hypothesis definition nursing research

International Journal of Nursing Science Practice and Research

• Other Journals
• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians
• Announcements
• JournalsPub Home Page
• Editorial Board
• Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

Hypothesis Types and Research

Dennis F. Polit. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice, 9th edition. New Delhi: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2012, 58–93p.

Nursing Research society of India, Nursing research and statistics, 1st edition. India: Pearson Publication; 2013, 48–51p.

Polit DF, Hungler BP. Nursing Research Principles and Methods. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1999.

• There are currently no refbacks.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Institute of Medicine (US) Division of Health Care Services. Nursing and Nursing Education: Public Policies and Private Actions. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1983.

Nursing and Nursing Education: Public Policies and Private Actions.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

Appendix 8 Nursing Research: Definitions and Directions

In order to provide further insight into the need for, philosophy, and scope of nursing research this appendix presents a position statement issued by the Commission on Nursing Research of the American Nurses' Association. It is quoted here in its entirety: 1

Recent years have seen a growing awareness among the public that valuable resources are finite and their use must be carefully considered. In this context, increasing attention is being given to the relative cost of various strategies for utilizing health care resources to meet the present and emerging needs of the nation. Concurrently, nurses are assuming increased decision-making responsibility for the delivery of health care, and they can be expected to continue to assume greater responsibility in the future. Therefore, the timeliness and desirability of identifying directions for nursing research that should receive priority in funding and effort in the 1980s is apparent.

The priorities identified below were developed by the Commission on Nursing Research of the American Nurses' Association, a nine-member group of nurses actively engaged in research whose backgrounds represent considerable diversity in preparation and experience. The priorities represent the consensus of the commissioners, developed through a process of thoughtful discussion and careful deliberation with colleagues.

Accountability to the public for the humane use of knowledge in providing effective and high quality services is the hallmark of a profession. Thus, the preeminent goal of scientific inquiry by nurses is the ongoing development of knowledge for use in the practice of nursing; priorities are stated in that context. Other guiding considerations were the present and anticipated health problems of the population; a historic appreciation of the circumstances in which nursing action has been most beneficial; nursing's philosophical orientation, in which emphasis is on a synthesis of psychosocial and biomedical phenomena to the end of promoting health and effective functioning; and projections regarding the types of decisions nurses will be making in the last decades of the twentieth century. New, unanticipated problems will undoubtedly confront the health care resources of the country; yet it is clear that many of the problems of the future are already manifest today. New knowledge is essential to bring about effective solutions. Nursing research directed to clinical needs can contribute in a significant way to development of those solutions.

• Definition of Nursing Research

Nursing research develops knowledge about health and the promotion of health over the full lifespan, care of persons with health problems and disabilities, and nursing actions to enhance the ability of individuals to respond effectively to actual or potential health problems.

These foci of nursing research complement those of biomedical research, which is primarily concerned with causes and treatments of disease. Advancements in biomedical research have resulted in increased life expectancies, including life expectancies of those with serious injury and those with chronic or terminal disease. These biomedical advances have thus led to growth in the numbers of those who require nursing care to live with health problems, such as the frail elderly, the chronically ill, and the terminally ill.

Research conducted by nurses includes various types of studies in order to derive clinical interventions to assist those who require nursing care. The complexity of nursing research and its broad scope often require scientific underpinning from several disciplines. Hence, nursing research cuts across traditional research lines, and draws its methods from several fields.

• Directions for Research

Priority should be given to nursing research that would generate knowledge to guide practice in:

Promoting health, well-being, and competency for personal care among all age groups;

Preventing health problems throughout the life span that have the potential to reduce productivity and satisfaction;

Decreasing the negative impact of health problems on coping abilities, productivity, and life satisfaction of individuals and families;

Ensuring that the care needs of particularly vulnerable groups are met through appropriate strategies;

Designing and developing health care systems that are cost-effective in meeting the nursing needs of the population.

