesis predicts the relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables. • Empirical hypothesis: Empirical hypothesis can be tested via experiments and observation. • Statistical hypothesis: A statistical hypothesis utilizes statistical models to draw conclusions about broader populations.

Wow! You really simplified your explanation that even dummies would find it easy to comprehend. Thank you so much.

Thanks a lot for your valuable guidance.

I enjoy reading the post. Hypotheses are actually an intrinsic part in a study. It bridges the research question and the methodology of the study.

Useful piece!

This is awesome.Wow.

It very interesting to read the topic, can you guide me any specific example of hypothesis process establish throw the Demand and supply of the specific product in market

Nicely explained

It is really a useful for me Kindly give some examples of hypothesis

It was a well explained content ,can you please give me an example with the null and alternative hypothesis illustrated

clear and concise. thanks.

So Good so Amazing

Good to learn

Thanks a lot for explaining to my level of understanding

Explained well and in simple terms. Quick read! Thank you

It awesome. It has really positioned me in my research project

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

The process of choosing the right research design can put ourselves at the crossroads of…

• Industry News

COPE Forum Discussion Highlights Challenges and Urges Clarity in Institutional Authorship Standards

The COPE forum discussion held in December 2023 initiated with a fundamental question — is…

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

Embarking on your first academic conference experience? Fear not, we got you covered! Academic conferences…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of…

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right…

How to Design Effective Research Questionnaires for Robust Findings

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

Quantitative Research

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 13 January 2019
• Cite this reference work entry

• Leigh A. Wilson 2 , 3  

4462 Accesses

4 Citations

Quantitative research methods are concerned with the planning, design, and implementation of strategies to collect and analyze data. Descartes, the seventeenth-century philosopher, suggested that how the results are achieved is often more important than the results themselves, as the journey taken along the research path is a journey of discovery. High-quality quantitative research is characterized by the attention given to the methods and the reliability of the tools used to collect the data. The ability to critique research in a systematic way is an essential component of a health professional’s role in order to deliver high quality, evidence-based healthcare. This chapter is intended to provide a simple overview of the way new researchers and health practitioners can understand and employ quantitative methods. The chapter offers practical, realistic guidance in a learner-friendly way and uses a logical sequence to understand the process of hypothesis development, study design, data collection and handling, and finally data analysis and interpretation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Babbie ER. The practice of social research. 14th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage; 2016.

Google Scholar  

Descartes. Cited in Halverston, W. (1976). In: A concise introduction to philosophy, 3rd ed. New York: Random House; 1637.

Doll R, Hill AB. The mortality of doctors in relation to their smoking habits. BMJ. 1954;328(7455):1529–33. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1529 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Liamputtong P. Research methods in health: foundations for evidence-based practice. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2017.

McNabb DE. Research methods in public administration and nonprofit management: quantitative and qualitative approaches. 2nd ed. New York: Armonk; 2007.

Merriam-Webster. Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com . Accessed 20th December 2017.

Olesen Larsen P, von Ins M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics. 2010;84(3):575–603.

Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2):619–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181de24bc .

Petrie A, Sabin C. Medical statistics at a glance. 2nd ed. London: Blackwell Publishing; 2005.

Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Publishing; 2009.

Sheehan J. Aspects of research methodology. Nurse Educ Today. 1986;6:193–203.

Wilson LA, Black DA. Health, science research and research methods. Sydney: McGraw Hill; 2013.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

Leigh A. Wilson

Faculty of Health Science, Discipline of Behavioural and Social Sciences in Health, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leigh A. Wilson .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Wilson, L.A. (2019). Quantitative Research. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_54

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_54

Published : 13 January 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-5250-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-5251-4

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

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

• Manuscript Preparation

What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research?

• 4 minute read
• 321.9K views

Table of Contents

One of the most important aspects of conducting research is constructing a strong hypothesis. But what makes a hypothesis in research effective? In this article, we’ll look at the difference between a hypothesis and a research question, as well as the elements of a good hypothesis in research. We’ll also include some examples of effective hypotheses, and what pitfalls to avoid.

What is a Hypothesis in Research?

Simply put, a hypothesis is a research question that also includes the predicted or expected result of the research. Without a hypothesis, there can be no basis for a scientific or research experiment. As such, it is critical that you carefully construct your hypothesis by being deliberate and thorough, even before you set pen to paper. Unless your hypothesis is clearly and carefully constructed, any flaw can have an adverse, and even grave, effect on the quality of your experiment and its subsequent results.

Research Question vs Hypothesis

It’s easy to confuse research questions with hypotheses, and vice versa. While they’re both critical to the Scientific Method, they have very specific differences. Primarily, a research question, just like a hypothesis, is focused and concise. But a hypothesis includes a prediction based on the proposed research, and is designed to forecast the relationship of and between two (or more) variables. Research questions are open-ended, and invite debate and discussion, while hypotheses are closed, e.g. “The relationship between A and B will be C.”

A hypothesis is generally used if your research topic is fairly well established, and you are relatively certain about the relationship between the variables that will be presented in your research. Since a hypothesis is ideally suited for experimental studies, it will, by its very existence, affect the design of your experiment. The research question is typically used for new topics that have not yet been researched extensively. Here, the relationship between different variables is less known. There is no prediction made, but there may be variables explored. The research question can be casual in nature, simply trying to understand if a relationship even exists, descriptive or comparative.

How to Write Hypothesis in Research

Writing an effective hypothesis starts before you even begin to type. Like any task, preparation is key, so you start first by conducting research yourself, and reading all you can about the topic that you plan to research. From there, you’ll gain the knowledge you need to understand where your focus within the topic will lie.

Remember that a hypothesis is a prediction of the relationship that exists between two or more variables. Your job is to write a hypothesis, and design the research, to “prove” whether or not your prediction is correct. A common pitfall is to use judgments that are subjective and inappropriate for the construction of a hypothesis. It’s important to keep the focus and language of your hypothesis objective.

An effective hypothesis in research is clearly and concisely written, and any terms or definitions clarified and defined. Specific language must also be used to avoid any generalities or assumptions.

Use the following points as a checklist to evaluate the effectiveness of your research hypothesis:

• Predicts the relationship and outcome
• Simple and concise – avoid wordiness
• Clear with no ambiguity or assumptions about the readers’ knowledge
• Observable and testable results
• Relevant and specific to the research question or problem

Research Hypothesis Example

Perhaps the best way to evaluate whether or not your hypothesis is effective is to compare it to those of your colleagues in the field. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to writing a powerful research hypothesis. As you’re reading and preparing your hypothesis, you’ll also read other hypotheses. These can help guide you on what works, and what doesn’t, when it comes to writing a strong research hypothesis.

Here are a few generic examples to get you started.

Eating an apple each day, after the age of 60, will result in a reduction of frequency of physician visits.

Budget airlines are more likely to receive more customer complaints. A budget airline is defined as an airline that offers lower fares and fewer amenities than a traditional full-service airline. (Note that the term “budget airline” is included in the hypothesis.

Workplaces that offer flexible working hours report higher levels of employee job satisfaction than workplaces with fixed hours.

Each of the above examples are specific, observable and measurable, and the statement of prediction can be verified or shown to be false by utilizing standard experimental practices. It should be noted, however, that often your hypothesis will change as your research progresses.

Language Editing Plus

Elsevier’s Language Editing Plus service can help ensure that your research hypothesis is well-designed, and articulates your research and conclusions. Our most comprehensive editing package, you can count on a thorough language review by native-English speakers who are PhDs or PhD candidates. We’ll check for effective logic and flow of your manuscript, as well as document formatting for your chosen journal, reference checks, and much more.

• Research Process

Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review?

What is a Problem Statement? [with examples]

You may also like.

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• Teesside University Student & Library Services
• Learning Hub Group

Quantitative data collection and analysis

• Testing hypotheses
• Quantitative data collection
• Averages and percentiles
• Measures of Spread or Dispersion
• Samples and population
• Statistical tests - parametric
• Statistical tests - non-parametric
• Probability
• Reliability and Validity
• Analysing relationships
• Useful Books

Testing Hypotheses

• What is a hypothesis?
• Significance testing
• One-tailed or two-tailed?
• Degrees of freedom

A hypothesis is a statement that we are trying to prove or disprove. It is used to express the relationship between variables  and whether this relationship is significant. It is specific and offers a prediction on the results of your research question.

Your research question  will lead you to developing a hypothesis, this is why your research question needs to be specific and clear.

The hypothesis will then guide you to the most appropriate techniques you should use to answer the question. They reflect the literature and theories on which you basing them. They need to be testable (i.e. measurable and practical).

Null hypothesis  (H 0 ) is the proposition that there will not be a relationship between the variables you are looking at. i.e. any differences are due to chance). They always refer to the population. (Usually we don't believe this to be true.)

e.g. There is  no difference in instances of illegal drug use by teenagers who are members of a gang and those who are not..

Alternative hypothesis  (H A ) or ( H 1 ):  this is sometimes called the research hypothesis or experimental hypothesis. It is the proposition that there will be a relationship. It is a statement of inequality between the variables you are interested in. They always refer to the sample. It is usually a declaration rather than a question and is clear, to the point and specific.

e.g. The instances of illegal drug use of teenagers who are members of a gang  is different than the instances of illegal drug use of teenagers who are not gang members.

A non-directional research hypothesis - reflects an expected difference between groups but does not specify the direction of this difference (see two-tailed test).

A directional research hypothesis - reflects an expected difference between groups but does specify the direction of this difference. (see one-tailed test)

e.g. The instances of illegal drug use by teenagers who are members of a gang will be higher t han the instances of illegal drug use of teenagers who are not gang members.

Then the process of testing is to ascertain which hypothesis to believe. 

It is usually easier to prove something as untrue rather than true, so looking at the null hypothesis is the usual starting point.

The process of examining the null hypothesis in light of evidence from the sample is called significance testing . It is a way of establishing a range of values in which we can establish whether the null hypothesis is true or false.

The debate over hypothesis testing

There has been discussion over whether the scientific method employed in traditional hypothesis testing is appropriate.  

See below for some articles that discuss this:

• Gill, J. (1999) 'The insignificance of null hypothesis testing',  Politics Research Quarterly , 52(3), pp. 647-674 .
• Wainer, H. and Robinson, D.H. (2003) 'Shaping up the practice of null hypothesis significance testing',  Educational Researcher, 32(7), pp.22-30 .
• Ferguson, C.J. and Heener, M. (2012) ' A vast graveyard of undead theories: publication bias and psychological science's aversion to the null' ,  Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), pp.555-561 .

Taken from: Salkind, N.J. (2017)  Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. 6th edn. London: SAGE pp. 144-145.

• Null hypothesis - a simple introduction (SPSS)

A significance level defines the level when your sample evidence contradicts your null hypothesis so that your can then reject it. It is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is really true.

e.g. a significance level of 0.05 indicates that there is a 5% (or 1 in 20) risk of deciding that there is an effect when in fact there is none.

The lower the significance level that you set,  then the evidence from the sample has to be stronger to be able to reject the null hypothesis.

N.B.  - it is important that you set the significance level before you carry out your study and analysis.

Using Confidence Intervals

I t is possible to test the significance of your null hypothesis using Confidence Interval (see under samples and populations tab).

- if the range lies outside our predicted null hypothesis value we can reject it and accept the alternative hypothesis  

The test statistic

This is another commonly used statistic

• Write down your null and alternative hypothesis
• Find the sample statistic (e.g.the mean of your sample)
• Calculate the test statistic Z score (see under Measures of spread or dispersion and Statistical tests - parametric). In this case the sample mean is compared to the population mean (assumed from the null hypothesis) and the standard error (see under Samples and population) is used rather than the standard deviation.
• Compare the test statistic with the critical values (e.g. plus or minus 1.96 for 5% significance)
• Draw a conclusion about the hypotheses - does the calculated z value lies in this critical range i.e. above 1.96 or below -1.96? If it does we can reject the null hypothesis. This would indicate that the results are significant (or an effect has been detected) - which means that if there were no difference in the population then getting a result that you have observed would be highly unlikely therefore you can reject the null hypothesis.

Type I error  - this is the chance of wrongly rejecting the null hypothesis even though it is actually true, e.g. by using a 5% p  level you would expect the null hypothesis to be rejected about 5% of the time when the null hypothesis is true. You could set a more stringent p  level such as 1% (or 1 in 100) to be more certain of not seeing a Type I error. This, however, makes more likely another type of error (Type II) occurring.

Type II error  - this is where there is an effect, but the  p  value you obtain is non-significant hence you don’t detect this effect.

• Statistical significance - what does it really mean?
• Statistical tables

One-tailed tests - where we know in which direction (e.g. larger or smaller) the difference between sample and population will be. It is a directional hypothesis.

Two-tailed tests - where we are looking at whether there is a difference between sample and population. This difference could be larger or smaller. This is a non-directional hypothesis.

If the difference is in the direction you have predicted (i.e. a one-tailed test) it is easier to get a significant result. Though there are arguments against using a one-tailed test (Wright and London, 2009, p. 98-99)*

*Wright, D. B. & London, K. (2009)  First (and second) steps in statistics . 2nd edn. London: SAGE.

N.B. - think of the ‘tails’ as the regions at the far-end of a normal distribution. For a two-tailed test with significance level of 0.05% then 0.025% of the values would be at one end of the distribution and the other 0.025% would be at the other end of the distribution. It is the values in these ‘critical’ extreme regions where we can think about rejecting the null hypothesis and claim that there has been an effect.

Degrees of freedom ( df)  is a rather difficult mathematical concept, but is needed to calculate the signifcance of certain statistical tests, such as the t-test, ANOVA and Chi-squared test.

It is broadly defined as the number of "observations" (pieces of information) in the data that are free to vary when estimating statistical parameters. (Taken from Minitab Blog ).

The higher the degrees of freedom are the more powerful and precise your estimates of the parameter (population) will be.

Typically, for a 1-sample t-test it is considered as the number of values in your sample minus 1.

For chi-squared tests with a table of rows and columns the rule is:

(Number of rows minus 1) times (number of columns minus 1)

Any accessible example to illustrate the principle of degrees of freedom using chocolates.

• You have seven chocolates in a box, each being a different type, e.g. truffle, coffee cream, caramel cluster, fudge, strawberry dream, hazelnut whirl, toffee. 
• You are being good and intend to eat only one chocolate each day of the week.
• On the first day, you can choose to eat any one of the 7 chocolate types  - you have a choice from all 7.
• On the second day, you can choose from the 6 remaining chocolates, on day 3 you can choose from 5 chocolates, and so on.
• On the sixth day you have a choice of the remaining 2 chocolates you haven't ate that week.
• However on the seventh day - you haven't really got any choice of chocolate - it has got to be the one you have left in your box.
• You had 7-1 = 6 days of “chocolate” freedom—in which the chocolate you ate could vary!
• << Previous: Samples and population
• Next: Statistical tests - parametric >>
• Last Updated: Jan 9, 2024 11:01 AM
• URL: https://libguides.tees.ac.uk/quantitative

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is Quantitative Research? | Definition & Methods

What Is Quantitative Research? | Definition & Methods

Published on 4 April 2022 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on 10 October 2022.

Quantitative research is the process of collecting and analysing numerical data. It can be used to find patterns and averages, make predictions, test causal relationships, and generalise results to wider populations.

Quantitative research is the opposite of qualitative research , which involves collecting and analysing non-numerical data (e.g. text, video, or audio).

Quantitative research is widely used in the natural and social sciences: biology, chemistry, psychology, economics, sociology, marketing, etc.

• What is the demographic makeup of Singapore in 2020?
• How has the average temperature changed globally over the last century?
• Does environmental pollution affect the prevalence of honey bees?
• Does working from home increase productivity for people with long commutes?

Table of contents

Quantitative research methods, quantitative data analysis, advantages of quantitative research, disadvantages of quantitative research, frequently asked questions about quantitative research.

You can use quantitative research methods for descriptive, correlational or experimental research.

• In descriptive research , you simply seek an overall summary of your study variables.
• In correlational research , you investigate relationships between your study variables.
• In experimental research , you systematically examine whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship between variables.

Correlational and experimental research can both be used to formally test hypotheses , or predictions, using statistics. The results may be generalised to broader populations based on the sampling method used.

To collect quantitative data, you will often need to use operational definitions that translate abstract concepts (e.g., mood) into observable and quantifiable measures (e.g., self-ratings of feelings and energy levels).

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Once data is collected, you may need to process it before it can be analysed. For example, survey and test data may need to be transformed from words to numbers. Then, you can use statistical analysis to answer your research questions .

Descriptive statistics will give you a summary of your data and include measures of averages and variability. You can also use graphs, scatter plots and frequency tables to visualise your data and check for any trends or outliers.

Using inferential statistics , you can make predictions or generalisations based on your data. You can test your hypothesis or use your sample data to estimate the population parameter .

You can also assess the reliability and validity of your data collection methods to indicate how consistently and accurately your methods actually measured what you wanted them to.

Quantitative research is often used to standardise data collection and generalise findings . Strengths of this approach include:

• Replication

Repeating the study is possible because of standardised data collection protocols and tangible definitions of abstract concepts.

• Direct comparisons of results

The study can be reproduced in other cultural settings, times or with different groups of participants. Results can be compared statistically.

• Large samples

Data from large samples can be processed and analysed using reliable and consistent procedures through quantitative data analysis.

• Hypothesis testing

Using formalised and established hypothesis testing procedures means that you have to carefully consider and report your research variables, predictions, data collection and testing methods before coming to a conclusion.

Despite the benefits of quantitative research, it is sometimes inadequate in explaining complex research topics. Its limitations include:

• Superficiality

Using precise and restrictive operational definitions may inadequately represent complex concepts. For example, the concept of mood may be represented with just a number in quantitative research, but explained with elaboration in qualitative research.

• Narrow focus

Predetermined variables and measurement procedures can mean that you ignore other relevant observations.

• Structural bias

Despite standardised procedures, structural biases can still affect quantitative research. Missing data , imprecise measurements or inappropriate sampling methods are biases that can lead to the wrong conclusions.

• Lack of context

Quantitative research often uses unnatural settings like laboratories or fails to consider historical and cultural contexts that may affect data collection and results.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organisations.

Operationalisation means turning abstract conceptual ideas into measurable observations.

For example, the concept of social anxiety isn’t directly observable, but it can be operationally defined in terms of self-rating scores, behavioural avoidance of crowded places, or physical anxiety symptoms in social situations.

Before collecting data , it’s important to consider how you will operationalise the variables that you want to measure.

Reliability and validity are both about how well a method measures something:

• Reliability refers to the  consistency of a measure (whether the results can be reproduced under the same conditions).
• Validity   refers to the  accuracy of a measure (whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure).

If you are doing experimental research , you also have to consider the internal and external validity of your experiment.

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2022, October 10). What Is Quantitative Research? | Definition & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/introduction-to-quantitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Key Concepts in Quantitative Research

In this module, we are going to explore the nuances of quantitative research, including the main types of quantitative research, more exploration into variables (including confounding and extraneous variables), and causation.

Content includes:

• Flaws, “Proof”, and Rigor
• The Steps of Quantitative Methodology
• Major Classes of Quantitative Research
• Experimental versus Non-Experimental Research
• Types of Experimental Research
• Types of Non-Experimental Research
• Research Variables
• Confounding/Extraneous Variables
• Causation versus correlation/association

Objectives:

• Discuss the flaws, proof, and rigor in research.
• Describe the differences between independent variables and dependent variables.
• Describe the steps in quantitative research methodology.
• Describe experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental research studies
• Describe confounding and extraneous variables.
• Differentiate cause-and-effect (causality) versus association/correlation

Flaws, Proof, and Rigor in Research

One of the biggest hurdles that students and seasoned researchers alike struggle to grasp, is that research cannot “ prove ” nor “ disprove ”. Research can only support a hypothesis with reasonable, statistically significant evidence.

Indeed. You’ve heard it incorrectly your entire life. You will hear professors, scientists, radio ads, podcasts, and even researchers comment something to the effect of, “It has been proven that…” or “Research proves that…” or “Finally! There is proof that…”

We have been duped. Consider the “ prove ” word a very bad word in this course. The forbidden “P” word. Do not say it, write it, allude to it, or repeat it. And, for the love of avocados and all things fluffy, do not include the “P” word on your EBP poster. You will be deducted some major points.

We can only conclude with reasonable certainty through statistical analyses that there is a high probability that something did not happen by chance but instead happened due to the intervention that the researcher tested. Got that? We will come back to that concept but for now know that it is called “statistical significance”.

All research has flaws. We might not know what those flaws are, but we will be learning about confounding and extraneous variables later on in this module to help explain how flaws can happen.

Remember this: Sometimes, the researcher might not even know that there was a flaw that occurred. No research project is perfect. There is no 100% awesome. This is a major reason why it is so important to be able to duplicate a research project and obtain similar results. The more we can duplicate research with the same exact methodology and protocols, the more certainty we have in the results and we can start accounting for flaws that may have sneaked in.

Finally, not all research is equal. Some research is done very sloppily, and other research has a very high standard of rigor. How do we know which is which when reading an article? Well, within this module, we will start learning about some things to look for in a published research article to help determine rigor. We do not want lazy research to determine our actions as nurses, right? We want the strongest, most reliable, most valid, most rigorous research evidence possible so that we can take those results and embed them into patient care. Who wants shoddy evidence determining the actions we take with your grandmother’s heart surgery?

Independent Variables and Dependent Variables

As we were already introduced to, there are measures called “variables” in research. This will be a bit of a review but it is important to bring up again, as it is a hallmark of quantitative research. In quantitative studies, the concepts being measured are called variables (AKA: something that varies). Variables are something that can change – either by manipulation or from something causing a change. In the article snapshots that we have looked at, researchers are trying to find causes for phenomena. Does a nursing intervention cause an improvement in patient outcomes? Does the cholesterol medication cause a decrease in cholesterol level? Does smoking cause  cancer?