Examples of research consistent with these priorities include the following:

• Identification of determinants (personal and environmental, including social support networks) of wellness and health functioning in individuals and families, e.g. avoidance of abusive behaviors such as alcoholism and drug use, successful adaptation to chronic illness, and coping with the last days of life.
• Identification of phenomena that negatively influence the course of recovery and that may be alleviated by nursing practice, such as, for example, anorexia, diarrhea, sleep deprivation, deficiencies in nutrients, electrolyte imbalances, and infections.
• Development and testing of care strategies to do the following: Facilitate individuals' ability to adopt and maintain health enhancing behaviors (e.g. alterations in diet and exercise). Enhance patients' ability to manage acute and chronic illness in such a way as to minimize or eliminate the necessity of institutionalization and to maximize well-being. Reduce stressful responses associated with the medical management of patients (e.g. surgical procedures, intrusive examination procedures, or use of extensive monitoring devices). Provide more effective care to high-risk populations (e.g. maternal and child care service to vulnerable mothers and infants, family planning services to young teenagers, services designed to enhance self-care in the chronically ill and the very old). Enhance the care of clients culturally different from the majority (e.g. Black Americans, Mexican-Americans, Native Americans) and clients with special problems (e.g. teenagers, prisoners, and the mentally ill), and the underserved (the elderly, the poor, and the rural).
• Design and assessment, in terms of effectiveness and cost, of models for delivering nursing care strategies found to be effective in clinical studies.

All of the foregoing are directly related to the priority of developing the knowledge and information needed for improvement of the practice of nursing.

While priority should be given to this form of clinical research, there is no intent to discourage other forms of nursing research. These would include such investigations as those utilizing historical and philosophical modes of inquiry, and studies of manpower for nursing education, practice, and research, as well as studies of quality assurance for nursing and those for establishment of criterion measures for practice and education.

American Nurses' Association. Research priorities for the 1980s: Generating a scientific basis for nursing practice (Publication No. D-68). Kansas City, Mo.: American Nurses' Association, 1981.

• Cite this Page Institute of Medicine (US) Division of Health Care Services. Nursing and Nursing Education: Public Policies and Private Actions. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1983. Appendix 8, Nursing Research: Definitions and Directions.
• PDF version of this title (2.7M)

In this Page

Recent activity.

• Nursing Research: Definitions and Directions - Nursing and Nursing Education Nursing Research: Definitions and Directions - Nursing and Nursing Education

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

🚀 Work With Us

Private Coaching

Language Editing

Qualitative Coding

✨ Free Resources

Templates & Tools

Short Courses

Articles & Videos

What Is A Research Hypothesis?

A Plain-Language Explainer + Practical Examples

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:

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.

Learn More About Methodology

How To Choose A Tutor For Your Dissertation

Hiring the right tutor for your dissertation or thesis can make the difference between passing and failing. Here’s what you need to consider.

5 Signs You Need A Dissertation Helper

Discover the 5 signs that suggest you need a dissertation helper to get unstuck, finish your degree and get your life back.

Triangulation: The Ultimate Credibility Enhancer

Triangulation is one of the best ways to enhance the credibility of your research. Learn about the different options here.

Research Limitations 101: What You Need To Know

Learn everything you need to know about research limitations (AKA limitations of the study). Includes practical examples from real studies.

In Vivo Coding 101: Full Explainer With Examples

Learn about in vivo coding, a popular qualitative coding technique ideal for studies where the nuances of language are central to the aims.

📄 FREE TEMPLATES

Research Topic Ideation

Proposal Writing

Literature Review

Methodology & Analysis

Academic Writing

Referencing & Citing

Apps, Tools & Tricks

The Grad Coach Podcast

18 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?

Angelo Loye Very fantastic information. From here I am going straightaway to present the research hypothesis One question, do we apply hypothesis in qualitative research? What nul hypothesi Otherwise I appreciate your research methodo

this is very important note help me much more

Hi” best wishes to you and your very nice blog” 

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.

Submit Comment

• Print Friendly

All Subjects

Professionalism and Research in Nursing

Study guides for every class, that actually explain what's on your next test, from class:.