The presumed cause is called the independent variable. The presumed effect is called the dependent variable. The dependent variable is “dependent” on something causing it to change. The dependent variable is the outcome that a researcher is trying to understand, explain, or predict.

Think back to our PICO questions. You can think of the intervention (I) as the independent variable and the outcome (O) as the dependent variable.

The independent variable is manipulated by the researcher or can be variants of influence. Whereas the dependent variable is never manipulated.

Variables do not always measure cause-and-effect. They can also measure a direction of influence.

Here is an example of that: If we compared levels of depression among men and women diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and found men to be more depressed, we cannot conclude that depression was caused by gender. However, we can note that the direction of influence   clearly runs from gender to depression. It makes no sense to suggest the depression influenced their gender.

In the above example, what is the independent variable (IV) and what is the dependent variable (DV)? If you guessed gender as the IV and depression as the DV, you are correct! Important to note in this case that the researcher did not manipulate the IV, but the IV is manipulated on its own (male or female).

Researchers do not always have just one IV. In some cases, more than one IV may be measured. Take, for instance, a study that wants to measure the factors that influence one’s study habits. Independent variables of gender, sleep habits, and hours of work may be considered. Likewise, multiple DVs can be measured. For example, perhaps we want to measure weight and abdominal girth on a plant-based diet (IV).

Now, some studies do not have an intervention. We will come back to that when we talk about non-experimental research.

The point of variables is so that researchers have a very specific measurement that they seek to study.

Let’s look at a couple of examples:

Now you try! Identify the IVs and DVs:

IV and DV Case Studies (Leibold, 2020)

Case Three:   Independent variable: Healthy Lifestyle education with a focus on physical activity; Dependent variable: Physical activity rate before and after education intervention, Heart rate before and after education intervention, Blood pressures before and after education intervention.

Case Four:   Independent variable: Playing classical music; Dependent variable:  Grade point averages post classical music, compared to pre-classical music.

Case Five: Independent variable: No independent variable as there is no intervention.  Dependent variable: The themes that emerge from the qualitative data.

The Steps in Quantitative Research Methodology

Now, as we learned in the last module, quantitative research is completely objective. There is no subjectivity to it. Why is this? Well, as we have learned, the purpose of quantitative research is to make an inference about the results in order to generalize these results to the population.

In quantitative studies, there is a very systematic approach that moves from the beginning point of the study (writing a research question) to the end point (obtaining an answer). This is a very linear and purposeful flow across the study, and all quantitative research should follow the same sequence.

• Identifying a problem and formulating a research question . Quantitative research begins with a theory . As in, “something is wrong and we want to fix it or improve it”.  Think back to when we discussed research problems and formulating a research question. Here we are! That is the first step in formulating a quantitative research plan.
• Formulate a hypothesis . This step is key. Researchers need to know exactly what they are testing so that testing the hypothesis can be achieved through specific statistical analyses.
• A thorough literature review .  At this step, researchers strive to understand what is already known about a topic and what evidence already exists.
• Identifying a framework .  When an appropriate framework is identified, the findings of a study may have broader significance and utility (Polit & Beck, 2021).
• Choosing a study design . The research design will determine exactly how the researcher will obtain the answers to the research question(s). The entire design needs to be structured and controlled, with the overarching goal of minimizing bias and errors. The design determines what data will be collected and how, how often data will be collected, what types of comparisons will be made. You can think of the study design as the architectural backbone of the entire study.
• Sampling . The researcher needs to determine a subset of the population that is to be studied. We will come back to the sampling concept in the next module. However, the goal of sampling is to choose a subset of the population that adequate reflects the population of interest.
• I nstruments to be used to collect data (with reliability and validity as a priority). Researchers must find a way to measure the research variables (intervention and outcome) accurately. The task of measuring is complex and challenging, as data needs to be collected reliably (measuring consistently each time) and valid. Reliability and validity are both about how well a method measures something. The next module will cover this in detail.
• Obtaining approval for ethical/legal human rights procedures . As we will learn in an upcoming module, there needs to be methods in place to safeguard human rights.
• Data collection . The fun part! Finally, after everything has been organized and planned, the researcher(s) begin to collect data. The pre-established plan (methodology) determines when data collection begins, how to accomplish it, how data collection staff will be trained, and how data will be recorded.
• Data analysis . Here comes the statistical analyses. The next module will dive into this.
• Discussion . After all the analyses have been complete, the researcher then needs to interpret the results and examine the implications. Researchers attempt to explain the findings in light of the theoretical framework, prior evidence, theory, clinical experience, and any limitations in the study now that it has been completed. Often, the researcher discusses not just the statistical significance, but also the clinical significance, as it is common to have one without the other.
• Summary/references . Part of the final steps of any research project is to disseminate (AKA: share) the findings. This may be in a published article, conference, poster session, etc. The point of this step is to communicate to others the information found through the study.  All references are collected so that the researchers can give credit to others.
• Budget and funding . As a last mention in the overall steps, budget and funding for research is a consideration. Research can be expensive. Often, researchers can obtain a grant or other funding to help offset the costs.

Edit: Steps in Quantitative Research video. Step 12 should say “Dissemination” (sharing the results).

Experimental, Quasi-Experimental, and Non-Experimental Studies

To start this section, please watch this wonderful video by Jenny Barrow, MSN, RN, CNE, that explains experimental versus nonexperimental research.

(Jenny Barrow, 2019)

Now that you have that overview, continue reading this module.

Experimental Research : In experimental research, the researcher is seeking to draw a conclusion between an independent variable and a dependent variable. This design attempts to establish cause-effect relationships among the variables. You could think of experimental research as experimenting with “something” to see if it caused “something else”.

A true experiment is called a Randomized Controlled Trial (or RCT). An RCT is at the top of the echelon as far as quantitative experimental research. It’s the gold standard of scientific research. An RCT, a true experimental design, must have 3 features:

• An intervention : The experiment does something to the participants by the option of manipulating the independent variable.
• Control : Some participants in the study receive either the standard care, or no intervention at all. This is also called the counterfactual – meaning, it shows what would happen if no intervention was introduced.
• Randomization : Randomization happens when the researcher makes sure that it is completely random who receives the intervention and who receives the control. The purpose is to make the groups equal regarding all other factors except receipt of the intervention.

Note: There is a lot of confusion with students (and even some researchers!) when they refer to “ random assignment ” versus “ random sampling ”. Random assignment  is a signature of a true experiment. This means that if participants are not truly randomly assigned to intervention groups, then it is not a true experiment. We will talk more about random sampling in the next module.

One very common method for RCT’s is called a pretest-posttest design .  This is when the researcher measures the outcome before and after the intervention. For example, if the researcher had an IV (intervention/treatment) of a pain medication, the DV (pain) would be measured before the intervention is given and after it is given. The control group may just receive a placebo. This design permits the researcher to see if the change in pain was caused by the pain medication because only some people received it (Polit & Beck, 2021).

Another experimental design is called a crossover design . This type of design involves exposing participants to more than one treatment. For example, subject 1 first receives treatment A, then treatment B, then treatment C. Subject 2 might first receive treatment B, then treatment A, and then treatment C. In this type of study, the three conditions for an experiment are met: Intervention, randomization, and control – with the subjects serving as their own control group.

Control group conditions can be done in 4 ways:

• No intervention is used; control group gets no treatment at all
• “Usual care” or standard of care or normal procedures used
• An alternative intervention is uses (e.g. auditory versus visual stimulation)
• A placebo or pseudo-intervention, presumed to have no therapeutic value, is used

Quasi-Experimental Research : Quasi-experiments involve an experiment just like true experimental research. However, they lack randomization and some even lack a control group.  Therefore, there is implementation and testing of an intervention, but there is an absence of randomization.

For example, perhaps we wanted to measure the effect of yoga for nursing students. The IV (intervention of yoga) is being offered to all nursing students and therefore randomization is not possible. For comparison, we could measure quality of life data on nursing students at a different university. Data is collected from both groups at baseline and then again after the yoga classes. Note, that in quasi-experiments, the phrase “comparison group” is sometimes used instead of “control group” against which outcome measures are collected.

Sometimes there is no comparison group either. This would be called a one-group pretest-posttest design .

Non-Experimental Research : Sometimes, cause-problem research questions cannot be answered with an experimental or quasi-experimental design because the IV cannot be manipulated. For example, if we want to measure what impact prerequisite grades have on student success in nursing programs, we obviously cannot manipulate the prerequisite grades. In another example, if we wanted to investigate how low birth weight impacts developmental progression in children, we cannot manipulate the birth weight. Often, you will see the word “observational” in lieu of non-experimental researcher. This does not mean the researcher is just standing and watching people, but instead it refers to the method of observing data that has already been established without manipulation.

There are various types of non-experimental research:

Correlational research : A correlational research design investigates relationships between two variables (or more) without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them. In the example of prerequisites and nursing program success, that is a correlational design. Consider hypothetically, a researcher is studying a correlation between cancer and marriage. In this study, there are two variables: disease and marriage. Let us say marriage has a negative association with cancer. This means that married people are less likely to develop cancer.

Cohort design (also called a prospective design) : In a cohort study, the participants do not have the outcome of interest to begin with. They are selected based on the exposure status of the individual. They are then followed over time to evaluate for the occurrence of the outcome of interest. Cohorts may be divided into exposure categories once baseline measurements of a defined population are made. For example, the Framingham Cardiovascular Disease Study (CVD) used baseline measurements to divide the population into categories of CVD risk factors. Another example:  An example of a cohort study is comparing the test scores of one group of people who underwent extensive tutoring and a special curriculum and those who did not receive any extra help. The group could be studied for years to assess whether their scores improve over time and at what rate.

Retrospective design : In retrospective studies, the outcome of interest has already occurred (or not occurred – e.g., in controls) in each individual by the time s/he is enrolled, and the data are collected either from records or by asking participants to recall exposures. There is no follow-up of participants. For example, a researcher might examine the medical histories of 1000 elderly women to identify the causes of health problems.

Case-control design : A study that compares two groups of people: those with the disease or condition under study (cases) and a very similar group of people who do not have the condition. For example, investigators conducted a case-control study to determine if there is an association between colon cancer and a high fat diet. Cases were all confirmed colon cancer cases in North Carolina in 2010. Controls were a sample of North Carolina residents without colon cancer.

Descriptive research : Descriptive research design is a type of research design that aims to obtain information to systematically describe a phenomenon, situation, or population. More specifically, it helps answer the what, when, where, and how questions regarding the research problem, rather than the why. For example, the researcher might wish to discover the percentage of motorists who tailgate – the prevalence  of a certain behavior.

There are two other designs to mention, which are both on a time continuum basis.

Cross-sectional design : All data are collected at a single point in time. Retrospective studies are usually cross-sectional. The IV usually concerns events or behaviors occurring in the past. One cross-sectional study example in medicine is a data collection of smoking habits and lung cancer incidence in a given population. A cross-sectional study like this cannot solely determine that smoking habits cause lung cancer, but it can suggest a relationship that merits further investigation. Cross-sectional studies serve many purposes, and the cross-sectional design is the most relevant design when assessing the prevalence of disease, attitudes and knowledge among patients and health personnel, in validation studies comparing, for example, different measurement instruments, and in reliability studies.

Longitudinal design : Data are collected two or more times over an extended period. Longitudinal designs are better at showing patterns of change and at clarifying whether a cause occurred before an effect (outcome). A challenge in longitudinal studies is attrition or the loss of participants over time. In a longitudinal study subjects are followed over time with continuous or repeated monitoring of risk factors or health outcomes, or both. Such investigations vary enormously in their size and complexity. At one extreme a large population may be studied over decades. An example of a longitudinal design is a multiyear comparative study of the same children in an urban and a suburban school to record their cognitive development in depth.

Confounding and Extraneous Variables

Confounding variables  are a type of extraneous variable that occur which interfere with or influence the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. In research that investigates a potential cause-and-effect relationship, a confounding variable is an unmeasured third variable that influences both the supposed cause and the supposed effect.

It’s important to consider potential confounding variables and account for them in research designs to ensure results are valid. You can imagine that if something sneaks in to influence the measured variables, it can really muck up the study!

Here is an example:

You collect data on sunburns and ice cream consumption. You find that higher ice cream consumption is associated with a higher probability of sunburn. Does that mean ice cream consumption causes sunburn?

Here, the confounding variable is temperature: hot temperatures cause people to both eat more ice cream and spend more time outdoors under the sun, resulting in more sunburns.

To ensure the internal validity of research, the researcher must account for confounding variables. If he/she fails to do so, the results may not reflect the actual relationship between the variables that they are interested in.

For instance, they may find a cause-and-effect relationship that does not actually exist, because the effect they measure is caused by the confounding variable (and not by the independent variable).

Here is another example:

The researcher finds that babies born to mothers who smoked during their pregnancies weigh significantly less than those born to non-smoking mothers. However, if the researcher does not account for the fact that smokers are more likely to engage in other unhealthy behaviors, such as drinking or eating less healthy foods, then he/she might overestimate the relationship between smoking and low birth weight.

Extraneous variables are any variables that the researcher is not investigating that can potentially affect the outcomes of the research study. If left uncontrolled, extraneous variables can lead to inaccurate conclusions about the relationship between IVs and DVs.

Extraneous variables can threaten the internal validity of a study by providing alternative explanations for the results. In an experiment, the researcher manipulates an independent variable to study its effects on a dependent variable.

In a study on mental performance, the researcher tests whether wearing a white lab coat, the independent variable (IV), improves scientific reasoning, the dependent variable (DV).

Students from a university are recruited to participate in the study. The researcher manipulates the independent variable by splitting participants into two groups:

• Participants in the experimental   group are asked to wear a lab coat during the study.
• Participants in the control group are asked to wear a casual coat during the study.

All participants are given a scientific knowledge quiz, and their scores are compared between groups.

When extraneous variables are uncontrolled, it’s hard to determine the exact effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable, because the effects of extraneous variables may mask them.

Uncontrolled extraneous variables can also make it seem as though there is a true effect of the independent variable in an experiment when there’s actually none.

In the above experiment example, these extraneous variables can affect the science knowledge scores:

• Participant’s major (e.g., STEM or humanities)
• Participant’s interest in science
• Demographic variables such as gender or educational background
• Time of day of testing
• Experiment environment or setting

If these variables systematically differ between the groups, you can’t be sure whether your results come from your independent variable manipulation or from the extraneous variables.

In summary, an extraneous variable is anything that could influence the dependent variable. A confounding variable influences the dependent variable, and also correlates with or causally affects the independent variable.

Cause-and-Effect (Causality) Versus Association/Correlation  

A very important concept to understand is cause-and-effect, also known as causality, versus correlation. Let’s look at these two concepts in very simplified statements. Causation means that one thing caused  another thing to happen. Correlation means there is some association between the two thing we are measuring.

It would be nice if it were as simple as that. These two concepts can indeed by confused by many. Let’s dive deeper.

Two or more variables are considered to be related or associated, in a statistical context, if their values change so that as the value of one variable increases or decreases so does the value of the other variable (or the opposite direction).

For example, for the two variables of “hours worked” and “income earned”, there is a relationship between the two if the increase in hours is associated with an increase in income earned.

However, correlation is a statistical measure that describes the size and direction of a relationship between two or more variables. A correlation does not automatically mean that the change in one variable caused the change in value in the other variable.

Theoretically, the difference between the two types of relationships is easy to identify — an action or occurrence can cause another (e.g. smoking causes an increase in the risk of developing lung cancer), or it can correlate with another (e.g. smoking is correlated with alcoholism, but it does not cause alcoholism). In practice, however, it remains difficult to clearly establish cause and effect, compared with establishing correlation.

Simplified in this image, we can say that hot and sunny weather causes an increase in ice cream consumption. Similarly, we can demise that hot and sunny weather increases the incidence of sunburns. However, we cannot say that ice cream caused a sunburn (or that a sunburn increases consumption of ice cream). It is purely coincidental. In this example, it is pretty easy to anecdotally surmise correlation versus causation. However, in research, we have statistical tests that help researchers differentiate via specialized analyses.

Here is a great Khan Academy video of about 5 minutes that shows a worked example of correlation versus causation with regard to sledding accidents and frostbite cases:

https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/praxis-math/praxis-math-lessons/gtp–praxis-math–lessons–statistics-and-probability/v/gtp–praxis-math–video–correlation-and-causation

References & Attribution

“ Light bulb doodle ” by rawpixel licensed CC0 .

“ Magnifying glass ” by rawpixel licensed CC0

“ Orange flame ” by rawpixel licensed CC0 .

Jenny Barrow. (2019). Experimental versus nonexperimental research. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJo8xyXHAlE

Leibold, N. (2020). Research variables. Measures and Concepts Commonly Encountered in EBP. Creative Commons License: BY NC

Polit, D. & Beck, C. (2021).  Lippincott CoursePoint Enhanced for Polit’s Essentials of Nursing Research  (10th ed.). Wolters Kluwer Health.

Evidence-Based Practice & Research Methodologies Copyright © by Tracy Fawns is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.53(4); 2010 Aug

Research questions, hypotheses and objectives

Patricia farrugia.

* Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, the

Bradley A. Petrisor

† Division of Orthopaedic Surgery and the

Forough Farrokhyar

‡ Departments of Surgery and

§ Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont

Mohit Bhandari

There is an increasing familiarity with the principles of evidence-based medicine in the surgical community. As surgeons become more aware of the hierarchy of evidence, grades of recommendations and the principles of critical appraisal, they develop an increasing familiarity with research design. Surgeons and clinicians are looking more and more to the literature and clinical trials to guide their practice; as such, it is becoming a responsibility of the clinical research community to attempt to answer questions that are not only well thought out but also clinically relevant. The development of the research question, including a supportive hypothesis and objectives, is a necessary key step in producing clinically relevant results to be used in evidence-based practice. A well-defined and specific research question is more likely to help guide us in making decisions about study design and population and subsequently what data will be collected and analyzed. 1

Objectives of this article

In this article, we discuss important considerations in the development of a research question and hypothesis and in defining objectives for research. By the end of this article, the reader will be able to appreciate the significance of constructing a good research question and developing hypotheses and research objectives for the successful design of a research study. The following article is divided into 3 sections: research question, research hypothesis and research objectives.

Research question

Interest in a particular topic usually begins the research process, but it is the familiarity with the subject that helps define an appropriate research question for a study. 1 Questions then arise out of a perceived knowledge deficit within a subject area or field of study. 2 Indeed, Haynes suggests that it is important to know “where the boundary between current knowledge and ignorance lies.” 1 The challenge in developing an appropriate research question is in determining which clinical uncertainties could or should be studied and also rationalizing the need for their investigation.

Increasing one’s knowledge about the subject of interest can be accomplished in many ways. Appropriate methods include systematically searching the literature, in-depth interviews and focus groups with patients (and proxies) and interviews with experts in the field. In addition, awareness of current trends and technological advances can assist with the development of research questions. 2 It is imperative to understand what has been studied about a topic to date in order to further the knowledge that has been previously gathered on a topic. Indeed, some granting institutions (e.g., Canadian Institute for Health Research) encourage applicants to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence if a recent review does not already exist and preferably a pilot or feasibility study before applying for a grant for a full trial.

In-depth knowledge about a subject may generate a number of questions. It then becomes necessary to ask whether these questions can be answered through one study or if more than one study needed. 1 Additional research questions can be developed, but several basic principles should be taken into consideration. 1 All questions, primary and secondary, should be developed at the beginning and planning stages of a study. Any additional questions should never compromise the primary question because it is the primary research question that forms the basis of the hypothesis and study objectives. It must be kept in mind that within the scope of one study, the presence of a number of research questions will affect and potentially increase the complexity of both the study design and subsequent statistical analyses, not to mention the actual feasibility of answering every question. 1 A sensible strategy is to establish a single primary research question around which to focus the study plan. 3 In a study, the primary research question should be clearly stated at the end of the introduction of the grant proposal, and it usually specifies the population to be studied, the intervention to be implemented and other circumstantial factors. 4

Hulley and colleagues 2 have suggested the use of the FINER criteria in the development of a good research question ( Box 1 ). The FINER criteria highlight useful points that may increase the chances of developing a successful research project. A good research question should specify the population of interest, be of interest to the scientific community and potentially to the public, have clinical relevance and further current knowledge in the field (and of course be compliant with the standards of ethical boards and national research standards).

FINER criteria for a good research question

Adapted with permission from Wolters Kluwer Health. 2

Whereas the FINER criteria outline the important aspects of the question in general, a useful format to use in the development of a specific research question is the PICO format — consider the population (P) of interest, the intervention (I) being studied, the comparison (C) group (or to what is the intervention being compared) and the outcome of interest (O). 3 , 5 , 6 Often timing (T) is added to PICO ( Box 2 ) — that is, “Over what time frame will the study take place?” 1 The PICOT approach helps generate a question that aids in constructing the framework of the study and subsequently in protocol development by alluding to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and identifying the groups of patients to be included. Knowing the specific population of interest, intervention (and comparator) and outcome of interest may also help the researcher identify an appropriate outcome measurement tool. 7 The more defined the population of interest, and thus the more stringent the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the greater the effect on the interpretation and subsequent applicability and generalizability of the research findings. 1 , 2 A restricted study population (and exclusion criteria) may limit bias and increase the internal validity of the study; however, this approach will limit external validity of the study and, thus, the generalizability of the findings to the practical clinical setting. Conversely, a broadly defined study population and inclusion criteria may be representative of practical clinical practice but may increase bias and reduce the internal validity of the study.

PICOT criteria 1

A poorly devised research question may affect the choice of study design, potentially lead to futile situations and, thus, hamper the chance of determining anything of clinical significance, which will then affect the potential for publication. Without devoting appropriate resources to developing the research question, the quality of the study and subsequent results may be compromised. During the initial stages of any research study, it is therefore imperative to formulate a research question that is both clinically relevant and answerable.

Research hypothesis

The primary research question should be driven by the hypothesis rather than the data. 1 , 2 That is, the research question and hypothesis should be developed before the start of the study. This sounds intuitive; however, if we take, for example, a database of information, it is potentially possible to perform multiple statistical comparisons of groups within the database to find a statistically significant association. This could then lead one to work backward from the data and develop the “question.” This is counterintuitive to the process because the question is asked specifically to then find the answer, thus collecting data along the way (i.e., in a prospective manner). Multiple statistical testing of associations from data previously collected could potentially lead to spuriously positive findings of association through chance alone. 2 Therefore, a good hypothesis must be based on a good research question at the start of a trial and, indeed, drive data collection for the study.

The research or clinical hypothesis is developed from the research question and then the main elements of the study — sampling strategy, intervention (if applicable), comparison and outcome variables — are summarized in a form that establishes the basis for testing, statistical and ultimately clinical significance. 3 For example, in a research study comparing computer-assisted acetabular component insertion versus freehand acetabular component placement in patients in need of total hip arthroplasty, the experimental group would be computer-assisted insertion and the control/conventional group would be free-hand placement. The investigative team would first state a research hypothesis. This could be expressed as a single outcome (e.g., computer-assisted acetabular component placement leads to improved functional outcome) or potentially as a complex/composite outcome; that is, more than one outcome (e.g., computer-assisted acetabular component placement leads to both improved radiographic cup placement and improved functional outcome).

However, when formally testing statistical significance, the hypothesis should be stated as a “null” hypothesis. 2 The purpose of hypothesis testing is to make an inference about the population of interest on the basis of a random sample taken from that population. The null hypothesis for the preceding research hypothesis then would be that there is no difference in mean functional outcome between the computer-assisted insertion and free-hand placement techniques. After forming the null hypothesis, the researchers would form an alternate hypothesis stating the nature of the difference, if it should appear. The alternate hypothesis would be that there is a difference in mean functional outcome between these techniques. At the end of the study, the null hypothesis is then tested statistically. If the findings of the study are not statistically significant (i.e., there is no difference in functional outcome between the groups in a statistical sense), we cannot reject the null hypothesis, whereas if the findings were significant, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis (i.e., there is a difference in mean functional outcome between the study groups), errors in testing notwithstanding. In other words, hypothesis testing confirms or refutes the statement that the observed findings did not occur by chance alone but rather occurred because there was a true difference in outcomes between these surgical procedures. The concept of statistical hypothesis testing is complex, and the details are beyond the scope of this article.

Another important concept inherent in hypothesis testing is whether the hypotheses will be 1-sided or 2-sided. A 2-sided hypothesis states that there is a difference between the experimental group and the control group, but it does not specify in advance the expected direction of the difference. For example, we asked whether there is there an improvement in outcomes with computer-assisted surgery or whether the outcomes worse with computer-assisted surgery. We presented a 2-sided test in the above example because we did not specify the direction of the difference. A 1-sided hypothesis states a specific direction (e.g., there is an improvement in outcomes with computer-assisted surgery). A 2-sided hypothesis should be used unless there is a good justification for using a 1-sided hypothesis. As Bland and Atlman 8 stated, “One-sided hypothesis testing should never be used as a device to make a conventionally nonsignificant difference significant.”

The research hypothesis should be stated at the beginning of the study to guide the objectives for research. Whereas the investigators may state the hypothesis as being 1-sided (there is an improvement with treatment), the study and investigators must adhere to the concept of clinical equipoise. According to this principle, a clinical (or surgical) trial is ethical only if the expert community is uncertain about the relative therapeutic merits of the experimental and control groups being evaluated. 9 It means there must exist an honest and professional disagreement among expert clinicians about the preferred treatment. 9

Designing a research hypothesis is supported by a good research question and will influence the type of research design for the study. Acting on the principles of appropriate hypothesis development, the study can then confidently proceed to the development of the research objective.

Research objective

The primary objective should be coupled with the hypothesis of the study. Study objectives define the specific aims of the study and should be clearly stated in the introduction of the research protocol. 7 From our previous example and using the investigative hypothesis that there is a difference in functional outcomes between computer-assisted acetabular component placement and free-hand placement, the primary objective can be stated as follows: this study will compare the functional outcomes of computer-assisted acetabular component insertion versus free-hand placement in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Note that the study objective is an active statement about how the study is going to answer the specific research question. Objectives can (and often do) state exactly which outcome measures are going to be used within their statements. They are important because they not only help guide the development of the protocol and design of study but also play a role in sample size calculations and determining the power of the study. 7 These concepts will be discussed in other articles in this series.

From the surgeon’s point of view, it is important for the study objectives to be focused on outcomes that are important to patients and clinically relevant. For example, the most methodologically sound randomized controlled trial comparing 2 techniques of distal radial fixation would have little or no clinical impact if the primary objective was to determine the effect of treatment A as compared to treatment B on intraoperative fluoroscopy time. However, if the objective was to determine the effect of treatment A as compared to treatment B on patient functional outcome at 1 year, this would have a much more significant impact on clinical decision-making. Second, more meaningful surgeon–patient discussions could ensue, incorporating patient values and preferences with the results from this study. 6 , 7 It is the precise objective and what the investigator is trying to measure that is of clinical relevance in the practical setting.

The following is an example from the literature about the relation between the research question, hypothesis and study objectives:

Study: Warden SJ, Metcalf BR, Kiss ZS, et al. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound for chronic patellar tendinopathy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Rheumatology 2008;47:467–71.

Research question: How does low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) compare with a placebo device in managing the symptoms of skeletally mature patients with patellar tendinopathy?

Research hypothesis: Pain levels are reduced in patients who receive daily active-LIPUS (treatment) for 12 weeks compared with individuals who receive inactive-LIPUS (placebo).

Objective: To investigate the clinical efficacy of LIPUS in the management of patellar tendinopathy symptoms.

The development of the research question is the most important aspect of a research project. A research project can fail if the objectives and hypothesis are poorly focused and underdeveloped. Useful tips for surgical researchers are provided in Box 3 . Designing and developing an appropriate and relevant research question, hypothesis and objectives can be a difficult task. The critical appraisal of the research question used in a study is vital to the application of the findings to clinical practice. Focusing resources, time and dedication to these 3 very important tasks will help to guide a successful research project, influence interpretation of the results and affect future publication efforts.

Tips for developing research questions, hypotheses and objectives for research studies

• Perform a systematic literature review (if one has not been done) to increase knowledge and familiarity with the topic and to assist with research development.
• Learn about current trends and technological advances on the topic.
• Seek careful input from experts, mentors, colleagues and collaborators to refine your research question as this will aid in developing the research question and guide the research study.
• Use the FINER criteria in the development of the research question.
• Ensure that the research question follows PICOT format.
• Develop a research hypothesis from the research question.
• Develop clear and well-defined primary and secondary (if needed) objectives.
• Ensure that the research question and objectives are answerable, feasible and clinically relevant.

FINER = feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, relevant; PICOT = population (patients), intervention (for intervention studies only), comparison group, outcome of interest, time.

Competing interests: No funding was received in preparation of this paper. Dr. Bhandari was funded, in part, by a Canada Research Chair, McMaster University.

Quantitative Research Methods

• Introduction
• Descriptive and Inferential Statistics
• Hypothesis Testing
• Regression and Correlation
• Time Series
• Meta-Analysis
• Mixed Methods
• Additional Resources
• Get Research Help

Hypothesis Tests

A hypothesis test is exactly what it sounds like: You make a hypothesis about the parameters of a population, and the test determines whether your hypothesis is consistent with your sample data.

• Hypothesis Testing Penn State University tutorial
• Hypothesis Testing Wolfram MathWorld overview
• Hypothesis Testing Minitab Blog entry
• List of Statistical Tests A list of commonly used hypothesis tests and the circumstances under which they're used.

The p-value of a hypothesis test is the probability that your sample data would have occurred if you hypothesis were not correct. Traditionally, researchers have used a p-value of 0.05 (a 5% probability that your sample data would have occurred if your hypothesis was wrong) as the threshold for declaring that a hypothesis is true. But there is a long history of debate and controversy over p-values and significance levels.

Nonparametric Tests

Many of the most commonly used hypothesis tests rely on assumptions about your sample data—for instance, that it is continuous, and that its parameters follow a Normal distribution. Nonparametric hypothesis tests don't make any assumptions about the distribution of the data, and many can be used on categorical data.

• Nonparametric Tests at Boston University A lesson covering four common nonparametric tests.
• Nonparametric Tests at Penn State Tutorial covering the theory behind nonparametric tests as well as several commonly used tests.
• << Previous: Descriptive and Inferential Statistics
• Next: Regression and Correlation >>
• Last Updated: Aug 18, 2023 11:55 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duq.edu/quant-methods

Research Methodology

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research. Developing your methodology involves studying the research methods used in your field and the theories or principles that underpin them, in order to choose the approach that best matches your research objectives. Methodology is the first step in planning a research project.

Qualitative Data Coding

What Is a Focus Group?

Reviewed by Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

What is internal validity in research.

Reviewed by Saul Mcleod, PhD

Scientific Method

Qualitative research, experiments.

The scientific method is a step-by-step process used by researchers and scientists to determine if there is a relationship between two or more variables. Psychologists use this method to conduct psychological research, gather data, process information, and describe behaviors.

Learn More: Steps of the Scientific Method

Variables apply to experimental investigations. The independent variable is the variable the experimenter manipulates or changes. The dependent variable is the variable being tested and measured in an experiment, and is 'dependent' on the independent variable.

Learn More: Independent and Dependent Variables

When you perform a statistical test a p-value helps you determine the significance of your results in relation to the null hypothesis. A p-value less than 0.05 (typically ≤ 0.05) is statistically significant.

Learn More: P-Value and Statistical Significance

Qualitative research is a process used for the systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of non-numerical data. Qualitative research can be used to gain a deep contextual understanding of the subjective social reality of individuals.

The experimental method involves the manipulation of variables to establish cause-and-effect relationships. The key features are controlled methods and the random allocation of participants into controlled and experimental groups.

Learn More: How the Experimental Method Works in Psychology

Frequent Asked Questions

What does p-value of 0.05 mean?

A p-value less than 0.05 (typically ≤ 0.05) is statistically significant. It indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, as there is less than a 5% probability the results have occurred by random chance rather than a real effect. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.

However, it is important to note that the p-value is not the only factor that should be considered when interpreting the results of a hypothesis test. Other factors, such as effect size, should also be considered.

Learn More: What A p-Value Tells You About Statistical Significance

What does z-score tell you?

A  z-score  describes the position of a raw score in terms of its distance from the mean when measured in standard deviation units. It is also known as a standard score because it allows the comparison of scores on different variables by standardizing the distribution. The z-score is positive if the value lies above the mean and negative if it lies below the mean.

Learn More: Z-Score: Definition, Calculation, Formula, & Interpretation

What is an independent vs dependent variable?

The independent variable is the variable the experimenter manipulates or changes and is assumed to have a direct effect on the dependent variable. For example, allocating participants to either drug or placebo conditions (independent variable) to measure any changes in the intensity of their anxiety (dependent variable).

Learn More : What are Independent and Dependent Variables?

What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative?

Quantitative data is numerical information about quantities and qualitative data is descriptive and regards phenomena that can be observed but not measured, such as language.

Learn More: What’s the difference between qualitative and quantitative research?

Explore Research Methodology

What Is Face Validity In Research? Importance & How To Measure

Criterion Validity: Definition & Examples

Convergent Validity: Definition and Examples

Content Validity in Research: Definition & Examples

Construct Validity In Psychology Research

Concurrent Validity In Psychology

Internal vs. External Validity In Psychology

Qualitative Research: Characteristics, Design, Methods & Examples

Demand Characteristics In Psychology: Definition, Examples & Control

Between-Subjects vs. Within-Subjects Study Design

Random Assignment in Psychology: Definition & Examples

Double-Blind Experimental Study And Procedure Explained

Observer Bias: Definition, Examples & Prevention

Sampling Bias: Types, Examples & How to Avoid It

What is The Null Hypothesis & When Do You Reject The Null Hypothesis

Between-Subjects Design: Overview & Examples

What Is A Case Control Study?

Case Study Research Method in Psychology

Cohort Study: Definition, Designs & Examples

Cluster Sampling: Definition, Method and Examples

Convenience Sampling: Definition, Method and Examples

Confounding Variables in Psychology: Definition & Examples

Control Group vs Experimental Group

Controlled Experiment

Correlation in Psychology: Meaning, Types, Examples & coefficient

Extraneous Variables In Research: Types & Examples

Ethnocentrism In Psychology: Examples, Disadvantages, & Cultural Relativism

Ethical Considerations In Psychology Research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 03 June 2024

A self-reinforcing cycle hypothesis in heart failure pathogenesis

• Carlos Fernandez-Patron   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8033-0645 1 ,
• Gary D. Lopaschuk   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1010-0454 2 &
• Eugenio Hardy   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8351-4255 3  

Nature Cardiovascular Research ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Energy metabolism
• Heart failure
• Metabolic diseases
• Multienzyme complexes

Heart failure is a progressive syndrome with high morbidity and mortality rates. Here, we suggest that chronic exposure of the heart to risk factors for heart failure damages heart mitochondria, thereby impairing energy production to levels that can suppress the heart’s ability to pump blood and repair mitochondria (both energy-consuming processes). As damaged mitochondria accumulate, the heart becomes deprived of energy in a ‘self-reinforcing cycle’, which can persist after the heart is no longer chronically exposed to (or after antagonism of) the risk factors that initiated the cycle. Together with other previously described pathological mechanisms, this proposed cycle can help explain (1) why heart failure progresses, (2) why it can recur after cessation of treatment, and (3) why heart failure is often accompanied by dysfunction of multiple organs. Ideally, therapy of heart failure syndrome would be best attempted before the self-reinforcing cycle is triggered or designed to break the self-reinforcing cycle.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Mitochondrial Ca2+ regulation in the etiology of heart failure: physiological and pathophysiological implications

Metabolic mechanisms in physiological and pathological cardiac hypertrophy: new paradigms and challenges

Cellular and molecular pathobiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Savarese, G. et al. Global burden of heart failure: a comprehensive and updated review of epidemiology. Cardiovasc. Res. 118 , 3272–3287 (2023).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Neubauer, S. The failing heart—an engine out of fuel. N. Engl. J. Med. 356 , 1140–1151 (2007). Critical appraisal of the cardiac inefficiency model of heart failure with a focus on the interactions between the cardiac mitochondrial OXPHOS pathway and the phosphagen system involving creatine .

Lopaschuk, G. D., Karwi, Q. G., Tian, R., Wende, A. R. & Abel, E. D. Cardiac energy metabolism in heart failure. Circ. Res. 128 , 1487–1513 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Packer, M., Lam, C. S. P., Lund, L. H., Maurer, M. S. & Borlaug, B. A. Characterization of the inflammatory–metabolic phenotype of heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction: a hypothesis to explain influence of sex on the evolution and potential treatment of the disease. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 22 , 1551–1567 (2020).

Decherd, G. & Visscher, M. B. Energy metabolism of the failing heart. J. Exp. Med. 59 , 195–199 (1934). A cardiac inefficiency model is first proposed to explain heart failure .

Packer, M. How should physicians view heart failure? The philosophical and physiological evolution of three conceptual models of the disease. Am. J. Cardiol. 71 , 3C–11C (1993). Three distinct conceptual models of heart failure developed over the span of 50 years have provided a rational basis for the treatment of the disease .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Seta, Y., Shan, K., Bozkurt, B., Oral, H. & Mann, D. L. Basic mechanisms in heart failure: the cytokine hypothesis. J. Card. Fail. 2 , 243–249 (1996). Cytokines, much like the neurohormones, may contribute to the development and progression of heart failure .

Brown, D. A. et al. Expert consensus document: mitochondrial function as a therapeutic target in heart failure. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 14 , 238–250 (2017).

Packer, M. et al. Blinded withdrawal of long-term randomized treatment with empagliflozin or placebo in patients with heart failure. Circulation 148 , 1011–1022 (2023). Effects of empagliflozin treatment in patients with heart failure dissipate rapidly after withdrawal of the drug .

Mann, D. L., Barger, P. M. & Burkhoff, D. Myocardial recovery and the failing heart: myth, magic, or molecular target? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 60 , 2465–2472 (2012).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zhou, B. & Tian, R. Mitochondrial dysfunction in pathophysiology of heart failure. J. Clin. Invest. 128 , 3716–3726 (2018). Mitochondria-mediated mechanisms may drive the demise of the heart before the ultimate ATP depletion .

Allard, M. F., Schonekess, B. O., Henning, S. L., English, D. R. & Lopaschuk, G. D. Contribution of oxidative metabolism and glycolysis to ATP production in hypertrophied hearts. Am. J. Physiol. 267 , H742–H750 (1994).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jaswal, J. S., Keung, W., Wang, W., Ussher, J. R. & Lopaschuk, G. D. Targeting fatty acid and carbohydrate oxidation—a novel therapeutic intervention in the ischemic and failing heart. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1813 , 1333–1350 (2011).

Luptak, I. et al. Long-term effects of increased glucose entry on mouse hearts during normal aging and ischemic stress. Circulation 116 , 901–909 (2007).

Aubert, G., Vega, R. B. & Kelly, D. P. Perturbations in the gene regulatory pathways controlling mitochondrial energy production in the failing heart. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1833 , 840–847 (2013).

Fillmore, N., Wagg, C. S., Zhang, L., Fukushima, A. & Lopaschuk, G. D. Cardiac branched-chain amino acid oxidation is reduced during insulin resistance in the heart. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 315 , E1046–E1052 (2018).

Letts, J. A. & Sazanov, L. A. Clarifying the supercomplex: the higher-order organization of the mitochondrial electron transport chain. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 24 , 800–808 (2017).

Mitchell, P. Coupling of phosphorylation to electron and hydrogen transfer by a chemi-osmotic type of mechanism. Nature 191 , 144–148 (1961).

Ciccarelli, M. et al. Reciprocal organ interactions during heart failure: a position paper from the ESC Working Group on Myocardial Function. Cardiovasc. Res. 117 , 2416–2433 (2021).

Bang, C. et al. Intercellular communication lessons in heart failure. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 17 , 1091–1103 (2015).

Ingwall, J. S. & Weiss, R. G. Is the failing heart energy starved? On using chemical energy to support cardiac function. Circ. Res. 95 , 135–145 (2004).

Ingwall, J. S. Energy metabolism in heart failure and remodelling. Cardiovasc. Res. 81 , 412–419 (2009). Critical appraisal of the cardiac inefficiency model .

Luptak, I. et al. Decreased ATP production and myocardial contractile reserve in metabolic heart disease. J. Mol. Cell. Cardiol. 116 , 106–114 (2018).

Abo Alrob, O. & Lopaschuk, G. D. Role of CoA and acetyl-CoA in regulating cardiac fatty acid and glucose oxidation. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 42 , 1043–1051 (2014).

Bertero, E. & Maack, C. Calcium signaling and reactive oxygen species in mitochondria. Circ. Res. 122 , 1460–1478 (2018). Alterations of intermediate substrate metabolism and oxidative stress, rather than an ATP deficit per se, are proposed to account for maladaptive remodeling and dysfunction during resting conditions .

Lopaschuk, G. D., Ussher, J. R., Folmes, C. D., Jaswal, J. S. & Stanley, W. C. Myocardial fatty acid metabolism in health and disease. Physiol. Rev. 90 , 207–258 (2010).

Bertero, E. & Maack, C. Metabolic remodelling in heart failure. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 15 , 457–470 (2018).

Miller, B. F. & Hamilton, K. L. A perspective on the determination of mitochondrial biogenesis. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 302 , E496–E499 (2012).

Signes, A. & Fernandez-Vizarra, E. Assembly of mammalian oxidative phosphorylation complexes I–V and supercomplexes. Essays Biochem. 62 , 255–270 (2018).

Levine, B., Kalman, J., Mayer, L., Fillit, H. M. & Packer, M. Elevated circulating levels of tumour necrosis factor in severe chronic heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 323 , 236–241 (1990).

Packer, M. Heart failure: the most important, preventable, and treatable cardiovascular complication of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 41 , 11–13 (2018).

De Jong, K. A. & Lopaschuk, G. D. Complex energy metabolic changes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Can. J. Cardiol. 33 , 860–871 (2017).

Murashige, D. et al. Extra-cardiac BCAA catabolism lowers blood pressure and protects from heart failure. Cell Metab. 34 , 1749–1764 (2022).

Liu, S. et al. OXPHOS deficiency activates global adaptation pathways to maintain mitochondrial membrane potential. EMBO Rep. 22 , e51606 (2021).

Lopaschuk, G. D., Rebeyka, I. M. & Allard, M. F. Metabolic modulation: a means to mend a broken heart. Circulation 105 , 140–142 (2002).

Kumar, A. A., Kelly, D. P. & Chirinos, J. A. Mitochondrial dysfunction in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Circulation 139 , 1435–1450 (2019).

Ridker, P. M. & Rane, M. Interleukin-6 signaling and anti-interleukin-6 therapeutics in cardiovascular disease. Circ. Res. 128 , 1728–1746 (2021).

Packer, M. et al. Empagliflozin in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and volume overload: EMPEROR-Reduced Trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 77 , 1381–1392 (2021).

Hartupee, J. & Mann, D. L. Neurohormonal activation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 14 , 30–38 (2017).

Shah, A. M. Parsing the role of NADPH oxidase enzymes and reactive oxygen species in heart failure. Circulation 131 , 602–604 (2015).

Teuber, J. P., Essandoh, K., Hummel, S. L., Madamanchi, N. R. & Brody, M. J. NADPH oxidases in diastolic dysfunction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Antioxidants 11 , 1822 (2022).

Wang, X., Bosonea, A. M. & Fernandez-Patron, C. Metalloproteinases: key and common mediators of multiple GPCRs and candidate therapeutic targets in models of hypertensive cardiac disease. Drug Discov. Today Dis. Models 9 , e103–e108 (2012).

Hao, L., Nishimura, T., Wo, H. & Fernandez-Patron, C. Vascular responses to α1-adrenergic receptors in small rat mesenteric arteries depend on mitochondrial reactive oxygen species. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 26 , 819–825 (2006).

Gallo, L. A., Wright, E. M. & Vallon, V. Probing SGLT2 as a therapeutic target for diabetes: basic physiology and consequences. Diab. Vasc. Dis. Res. 12 , 78–89 (2015).

Packer, M. et al. Effect of empagliflozin on worsening heart failure events in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: EMPEROR-Preserved Trial. Circulation 144 , 1284–1294 (2021).

Lopaschuk, G. D. & Verma, S. Mechanisms of cardiovascular benefits of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors: a state-of-the-art review. JACC Basic Transl. Sci. 5 , 632–644 (2020).

Mazidi, M., Rezaie, P., Gao, H. K. & Kengne, A. P. Effect of sodium–glucose cotransport-2 inhibitors on blood pressure in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 43 randomized control trials with 22 528 patients. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 6 , e004007 (2017).

Packer, M. Evolution of the neurohormonal hypothesis to explain the progression of chronic heart failure. Eur. Heart J. 16 , 4–6 (1995).

Byrne, N. J. et al. Empagliflozin blunts worsening cardiac dysfunction associated with reduced NLRP3 (nucleotide-binding domain-like receptor protein 3) inflammasome activation in heart failure. Circ. Heart. Fail. 13 , e006277 (2020).

Pereira, M. J. & Eriksson, J. W. Emerging role of SGLT-2 inhibitors for the treatment of obesity. Drugs 79 , 219–230 (2019).

Packer, M., Anker, S. D., Butler, J., Filippatos, G. & Zannad, F. Effects of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for the treatment of patients with heart failure: proposal of a novel mechanism of action. JAMA Cardiol. 2 , 1025–1029 (2017).

Baartscheer, A. et al. Empagliflozin decreases myocardial cytoplasmic Na + through inhibition of the cardiac Na + /H + exchanger in rats and rabbits. Diabetologia 60 , 568–573 (2017).

Mentzer, R. M. Jr. et al. Sodium–hydrogen exchange inhibition by cariporide to reduce the risk of ischemic cardiac events in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: results of the EXPEDITION study. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 85 , 1261–1270 (2008).

Drakos, S. G. et al. Distinct transcriptomic and proteomic profile specifies patients who have heart failure with potential of myocardial recovery on mechanical unloading and circulatory support. Circulation 147 , 409–424 (2023).

Lopez-Campistrous, A. et al. Mitochondrial dysfunction in the hypertensive rat brain: respiratory complexes exhibit assembly defects in hypertension. Hypertension 51 , 412–419 (2008).

Ghezzi, D. & Zeviani, M. Human diseases associated with defects in assembly of OXPHOS complexes. Essays Biochem. 62 , 271–286 (2018).

Ait-Aissa, K. et al. Mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation defect in the heart of subjects with coronary artery disease. Sci. Rep. 9 , 7623 (2019).

Gureev, A. P., Shaforostova, E. A. & Popov, V. N. Regulation of mitochondrial biogenesis as a way for active longevity: interaction between the Nrf2 and PGC-1α signaling pathways. Front. Genet. 10 , 435 (2019).

Teintze, M., Slaughter, M., Weiss, H. & Neupert, W. Biogenesis of mitochondrial ubiquinol:cytochrome c reductase (cytochrome bc 1 complex). Precursor proteins and their transfer into mitochondria. J. Biol. Chem. 257 , 10364–10371 (1982).

Tang, J. X., Thompson, K., Taylor, R. W. & Olahova, M. Mitochondrial OXPHOS biogenesis: co-regulation of protein synthesis, import, and assembly pathways. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21 , 3820 (2020).

Marchingo, J. M. & Cantrell, D. A. Protein synthesis, degradation, and energy metabolism in T cell immunity. Cell. Mol. Immunol. 19 , 303–315 (2022).

Dyck, J. R. & Lopaschuk, G. D. AMPK alterations in cardiac physiology and pathology: enemy or ally? J. Physiol. 574 , 95–112 (2006).

Litvinukova, M. et al. Cells of the adult human heart. Nature 588 , 466–472 (2020).

Mann, D. L. Innate immunity and the failing heart: the cytokine hypothesis revisited. Circ. Res. 116 , 1254–1268 (2015).

Diebold, L. P. et al. Mitochondrial complex III is necessary for endothelial cell proliferation during angiogenesis. Nat. Metab. 1 , 158–171 (2019).

Hargreaves, M. & Spriet, L. L. Skeletal muscle energy metabolism during exercise. Nat. Metab. 2 , 817–828 (2020).

Shulman, R. G. & Rothman, D. L. The ‘glycogen shunt’ in exercising muscle: a role for glycogen in muscle energetics and fatigue. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98 , 457–461 (2001).

Pandey, A. et al. Exercise intolerance in older adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 78 , 1166–1187 (2021).

Nilsson, K. R., Duscha, B. D., Hranitzky, P. M. & Kraus, W. E. Chronic heart failure and exercise intolerance: the hemodynamic paradox. Curr. Cardiol. Rev. 4 , 92–100 (2008).

Lawson, C. A. et al. Outcome trends in people with heart failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease in the UK over twenty years. EClinicalMedicine 32 , 100739 (2021).

Hajduk, A. M., Kiefe, C. I., Person, S. D., Gore, J. G. & Saczynski, J. S. Cognitive change in heart failure: a systematic review. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 6 , 451–460 (2013).

Packer, M. Does a target dose or a target heart rate matter to outcomes when prescribing β-blockers to patients with chronic heart failure? Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 11 , e004605 (2018).

Ide, T. et al. Mitochondrial electron transport complex I is a potential source of oxygen free radicals in the failing myocardium. Circ. Res. 85 , 357–363 (1999).

Hansson, A. et al. A switch in metabolism precedes increased mitochondrial biogenesis in respiratory chain-deficient mouse hearts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101 , 3136–3141 (2004).

Bugger, H. et al. Proteomic remodelling of mitochondrial oxidative pathways in pressure overload-induced heart failure. Cardiovasc. Res. 85 , 376–384 (2010).

Wang, X. et al. Cardiac disruption of SDHAF4-mediated mitochondrial complex II assembly promotes dilated cardiomyopathy. Nat. Commun. 13 , 3947 (2022).

Sihag, S., Cresci, S., Li, A. Y., Sucharov, C. C. & Lehman, J. J. PGC-1α and ERRα target gene downregulation is a signature of the failing human heart. J. Mol. Cell. Cardiol. 46 , 201–212 (2009).

Karamanlidis, G. et al. Mitochondrial complex I deficiency increases protein acetylation and accelerates heart failure. Cell Metab. 18 , 239–250 (2013).

Ke, B. X. et al. Tissue-specific splicing of an Ndufs6 gene-trap insertion generates a mitochondrial complex I deficiency-specific cardiomyopathy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109 , 6165–6170 (2012).

Arany, Z. et al. Transcriptional coactivator PGC-1α controls the energy state and contractile function of cardiac muscle. Cell Metab. 1 , 259–271 (2005).

Liu, T. et al. Mitochondrial proteome remodelling in ischemic heart failure. Life Sci. 101 , 27–36 (2014).

Hou, T. et al. NDUFAB1 confers cardio-protection by enhancing mitochondrial bioenergetics through coordination of respiratory complex and supercomplex assembly. Cell Res. 29 , 754–766 (2019).

Sebastiao, M. J. et al. Unveiling human proteome signatures of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Biomedicines 10 , 2943 (2022).

Marin-Garcia, J., Goldenthal, M. J., Pierpont, M. E. & Ananthakrishnan, R. Impaired mitochondrial function in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy: biochemical and molecular analysis. J. Card. Fail. 1 , 285–291 (1995).

Unverferth, D. V., Lee, S. W. & Wallick, E. T. Human myocardial adenosine triphosphatase activities in health and heart failure. Am. Heart J. 115 , 139–146 (1988).

Ide, T. et al. Mitochondrial DNA damage and dysfunction associated with oxidative stress in failing hearts after myocardial infarction. Circ. Res. 88 , 529–535 (2001).

Jullig, M. et al. Is the failing heart out of fuel or a worn engine running rich? A study of mitochondria in old spontaneously hypertensive rats. Proteomics 8 , 2556–2572 (2008).

Quigley, A. F., Kapsa, R. M., Esmore, D., Hale, G. & Byrne, E. Mitochondrial respiratory chain activity in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. J. Card. Fail. 6 , 47–55 (2000).

Rosca, M. G. et al. Cardiac mitochondria in heart failure: decrease in respirasomes and oxidative phosphorylation. Cardiovasc. Res. 80 , 30–39 (2008).

Gomez, L. A., Monette, J. S., Chavez, J. D., Maier, C. S. & Hagen, T. M. Supercomplexes of the mitochondrial electron transport chain decline in the aging rat heart. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 490 , 30–35 (2009).

Goldberg, I. J., Trent, C. M. & Schulze, P. C. Lipid metabolism and toxicity in the heart. Cell Metab. 15 , 805–812 (2012).

Mookerjee, S. A., Gerencser, A. A., Nicholls, D. G. & Brand, M. D. Quantifying intracellular rates of glycolytic and oxidative ATP production and consumption using extracellular flux measurements. J. Biol. Chem. 293 , 12649–12652 (2018).

Martinez-Reyes, I. & Chandel, N. S. Mitochondrial TCA cycle metabolites control physiology and disease. Nat. Commun. 11 , 102 (2020).

Shi, Y. et al. Epigenetic regulation in cardiovascular disease: mechanisms and advances in clinical trials. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 7 , 200 (2022).

Zhang, X. et al. MicroRNA-195 regulates metabolism in failing myocardium via alterations in sirtuin 3 expression and mitochondrial protein acetylation. Circulation 137 , 2052–2067 (2018).

Vinothkumar, K. R., Zhu, J. & Hirst, J. Architecture of mammalian respiratory complex I. Nature 515 , 80–84 (2014).

Du, Z. et al. Structure of the human respiratory complex II. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120 , e2216713120 (2023).

Solmaz, S. R. & Hunte, C. Structure of complex III with bound cytochrome c in reduced state and definition of a minimal core interface for electron transfer. J. Biol. Chem. 283 , 17542–17549 (2008).

Watt, I. N., Montgomery, M. G., Runswick, M. J., Leslie, A. G. & Walker, J. E. Bioenergetic cost of making an adenosine triphosphate molecule in animal mitochondria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107 , 16823–16827 (2010).

He, J. et al. Assembly of the membrane domain of ATP synthase in human mitochondria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , 2988–2993 (2018).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Cardiovascular Research Centre, Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Carlos Fernandez-Patron

Cardiovascular Research Centre, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Gary D. Lopaschuk

Center of Molecular Immunology, Havana, Cuba

Eugenio Hardy

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

C.F.-P. conceived the hypothesis. C.F.-P. and E.H. conceived, wrote and edited the manuscript and drafted the figures. G.D.L. made key edits and additions to the intellectual content and figures. All authors contributed to the critical analysis of the literature.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Carlos Fernandez-Patron or Eugenio Hardy .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Cardiovascular Research thanks Edoardo Bertero and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fernandez-Patron, C., Lopaschuk, G.D. & Hardy, E. A self-reinforcing cycle hypothesis in heart failure pathogenesis. Nat Cardiovasc Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44161-024-00480-6

Download citation

Received : 04 January 2024

Accepted : 25 April 2024

Published : 03 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44161-024-00480-6

Share this article

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

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Start my free trial

Please fill out the form below and an AlphaSense team member will be in touch within 20 minutes to help set up your trial.

How to Conduct Asset Management Market Research

In today’s ever-shifting market environment, having the right resources and tools to conduct market research is critical for asset managers. Market research allows you to find the insights and information you need to drive investment recommendations and portfolio positioning —while safeguarding you from missing out on lucrative opportunities. 

With the dawn of AI, investment teams are gaining efficiencies and the ability to streamline their workflows. AI is transforming research tasks and due diligence that were once manual, repetitive, and time-consuming efforts. 

The evolution of AI has enabled teams to focus on larger-picture objectives, and pivot strategically on data-driven insights. The ability to act swiftly and make confident decisions is critical for maintaining a competitive edge and delivering on performance. 

With AI in asset management growing at a projected rate of 34% CAGR into 2027 , the implementation of this technology will continue to play a vital role in improving portfolio management , optimizing performance returns, mitigating risk, and ultimately delivering better outcomes for investors.

Below, we outline best practices for performing market research, the various types of research workflows, and the benefits of leveraging an AI-driven workflow for optimized results and quicker insights.

What is Asset Management Market Research?

Asset management market research is the process of gathering, analyzing, and interpreting information relevant to the asset management industry. This type of research helps stakeholders understand market dynamics, trends, opportunities, and challenges. 

Typically, asset management market research involves market analysis, competitive landscape analysis, industry trend analysis, and risk assessment. 

Pinpointing valuable insights is the backbone of market research within asset management. Whether a researcher is keen on a particular industry, a trending theme, or a specific company, locating the right information is key in order to pressure-test a hypothesis, conduct due diligence , or to secure a deal. It is the basis for driving informed investment decisions and uncovering potential areas of opportunity.

Across asset classes, investment teams consult a myriad of sources to gain critical insights on both public and private companies. They seek out both qualitative insights and quantitative data, to provide a holistic snapshot into a company, industry, or trend that may be relevant to formulating a hypothesis or affirming convictions.

Data-driven quantitative research provides a glimpse into the performance, condition, and financial health of a firm. Often sourced from earnings transcripts, broker research , and company filings, it can steer portfolio positioning and/or re-balancing, or materially impact M&A outcomes.

Qualitative insights —such as company documents, expert perspectives, and regulatory filings— uncover non-numeric data insights and explore subjective aspects including attitudes, behaviors, motivations, and commentary. Qualitative data is powerful as it adds necessary context to quantitative data, analyzing text data points that quantitative methods cannot measure. This helps researchers gain a more complete perspective on any industry, company, or topic.

A comprehensive investment research workflow will incorporate elements of both primary and secondary research and capture both quantitative and qualitative insights to get a complete picture of the market.

In an era of information overload, getting up to speed on an industry or company quickly, ensuring the accuracy of insights, and streamlining research findings is of paramount importance. The ability to confidently ascertain intelligence empowers firms to strategically pivot and make informed, data-driven decisions.

That’s why investment teams are turning to AI and generative AI (genAI) capabilities to enhance knowledge discovery and deliver efficiencies to their workflows. Leveraging emerging technology and developing best practices ensures firms stay at the forefront and maintain a competitive advantage.

AI platforms like AlphaSense help you conduct better, more efficient market research in the asset management space by supporting the following key workflows: 

Utilize In-Depth Financial Analysis

With AlphaSense’s cutting-edge AI technology, investment teams can streamline financial analysis and pinpoint critical data points in seconds: 

• Access Extensive Financial Information – Search a company’s ticker and run thematic searches across broker research and expert transcripts to quickly validate assumptions.
• Performing Time Series Data Modeling – Filter by SEC filings to access income statements, balance sheets, and more, and then drill down to see and export QoQ data for trend analysis.
• Extract Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) – Filter by earnings calls and see KPIs highlighted in the panel. Click “Show History” to expand your view to all snippets related to that KPI over time.
• Streamline financial auditing and workflow – Our Table Explorer feature allows you to generate a historical lookback of a company’s financial performance (broken out quarterly or annually), quickly spot seasonality, and further understand growth trajectory.

Uncover Instant Insights with Summarization

The ability to surface insights instantly saves investment teams the considerable time it would take to review lengthy documents such as earning reports, broker research , and expert perspectives to extract valuable information. With genAI summarization functionality, researchers can simply search for a particular company or industry and surface tidbits of information most relevant to their research. 

AlphaSense’s Smart Summaries is a generative AI tool that draws from our premium content universe and provides an analysis of the positives, negatives, outlook, and Q&A from earnings transcripts—all verifiable with a single click. Beyond just a company’s self-reported results and outlook, you also get summaries of analyst reactions post-earnings call. This enables you to capture the full picture of bullish or bearish reactions, and make recommendations to position your portfolio accordingly.

Identify Emerging Trends and Pinpoint Disruptors 

To stay informed on trends actively shaping the industry, analysts have traditionally aggregated intelligence from multiple sources and have run the risk of missing critical insights elsewhere—until now.

In addition to structured data, genAI is streamlining how teams can consume and leverage unstructured data. This includes news articles, company documents, presentations, and other qualitative sources that are ordinarily time-consuming to scour. Additionally, image searches have the ability to extract data from charts, tables, and images that would be missed by a regular search.

The AlphaSense platform uses genAI to centralize the information you need in order to execute top-down and bottom-up searches with ease. Our simple thematic searches enable you to map the market, identify segment-specific drivers, and discover new companies not on your radar. Identifying emerging trends and pinpointing disruptors in the market has never been easier. With AlphaSense’s exclusive and premium content library spanning 10,000+ public and private data sources , you can ensure no stone goes unturned.

Discover 360 Degree Expert Perspectives 

AlphaSense has evolved the way researchers access expert perspectives with an extensive expert transcript library and Expert Call Services . Our personalized expert calls can complete your investment research process and maximize your return on investment (ROI) by streamlining your connection to experts and quality insights.

Leveraging Expert Insights allows you to fast-track your understanding of an industry or market and gain a competitive edge with informed decision-making. Additionally, granular insights from custom expert calls allow you to extract the exact information needed to validate your investment process from firsthand industry perspectives that are closest to the “source of truth.”

Unlock the Value of Proprietary Research

AlphaSense’s Enterprise Intelligence solution unlocks the value of your firm’s prized internal knowledge using generative AI. 

Our purpose-built AI searches, summarizes, and interrogates your proprietary internal data alongside a vast repository of 300M+ premium external documents to surface the most valuable insights. It allows you to automatically integrate and tag your PDFs, SharePoint documents, CIMs, Excel sheets, and more. You can also interrogate long documents with natural-language chat that go straight to the source to surface the most relevant insights. 

With our Enterprise Intelligence solution, investment teams can instantly surface proprietary market knowledge while removing any unknowns, potential blind spots, and reputational risk.

Keep A Pulse on Market Movement with Sentiment Analysis

Sentiment analysis plays a critical role in structuring the investment recommendations that are passed on to portfolio managers as part of the research process. Analysts rely on a plethora of buy-side and sell-side research, company documents, expert perspectives, regulatory filings, and more to craft their findings and share vetted reports with the broader investment team.

As a machine learning and natural language processing ( NLP)-based feature , sentiment analysis sifts through many of the documents analysts rely on, extrapolating tone and language nuance to provide the subtext within seconds. This feature is built into the AlphaSense platform, enabling you to quickly recognize the positive, negative, or neutral sentiment in the source you are analyzing. 

Sentiment scoring on the AlphaSense platform can potentially spot stock movement before it happens , and also gain a deeper understanding of a pivotal market event or trend. Overall, it is a crucial component of the market research process that drives better, more informed investment decisions.

Benefits of Asset Management Market Research

By facilitating the insights and knowledge that are essential for decision-making, market research undoubtedly serves a critical role in investment recommendations and positioning. It can ultimately affect the outcome of a deal, influence portfolio performance as a result of rebalancing and/or re-positioning, and help you identify lucrative opportunities.

Leveraging AI and genAI throughout the discovery process ensures best practices for conducting research, by streamlining the intelligence and insights investment teams need to act with confidence and with the speed of the market.

The ability to confidently ascertain intelligence empowers firms to strategically pivot and make informed, data-driven decisions. Leveraging emerging technology and exercising best practices ensures firms stay at the forefront and maintain a competitive advantage.

Beyond creating efficiencies and accelerating the speed of insights, AI-driven market research also minimizes manual tasks that may have yielded insights with limited or inaccurate visibility, potentially resulting in inferior investment guidance, or worse—reputational risk. 

Having the ability to proactively monitor macroeconomic conditions, get end-to-end research coverage, instantly analyze expert perspectives, and track early signals for market-moving trends is a hallmark of generative AI’s vast capabilities, and one that ultimately fosters alpha generation. 

Get Ahead with AlphaSense

A successful investment strategy starts with swift, accurate insights. AlphaSense’s powerful AI platform eliminates the unknowns of locating crucial market intelligence by quickly parsing through an extensive content universe of expert transcripts , broker research , financial documents , and more to pinpoint quality insights and metrics in seconds. 

Learn how our industry-leading AI platform can help you sift through the noise, accelerate your research, and bring efficiencies to your workflow, resulting in confident, data-driven decisions.

Let our powerful AI capabilities do the heavy lifting so you can competitively position your team— start your free trial of AlphaSense today .

Barb is a Content Marketing Manager covering the financial services segment at AlphaSense. Previously, she managed the content program at a global financial services firm.

Read all posts written by Barbara Tague

More like this

Asset Management Trends and Outlook for 2024

Competitive Portfolio Positioning in Asset Management: The Power of Generative AI

How to Conduct Tech Market Research