Hypotheses are specific, testable predictions about the relationship between two or more variables. They serve as the foundation for research and guide the design and implementation of studies, allowing researchers to gather data and analyze results to determine if their predictions hold true. Formulating a clear hypothesis is crucial in evidence-based practice, as it helps in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions.

congrats on reading the definition of hypotheses . now let's actually learn it.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

• A well-defined hypothesis should be clear, concise, and based on existing knowledge or theories in the field.
• Hypotheses are typically framed in a way that can be tested using quantitative or qualitative research methods.
• Testing hypotheses often involves collecting data through various methods such as surveys, experiments, or observational studies.
• Results from hypothesis testing can either support or refute the hypothesis, leading to conclusions that inform evidence-based practice.
• In nursing research, hypotheses can guide clinical decision-making by providing insights into the effectiveness of specific interventions or treatments.

Review Questions

• Hypotheses play a crucial role in the research process by providing specific predictions that guide study design and methodology. In nursing, a well-formulated hypothesis allows researchers to focus their investigations on particular outcomes related to patient care and interventions. This focus aids in collecting relevant data and helps in determining whether the proposed interventions are effective, ultimately improving patient outcomes.
• Null hypotheses state that there is no relationship between variables, while alternative hypotheses suggest that there is a significant effect. In evidence-based practice, distinguishing between these two types of hypotheses is essential for proper statistical analysis. Researchers must test these hypotheses to ascertain whether their findings support the effectiveness of specific nursing interventions or if further investigation is required.
• Formulating clear hypotheses significantly impacts nursing research outcomes by providing a focused direction for studies. Well-defined hypotheses lead to targeted data collection and analysis, making it easier to assess the effectiveness of interventions. This clarity enhances the reliability of results and strengthens the conclusions drawn from studies, ultimately contributing to better evidence-based practices in nursing and improved patient care.

Related terms

Null Hypothesis : A null hypothesis is a statement that there is no effect or no difference, serving as a baseline for statistical testing.

Alternative Hypothesis : An alternative hypothesis suggests that there is an effect or a difference, contrasting with the null hypothesis.

Variables : Variables are elements or factors that can change and are often used in research to test hypotheses; they include independent, dependent, and confounding variables.

" Hypotheses " also found in:

Subjects ( 9 ).

• AP Comparative Government
• AP Psychology
• Biology for Non-STEM Majors
• Communication Research Methods
• Intro to Anthropology
• Intro to Business Statistics
• Intro to Chemistry
• Intro to Political Science
• Intro to Statistics

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

Ap® and sat® are trademarks registered by the college board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website..

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Research questions, hypotheses and objectives

Patricia farrugia , bscn, bradley a petrisor , msc, md, forough farrokhyar , mphil, phd, mohit bhandari , md, msc.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Correspondance to: Dr. M. Bhandari, 293 Wellington St. N, Ste. 110, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton ON L8L 2X2, [email protected]

Accepted 2009 Jan 27.

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.

• 1. Brian Haynes R. Forming research questions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:881–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.006. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Hulley S, Cummings S, Browner W, et al. Designing clinical research. 3rd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Sackett D, Strauss S, Richardson W, et al. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach evidence-based medicine. 2nd ed. Edinburgh (UK): Churchill Livingstone; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Fisher CG, Wood KB. Introduction to and techniques of evidence-based medicine. Spine. 2007;32(Suppl):S66–72. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318145308d. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH, et al. Clinical epidemiology: how to do clinical practice research. 3rd ed. New York (NY): Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Guyatt G, Rennie D. User’s guide to medical research: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 3rd ed. Chicago (IL): AMA Press Printing; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Hanson BP. Designing, conducting and reporting clinical research. A step by step approach. Injury. 2006;37:583–94. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2005.06.051. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Bland JM, Altman DG. One and two sided tests of significance. BMJ. 1994;309:248. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6949.248. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:141–5. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198707163170304. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• PDF (147.1 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections