health research methodology ppt

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
• BMC Med Res Methodol

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

Lawrence mbuagbaw.

1 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada

2 Biostatistics Unit/FSORC, 50 Charlton Avenue East, St Joseph’s Healthcare—Hamilton, 3rd Floor Martha Wing, Room H321, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 4A6 Canada

3 Centre for the Development of Best Practices in Health, Yaoundé, Cameroon

Daeria O. Lawson

Livia puljak.

4 Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

David B. Allison

5 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health – Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA

Lehana Thabane

6 Departments of Paediatrics and Anaesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada

7 Centre for Evaluation of Medicine, St. Joseph’s Healthcare-Hamilton, Hamilton, ON Canada

8 Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON Canada

Associated Data

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Methodological studies – studies that evaluate the design, analysis or reporting of other research-related reports – play an important role in health research. They help to highlight issues in the conduct of research with the aim of improving health research methodology, and ultimately reducing research waste.

We provide an overview of some of the key aspects of methodological studies such as what they are, and when, how and why they are done. We adopt a “frequently asked questions” format to facilitate reading this paper and provide multiple examples to help guide researchers interested in conducting methodological studies. Some of the topics addressed include: is it necessary to publish a study protocol? How to select relevant research reports and databases for a methodological study? What approaches to data extraction and statistical analysis should be considered when conducting a methodological study? What are potential threats to validity and is there a way to appraise the quality of methodological studies?

Appropriate reflection and application of basic principles of epidemiology and biostatistics are required in the design and analysis of methodological studies. This paper provides an introduction for further discussion about the conduct of methodological studies.

The field of meta-research (or research-on-research) has proliferated in recent years in response to issues with research quality and conduct [ 1 – 3 ]. As the name suggests, this field targets issues with research design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Various types of research reports are often examined as the unit of analysis in these studies (e.g. abstracts, full manuscripts, trial registry entries). Like many other novel fields of research, meta-research has seen a proliferation of use before the development of reporting guidance. For example, this was the case with randomized trials for which risk of bias tools and reporting guidelines were only developed much later – after many trials had been published and noted to have limitations [ 4 , 5 ]; and for systematic reviews as well [ 6 – 8 ]. However, in the absence of formal guidance, studies that report on research differ substantially in how they are named, conducted and reported [ 9 , 10 ]. This creates challenges in identifying, summarizing and comparing them. In this tutorial paper, we will use the term methodological study to refer to any study that reports on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary or secondary research-related reports (such as trial registry entries and conference abstracts).

In the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the use of terms related to methodological studies (based on records retrieved with a keyword search [in the title and abstract] for “methodological review” and “meta-epidemiological study” in PubMed up to December 2019), suggesting that these studies may be appearing more frequently in the literature. See Fig.  1 .

Trends in the number studies that mention “methodological review” or “meta-

epidemiological study” in PubMed.

The methods used in many methodological studies have been borrowed from systematic and scoping reviews. This practice has influenced the direction of the field, with many methodological studies including searches of electronic databases, screening of records, duplicate data extraction and assessments of risk of bias in the included studies. However, the research questions posed in methodological studies do not always require the approaches listed above, and guidance is needed on when and how to apply these methods to a methodological study. Even though methodological studies can be conducted on qualitative or mixed methods research, this paper focuses on and draws examples exclusively from quantitative research.

The objectives of this paper are to provide some insights on how to conduct methodological studies so that there is greater consistency between the research questions posed, and the design, analysis and reporting of findings. We provide multiple examples to illustrate concepts and a proposed framework for categorizing methodological studies in quantitative research.

What is a methodological study?

Any study that describes or analyzes methods (design, conduct, analysis or reporting) in published (or unpublished) literature is a methodological study. Consequently, the scope of methodological studies is quite extensive and includes, but is not limited to, topics as diverse as: research question formulation [ 11 ]; adherence to reporting guidelines [ 12 – 14 ] and consistency in reporting [ 15 ]; approaches to study analysis [ 16 ]; investigating the credibility of analyses [ 17 ]; and studies that synthesize these methodological studies [ 18 ]. While the nomenclature of methodological studies is not uniform, the intents and purposes of these studies remain fairly consistent – to describe or analyze methods in primary or secondary studies. As such, methodological studies may also be classified as a subtype of observational studies.

Parallel to this are experimental studies that compare different methods. Even though they play an important role in informing optimal research methods, experimental methodological studies are beyond the scope of this paper. Examples of such studies include the randomized trials by Buscemi et al., comparing single data extraction to double data extraction [ 19 ], and Carrasco-Labra et al., comparing approaches to presenting findings in Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) summary of findings tables [ 20 ]. In these studies, the unit of analysis is the person or groups of individuals applying the methods. We also direct readers to the Studies Within a Trial (SWAT) and Studies Within a Review (SWAR) programme operated through the Hub for Trials Methodology Research, for further reading as a potential useful resource for these types of experimental studies [ 21 ]. Lastly, this paper is not meant to inform the conduct of research using computational simulation and mathematical modeling for which some guidance already exists [ 22 ], or studies on the development of methods using consensus-based approaches.

When should we conduct a methodological study?

Methodological studies occupy a unique niche in health research that allows them to inform methodological advances. Methodological studies should also be conducted as pre-cursors to reporting guideline development, as they provide an opportunity to understand current practices, and help to identify the need for guidance and gaps in methodological or reporting quality. For example, the development of the popular Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were preceded by methodological studies identifying poor reporting practices [ 23 , 24 ]. In these instances, after the reporting guidelines are published, methodological studies can also be used to monitor uptake of the guidelines.

These studies can also be conducted to inform the state of the art for design, analysis and reporting practices across different types of health research fields, with the aim of improving research practices, and preventing or reducing research waste. For example, Samaan et al. conducted a scoping review of adherence to different reporting guidelines in health care literature [ 18 ]. Methodological studies can also be used to determine the factors associated with reporting practices. For example, Abbade et al. investigated journal characteristics associated with the use of the Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe (PICOT) format in framing research questions in trials of venous ulcer disease [ 11 ].

How often are methodological studies conducted?

There is no clear answer to this question. Based on a search of PubMed, the use of related terms (“methodological review” and “meta-epidemiological study”) – and therefore, the number of methodological studies – is on the rise. However, many other terms are used to describe methodological studies. There are also many studies that explore design, conduct, analysis or reporting of research reports, but that do not use any specific terms to describe or label their study design in terms of “methodology”. This diversity in nomenclature makes a census of methodological studies elusive. Appropriate terminology and key words for methodological studies are needed to facilitate improved accessibility for end-users.

Why do we conduct methodological studies?

Methodological studies provide information on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary and secondary research and can be used to appraise quality, quantity, completeness, accuracy and consistency of health research. These issues can be explored in specific fields, journals, databases, geographical regions and time periods. For example, Areia et al. explored the quality of reporting of endoscopic diagnostic studies in gastroenterology [ 25 ]; Knol et al. investigated the reporting of p -values in baseline tables in randomized trial published in high impact journals [ 26 ]; Chen et al. describe adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement in Chinese Journals [ 27 ]; and Hopewell et al. describe the effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on reporting of abstracts over time [ 28 ]. Methodological studies provide useful information to researchers, clinicians, editors, publishers and users of health literature. As a result, these studies have been at the cornerstone of important methodological developments in the past two decades and have informed the development of many health research guidelines including the highly cited CONSORT statement [ 5 ].

Where can we find methodological studies?

Methodological studies can be found in most common biomedical bibliographic databases (e.g. Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science). However, the biggest caveat is that methodological studies are hard to identify in the literature due to the wide variety of names used and the lack of comprehensive databases dedicated to them. A handful can be found in the Cochrane Library as “Cochrane Methodology Reviews”, but these studies only cover methodological issues related to systematic reviews. Previous attempts to catalogue all empirical studies of methods used in reviews were abandoned 10 years ago [ 29 ]. In other databases, a variety of search terms may be applied with different levels of sensitivity and specificity.

Some frequently asked questions about methodological studies

In this section, we have outlined responses to questions that might help inform the conduct of methodological studies.

Q: How should I select research reports for my methodological study?

A: Selection of research reports for a methodological study depends on the research question and eligibility criteria. Once a clear research question is set and the nature of literature one desires to review is known, one can then begin the selection process. Selection may begin with a broad search, especially if the eligibility criteria are not apparent. For example, a methodological study of Cochrane Reviews of HIV would not require a complex search as all eligible studies can easily be retrieved from the Cochrane Library after checking a few boxes [ 30 ]. On the other hand, a methodological study of subgroup analyses in trials of gastrointestinal oncology would require a search to find such trials, and further screening to identify trials that conducted a subgroup analysis [ 31 ].

The strategies used for identifying participants in observational studies can apply here. One may use a systematic search to identify all eligible studies. If the number of eligible studies is unmanageable, a random sample of articles can be expected to provide comparable results if it is sufficiently large [ 32 ]. For example, Wilson et al. used a random sample of trials from the Cochrane Stroke Group’s Trial Register to investigate completeness of reporting [ 33 ]. It is possible that a simple random sample would lead to underrepresentation of units (i.e. research reports) that are smaller in number. This is relevant if the investigators wish to compare multiple groups but have too few units in one group. In this case a stratified sample would help to create equal groups. For example, in a methodological study comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, Kahale et al. drew random samples from both groups [ 34 ]. Alternatively, systematic or purposeful sampling strategies can be used and we encourage researchers to justify their selected approaches based on the study objective.

Q: How many databases should I search?

A: The number of databases one should search would depend on the approach to sampling, which can include targeting the entire “population” of interest or a sample of that population. If you are interested in including the entire target population for your research question, or drawing a random or systematic sample from it, then a comprehensive and exhaustive search for relevant articles is required. In this case, we recommend using systematic approaches for searching electronic databases (i.e. at least 2 databases with a replicable and time stamped search strategy). The results of your search will constitute a sampling frame from which eligible studies can be drawn.

Alternatively, if your approach to sampling is purposeful, then we recommend targeting the database(s) or data sources (e.g. journals, registries) that include the information you need. For example, if you are conducting a methodological study of high impact journals in plastic surgery and they are all indexed in PubMed, you likely do not need to search any other databases. You may also have a comprehensive list of all journals of interest and can approach your search using the journal names in your database search (or by accessing the journal archives directly from the journal’s website). Even though one could also search journals’ web pages directly, using a database such as PubMed has multiple advantages, such as the use of filters, so the search can be narrowed down to a certain period, or study types of interest. Furthermore, individual journals’ web sites may have different search functionalities, which do not necessarily yield a consistent output.

Q: Should I publish a protocol for my methodological study?

A: A protocol is a description of intended research methods. Currently, only protocols for clinical trials require registration [ 35 ]. Protocols for systematic reviews are encouraged but no formal recommendation exists. The scientific community welcomes the publication of protocols because they help protect against selective outcome reporting, the use of post hoc methodologies to embellish results, and to help avoid duplication of efforts [ 36 ]. While the latter two risks exist in methodological research, the negative consequences may be substantially less than for clinical outcomes. In a sample of 31 methodological studies, 7 (22.6%) referenced a published protocol [ 9 ]. In the Cochrane Library, there are 15 protocols for methodological reviews (21 July 2020). This suggests that publishing protocols for methodological studies is not uncommon.

Authors can consider publishing their study protocol in a scholarly journal as a manuscript. Advantages of such publication include obtaining peer-review feedback about the planned study, and easy retrieval by searching databases such as PubMed. The disadvantages in trying to publish protocols includes delays associated with manuscript handling and peer review, as well as costs, as few journals publish study protocols, and those journals mostly charge article-processing fees [ 37 ]. Authors who would like to make their protocol publicly available without publishing it in scholarly journals, could deposit their study protocols in publicly available repositories, such as the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ ).

Q: How to appraise the quality of a methodological study?

A: To date, there is no published tool for appraising the risk of bias in a methodological study, but in principle, a methodological study could be considered as a type of observational study. Therefore, during conduct or appraisal, care should be taken to avoid the biases common in observational studies [ 38 ]. These biases include selection bias, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of exposure or outcome. In other words, to generate a representative sample, a comprehensive reproducible search may be necessary to build a sampling frame. Additionally, random sampling may be necessary to ensure that all the included research reports have the same probability of being selected, and the screening and selection processes should be transparent and reproducible. To ensure that the groups compared are similar in all characteristics, matching, random sampling or stratified sampling can be used. Statistical adjustments for between-group differences can also be applied at the analysis stage. Finally, duplicate data extraction can reduce errors in assessment of exposures or outcomes.

Q: Should I justify a sample size?

A: In all instances where one is not using the target population (i.e. the group to which inferences from the research report are directed) [ 39 ], a sample size justification is good practice. The sample size justification may take the form of a description of what is expected to be achieved with the number of articles selected, or a formal sample size estimation that outlines the number of articles required to answer the research question with a certain precision and power. Sample size justifications in methodological studies are reasonable in the following instances:

• Comparing two groups
• Determining a proportion, mean or another quantifier
• Determining factors associated with an outcome using regression-based analyses

For example, El Dib et al. computed a sample size requirement for a methodological study of diagnostic strategies in randomized trials, based on a confidence interval approach [ 40 ].

Q: What should I call my study?

A: Other terms which have been used to describe/label methodological studies include “ methodological review ”, “methodological survey” , “meta-epidemiological study” , “systematic review” , “systematic survey”, “meta-research”, “research-on-research” and many others. We recommend that the study nomenclature be clear, unambiguous, informative and allow for appropriate indexing. Methodological study nomenclature that should be avoided includes “ systematic review” – as this will likely be confused with a systematic review of a clinical question. “ Systematic survey” may also lead to confusion about whether the survey was systematic (i.e. using a preplanned methodology) or a survey using “ systematic” sampling (i.e. a sampling approach using specific intervals to determine who is selected) [ 32 ]. Any of the above meanings of the words “ systematic” may be true for methodological studies and could be potentially misleading. “ Meta-epidemiological study” is ideal for indexing, but not very informative as it describes an entire field. The term “ review ” may point towards an appraisal or “review” of the design, conduct, analysis or reporting (or methodological components) of the targeted research reports, yet it has also been used to describe narrative reviews [ 41 , 42 ]. The term “ survey ” is also in line with the approaches used in many methodological studies [ 9 ], and would be indicative of the sampling procedures of this study design. However, in the absence of guidelines on nomenclature, the term “ methodological study ” is broad enough to capture most of the scenarios of such studies.

Q: Should I account for clustering in my methodological study?

A: Data from methodological studies are often clustered. For example, articles coming from a specific source may have different reporting standards (e.g. the Cochrane Library). Articles within the same journal may be similar due to editorial practices and policies, reporting requirements and endorsement of guidelines. There is emerging evidence that these are real concerns that should be accounted for in analyses [ 43 ]. Some cluster variables are described in the section: “ What variables are relevant to methodological studies?”

A variety of modelling approaches can be used to account for correlated data, including the use of marginal, fixed or mixed effects regression models with appropriate computation of standard errors [ 44 ]. For example, Kosa et al. used generalized estimation equations to account for correlation of articles within journals [ 15 ]. Not accounting for clustering could lead to incorrect p -values, unduly narrow confidence intervals, and biased estimates [ 45 ].

Q: Should I extract data in duplicate?

A: Yes. Duplicate data extraction takes more time but results in less errors [ 19 ]. Data extraction errors in turn affect the effect estimate [ 46 ], and therefore should be mitigated. Duplicate data extraction should be considered in the absence of other approaches to minimize extraction errors. However, much like systematic reviews, this area will likely see rapid new advances with machine learning and natural language processing technologies to support researchers with screening and data extraction [ 47 , 48 ]. However, experience plays an important role in the quality of extracted data and inexperienced extractors should be paired with experienced extractors [ 46 , 49 ].

Q: Should I assess the risk of bias of research reports included in my methodological study?

A : Risk of bias is most useful in determining the certainty that can be placed in the effect measure from a study. In methodological studies, risk of bias may not serve the purpose of determining the trustworthiness of results, as effect measures are often not the primary goal of methodological studies. Determining risk of bias in methodological studies is likely a practice borrowed from systematic review methodology, but whose intrinsic value is not obvious in methodological studies. When it is part of the research question, investigators often focus on one aspect of risk of bias. For example, Speich investigated how blinding was reported in surgical trials [ 50 ], and Abraha et al., investigated the application of intention-to-treat analyses in systematic reviews and trials [ 51 ].

Q: What variables are relevant to methodological studies?

A: There is empirical evidence that certain variables may inform the findings in a methodological study. We outline some of these and provide a brief overview below:

• Country: Countries and regions differ in their research cultures, and the resources available to conduct research. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there may be differences in methodological features across countries. Methodological studies have reported loco-regional differences in reporting quality [ 52 , 53 ]. This may also be related to challenges non-English speakers face in publishing papers in English.
• Authors’ expertise: The inclusion of authors with expertise in research methodology, biostatistics, and scientific writing is likely to influence the end-product. Oltean et al. found that among randomized trials in orthopaedic surgery, the use of analyses that accounted for clustering was more likely when specialists (e.g. statistician, epidemiologist or clinical trials methodologist) were included on the study team [ 54 ]. Fleming et al. found that including methodologists in the review team was associated with appropriate use of reporting guidelines [ 55 ].
• Source of funding and conflicts of interest: Some studies have found that funded studies report better [ 56 , 57 ], while others do not [ 53 , 58 ]. The presence of funding would indicate the availability of resources deployed to ensure optimal design, conduct, analysis and reporting. However, the source of funding may introduce conflicts of interest and warrant assessment. For example, Kaiser et al. investigated the effect of industry funding on obesity or nutrition randomized trials and found that reporting quality was similar [ 59 ]. Thomas et al. looked at reporting quality of long-term weight loss trials and found that industry funded studies were better [ 60 ]. Kan et al. examined the association between industry funding and “positive trials” (trials reporting a significant intervention effect) and found that industry funding was highly predictive of a positive trial [ 61 ]. This finding is similar to that of a recent Cochrane Methodology Review by Hansen et al. [ 62 ]
• Journal characteristics: Certain journals’ characteristics may influence the study design, analysis or reporting. Characteristics such as journal endorsement of guidelines [ 63 , 64 ], and Journal Impact Factor (JIF) have been shown to be associated with reporting [ 63 , 65 – 67 ].
• Study size (sample size/number of sites): Some studies have shown that reporting is better in larger studies [ 53 , 56 , 58 ].
• Year of publication: It is reasonable to assume that design, conduct, analysis and reporting of research will change over time. Many studies have demonstrated improvements in reporting over time or after the publication of reporting guidelines [ 68 , 69 ].
• Type of intervention: In a methodological study of reporting quality of weight loss intervention studies, Thabane et al. found that trials of pharmacologic interventions were reported better than trials of non-pharmacologic interventions [ 70 ].
• Interactions between variables: Complex interactions between the previously listed variables are possible. High income countries with more resources may be more likely to conduct larger studies and incorporate a variety of experts. Authors in certain countries may prefer certain journals, and journal endorsement of guidelines and editorial policies may change over time.

Q: Should I focus only on high impact journals?

A: Investigators may choose to investigate only high impact journals because they are more likely to influence practice and policy, or because they assume that methodological standards would be higher. However, the JIF may severely limit the scope of articles included and may skew the sample towards articles with positive findings. The generalizability and applicability of findings from a handful of journals must be examined carefully, especially since the JIF varies over time. Even among journals that are all “high impact”, variations exist in methodological standards.

Q: Can I conduct a methodological study of qualitative research?

A: Yes. Even though a lot of methodological research has been conducted in the quantitative research field, methodological studies of qualitative studies are feasible. Certain databases that catalogue qualitative research including the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) have defined subject headings that are specific to methodological research (e.g. “research methodology”). Alternatively, one could also conduct a qualitative methodological review; that is, use qualitative approaches to synthesize methodological issues in qualitative studies.

Q: What reporting guidelines should I use for my methodological study?

A: There is no guideline that covers the entire scope of methodological studies. One adaptation of the PRISMA guidelines has been published, which works well for studies that aim to use the entire target population of research reports [ 71 ]. However, it is not widely used (40 citations in 2 years as of 09 December 2019), and methodological studies that are designed as cross-sectional or before-after studies require a more fit-for purpose guideline. A more encompassing reporting guideline for a broad range of methodological studies is currently under development [ 72 ]. However, in the absence of formal guidance, the requirements for scientific reporting should be respected, and authors of methodological studies should focus on transparency and reproducibility.

Q: What are the potential threats to validity and how can I avoid them?

A: Methodological studies may be compromised by a lack of internal or external validity. The main threats to internal validity in methodological studies are selection and confounding bias. Investigators must ensure that the methods used to select articles does not make them differ systematically from the set of articles to which they would like to make inferences. For example, attempting to make extrapolations to all journals after analyzing high-impact journals would be misleading.

Many factors (confounders) may distort the association between the exposure and outcome if the included research reports differ with respect to these factors [ 73 ]. For example, when examining the association between source of funding and completeness of reporting, it may be necessary to account for journals that endorse the guidelines. Confounding bias can be addressed by restriction, matching and statistical adjustment [ 73 ]. Restriction appears to be the method of choice for many investigators who choose to include only high impact journals or articles in a specific field. For example, Knol et al. examined the reporting of p -values in baseline tables of high impact journals [ 26 ]. Matching is also sometimes used. In the methodological study of non-randomized interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair, Parker et al. matched prospective studies with retrospective studies and compared reporting standards [ 74 ]. Some other methodological studies use statistical adjustments. For example, Zhang et al. used regression techniques to determine the factors associated with missing participant data in trials [ 16 ].

With regard to external validity, researchers interested in conducting methodological studies must consider how generalizable or applicable their findings are. This should tie in closely with the research question and should be explicit. For example. Findings from methodological studies on trials published in high impact cardiology journals cannot be assumed to be applicable to trials in other fields. However, investigators must ensure that their sample truly represents the target sample either by a) conducting a comprehensive and exhaustive search, or b) using an appropriate and justified, randomly selected sample of research reports.

Even applicability to high impact journals may vary based on the investigators’ definition, and over time. For example, for high impact journals in the field of general medicine, Bouwmeester et al. included the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM), BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and PLoS Medicine ( n  = 6) [ 75 ]. In contrast, the high impact journals selected in the methodological study by Schiller et al. were BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM ( n  = 4) [ 76 ]. Another methodological study by Kosa et al. included AIM, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and NEJM ( n  = 5). In the methodological study by Thabut et al., journals with a JIF greater than 5 were considered to be high impact. Riado Minguez et al. used first quartile journals in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for a specific year to determine “high impact” [ 77 ]. Ultimately, the definition of high impact will be based on the number of journals the investigators are willing to include, the year of impact and the JIF cut-off [ 78 ]. We acknowledge that the term “generalizability” may apply differently for methodological studies, especially when in many instances it is possible to include the entire target population in the sample studied.

Finally, methodological studies are not exempt from information bias which may stem from discrepancies in the included research reports [ 79 ], errors in data extraction, or inappropriate interpretation of the information extracted. Likewise, publication bias may also be a concern in methodological studies, but such concepts have not yet been explored.

A proposed framework

In order to inform discussions about methodological studies, the development of guidance for what should be reported, we have outlined some key features of methodological studies that can be used to classify them. For each of the categories outlined below, we provide an example. In our experience, the choice of approach to completing a methodological study can be informed by asking the following four questions:

• What is the aim?

A methodological study may be focused on exploring sources of bias in primary or secondary studies (meta-bias), or how bias is analyzed. We have taken care to distinguish bias (i.e. systematic deviations from the truth irrespective of the source) from reporting quality or completeness (i.e. not adhering to a specific reporting guideline or norm). An example of where this distinction would be important is in the case of a randomized trial with no blinding. This study (depending on the nature of the intervention) would be at risk of performance bias. However, if the authors report that their study was not blinded, they would have reported adequately. In fact, some methodological studies attempt to capture both “quality of conduct” and “quality of reporting”, such as Richie et al., who reported on the risk of bias in randomized trials of pharmacy practice interventions [ 80 ]. Babic et al. investigated how risk of bias was used to inform sensitivity analyses in Cochrane reviews [ 81 ]. Further, biases related to choice of outcomes can also be explored. For example, Tan et al investigated differences in treatment effect size based on the outcome reported [ 82 ].

Methodological studies may report quality of reporting against a reporting checklist (i.e. adherence to guidelines) or against expected norms. For example, Croituro et al. report on the quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals based on their adherence to the PRISMA statement [ 83 ], and Khan et al. described the quality of reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials published in high impact cardiovascular journals based on the CONSORT extension for harms [ 84 ]. Other methodological studies investigate reporting of certain features of interest that may not be part of formally published checklists or guidelines. For example, Mbuagbaw et al. described how often the implications for research are elaborated using the Evidence, Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe (EPICOT) format [ 30 ].

Sometimes investigators may be interested in how consistent reports of the same research are, as it is expected that there should be consistency between: conference abstracts and published manuscripts; manuscript abstracts and manuscript main text; and trial registration and published manuscript. For example, Rosmarakis et al. investigated consistency between conference abstracts and full text manuscripts [ 85 ].

In addition to identifying issues with reporting in primary and secondary studies, authors of methodological studies may be interested in determining the factors that are associated with certain reporting practices. Many methodological studies incorporate this, albeit as a secondary outcome. For example, Farrokhyar et al. investigated the factors associated with reporting quality in randomized trials of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery [ 53 ].

Methodological studies may also be used to describe methods or compare methods, and the factors associated with methods. Muller et al. described the methods used for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies [ 86 ].

Some methodological studies synthesize results from other methodological studies. For example, Li et al. conducted a scoping review of methodological reviews that investigated consistency between full text and abstracts in primary biomedical research [ 87 ].

Some methodological studies may investigate the use of names and terms in health research. For example, Martinic et al. investigated the definitions of systematic reviews used in overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs), meta-epidemiological studies and epidemiology textbooks [ 88 ].

In addition to the previously mentioned experimental methodological studies, there may exist other types of methodological studies not captured here.

• 2. What is the design?

Most methodological studies are purely descriptive and report their findings as counts (percent) and means (standard deviation) or medians (interquartile range). For example, Mbuagbaw et al. described the reporting of research recommendations in Cochrane HIV systematic reviews [ 30 ]. Gohari et al. described the quality of reporting of randomized trials in diabetes in Iran [ 12 ].

Some methodological studies are analytical wherein “analytical studies identify and quantify associations, test hypotheses, identify causes and determine whether an association exists between variables, such as between an exposure and a disease.” [ 89 ] In the case of methodological studies all these investigations are possible. For example, Kosa et al. investigated the association between agreement in primary outcome from trial registry to published manuscript and study covariates. They found that larger and more recent studies were more likely to have agreement [ 15 ]. Tricco et al. compared the conclusion statements from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews with a meta-analysis of the primary outcome and found that non-Cochrane reviews were more likely to report positive findings. These results are a test of the null hypothesis that the proportions of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews that report positive results are equal [ 90 ].

• 3. What is the sampling strategy?

Methodological reviews with narrow research questions may be able to include the entire target population. For example, in the methodological study of Cochrane HIV systematic reviews, Mbuagbaw et al. included all of the available studies ( n  = 103) [ 30 ].

Many methodological studies use random samples of the target population [ 33 , 91 , 92 ]. Alternatively, purposeful sampling may be used, limiting the sample to a subset of research-related reports published within a certain time period, or in journals with a certain ranking or on a topic. Systematic sampling can also be used when random sampling may be challenging to implement.

• 4. What is the unit of analysis?

Many methodological studies use a research report (e.g. full manuscript of study, abstract portion of the study) as the unit of analysis, and inferences can be made at the study-level. However, both published and unpublished research-related reports can be studied. These may include articles, conference abstracts, registry entries etc.

Some methodological studies report on items which may occur more than once per article. For example, Paquette et al. report on subgroup analyses in Cochrane reviews of atrial fibrillation in which 17 systematic reviews planned 56 subgroup analyses [ 93 ].

This framework is outlined in Fig.  2 .

A proposed framework for methodological studies

Conclusions

Methodological studies have examined different aspects of reporting such as quality, completeness, consistency and adherence to reporting guidelines. As such, many of the methodological study examples cited in this tutorial are related to reporting. However, as an evolving field, the scope of research questions that can be addressed by methodological studies is expected to increase.

In this paper we have outlined the scope and purpose of methodological studies, along with examples of instances in which various approaches have been used. In the absence of formal guidance on the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of methodological studies, we have provided some advice to help make methodological studies consistent. This advice is grounded in good contemporary scientific practice. Generally, the research question should tie in with the sampling approach and planned analysis. We have also highlighted the variables that may inform findings from methodological studies. Lastly, we have provided suggestions for ways in which authors can categorize their methodological studies to inform their design and analysis.

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations, authors’ contributions.

LM conceived the idea and drafted the outline and paper. DOL and LT commented on the idea and draft outline. LM, LP and DOL performed literature searches and data extraction. All authors (LM, DOL, LT, LP, DBA) reviewed several draft versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

This work did not receive any dedicated funding.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

DOL, DBA, LM, LP and LT are involved in the development of a reporting guideline for methodological studies.

Publisher’s Note

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

• français
• español
• português

Related Links

Health research methodology : a guide for training in research methods. 2nd ed..

View Statistics

Description, more languages, collections.

• Information products

Show Statistical Information

• 7. Regional Office for the Western Pacific

Research Methodology in Health Sciences ( Epidemiology + Statistics )

Nov 09, 2019

860 likes | 1.4k Views

Research Methodology in Health Sciences ( Epidemiology + Statistics ). Önder Ergönül, MD, MPH İlker Kayı, MD. Summer Course on Research Methodology in Medical Sciences July 10-21, 2017, Istanbul. Summer Course on Research Methodology in Medical Sciences

Share Presentation

• relative risk
• smallpox vaccine
• public health
• case fatality rate
• incidence rate incidence density

Presentation Transcript

ResearchMethodology in HealthSciences(Epidemiology+ Statistics) Önder Ergönül, MD, MPH İlker Kayı, MD SummerCourse on ResearchMethodology in MedicalSciences July10-21, 2017, Istanbul

SummerCourse on ResearchMethodology in MedicalSciences June 16-20, 2014, Istanbul Aims • Read a scientific manuscript • Write a scientific manuscript • Study design • P value • Effect estimates (relative risk, odds ratio, hazard ratio) • Interpretations of the study results Learning Objectives

Objectives of the talk • Emergenceanddevelopment of epidemiology • Historicalremarks • Measuringdiseaseoccurence

What is Epidemiology? “A discipline, whichexploresthecausality of thediseases” “A discipline, whichdividesthepeopleintogroups” “Epidemiology is not tomisstheforest, whilelooking at thetrees” “Epidemiology is toestablishtheassociationbetweentheexposuresandtheoutcome”

Epidemiology • Identifycausesand risk factorsfordisease • Determinetheextent of disease in thecommunity • Studynaturalhistoryandprognosis of disease • Evaluatepreventiveandtherapeuticmeasures • Providefoundationforpublicpolicy 6. Evidencebasedmedicinefordecisionmaking

EPI (on/ upon) + DOMOS (people) + OLOGY (Study) Symptoms, Progress Whywastheagentpresent in theenvironment Who, when Where, how

I keepsixhonestserving men, theytaughtmeall I knew. Theirnamesare what, why, when, how, where, who. RudyardKipling, 1865-1936

TheEvolution of Epidemiology in Modern Era • Graunt; Natural andPoliticalObservations on theBills of Mortality 1835 Farr; Mortality, life tables 1854 Snow; cholera 1950-80 BoomforEpidemiology: cohortstudies >2000 Emerginginfections, genetics, cardiology Rothman K, IJE 2007

William Farr (1807-1883) In Great Britain medical registration of deaths had been introduced in 1801 and in1838 William Farr introduced a national system of recording causes ofdeath. Once the mechanism started to work it provided a wealth of data which Farrhimself first analyzed with great skill, making full use of life table techniques (close inmost details to those in present day use) and of procedures for standardizing rates. Hewas also instrumental in building up a classification of diseases for statistical purposes, at bothnationalandinternationallevels.

1831-1832 22 000 deaths 1848-1849 52 000 deaths 1853-1854 John Snow’sstudies Thelastoutbreak: 1866 2 200 deaths

TheRevolutionarySteps in PublicHealth in recent 200 years Theuse of chlorine in thewater Snowremovedthehandle of thepump Koch Germ theory Malaria control Polio eradication 2001 1850 1882 1915 1963 1853 1885 1944 1953 1977 1796 Smallpoxvaccine is obligatory in UK Pasteur Rabiesvaccine, pasteurization Penicillin Salk poliovaccine Jenner smallpoxvaccine Smallpoxeradication

Pellagra: mal de la rosa Firstly identified among Spanish peasants by Don Gaspar Casal in 1735. 4 D: dermatitis, diarrhea, dementia, death. In 1937 it was discovered that pellagra was caused by a deficiency of the B vitamin niacin (nicotinic acid).  The body’s synthesis of this vitamin depends on the availability of the essential amino acid, tryptophan, which is found in milk, cheese, fish, meat and egg. 

TheCause of Pellegra: DietversusGerm? 1912, South Carolina, 30,000 cases of pellagra, with a case fatality rate of 40 per cent.  The disease was not confined to Southern states, however, and the US Congress asked the Surgeon General to investigate the disease.  In 1914 he appointed Joseph Goldberger (1874-1929), a medical officer in the US Public Health Service, to lead the investigation.

The Role of ObservationalStudies Goldberger believed that an infectious disease was unlikely to distinguish between inmates and employees or so systematically between rich and poor, and he favoured the hypothesis that a superior diet protected people from pellagra. He had also in mind the case of beri-beri, a disease which had recently been shown to be responsive to dietary interventions. (Vandenbroucke 2003).

Leukemia in Shoeworkers Exposed Chronically to Benzene Shoeworkers benzene leukemia Muzaffer Aksoy, Blood, 1974

Int J AntimicrobialAgents2008

TheCausalPie Model

CausalRelationbetweenIndependentanddependentvariables

Interpretation of an epidemiologicstudy Is there a validstatisticalassociation? Is theassociationlikelyto be duetochance? Is theassociationlikelyto be duetobias? Is theassociationlikelyto be duetoconfounding? Can thisvalidassociation be judged as causeandeffect? Is there a strongassociation? Is therebiologiccredibilitytothehypothesis? Is thereconsistencywithotherstudies? Is thetime sequencecompatible? Is thereevidence of a dose-responserelationship?

ComparingDiseaseOccurence • Absolutecomparisons • Risk • Risk density • Risk difference • Attributablefraction • Relativecomparisons • Relative risk • Attributable risk • Oddsratio

Ratio, Proportion, Rate

PrevalenceandIncidence Number of existingcases of a disease P= at a givenpoint of time CI = P= incidence x duration Total population Number of newcases of a diseaseduring a givenperiod of time Total population at risk CI = Cumulativeincidence

Incidence rate = incidencedensityA / time Number of newcases of a diseaseduring a givenperiod of time CI = Total person time of observation

Risk = A / N Number of subjectsdevelopingdiseaseduring a time period Risk= Risk = Incidence rate x time Risk: 0-1, probability Number of subjectsfollowedforthe time period risk time

MortalityandFatality CaseFatality Rate: Number of fatalcases Number of patients Mortality: Number of fatalcases Total population E.g. HIV have a high CFR but lowmortality in Turkey Attack rate: Number of newcases Population at risk

Relative Risk RR = = RR= incidence in exposed / incidence in nonexposed a / (a + b) Risk of exposedgroup c / (c + d) Risk of nonexposedgroup

When OR is closeto RR: Rarediseaseassumption RR= = = = OR a/ (a+b) a / b ad c/ (c+d) c / d bc

The Confidence Interval for the Effect Size

Confidence Intervals  When an estimate is presented as a single value, such as an odds ratio, we refer to it as a point estimate of the population odds ratio. When we compute a confidence interval, we form a interval estimate of the value. A confidence interval is called an interval estimate, which is a interval (lower bound , upper bound) that we can be confident covers, or straddles, the true population effect with some level of confidence. The interpretation of a 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio is (van Belle et al, 2004, p.86): The probability is 0.95, or 95%, that the interval (lower bound , upper bound) straddles the population odds ratio.

Risk Difference / Attributable Risk Therisk difference (RD) orattributable risk (AR) is a measure of associationthatprovidesinformationabouttheabsoluteeffect of theexposureortheexcess risk of disease in thoseexposedcomparedwiththosenonexposed. AR = IRe-IRo Attributablefraction = = Goodtoseetheattribution of theexposure RD Re-Ro R1 Re

Summary:Objectives of the Course Program 1.Bias 2.Confounder 3. Chance StudyDesign Data collection Epidemiology Analysis: Statisticalmethods

• More by User

Research in the Health Sciences

Kerry Sullivan, MLIS Health Sciences Librarian February 2010. Research in the Health Sciences . Your hosts Kerry Sullivan Michelle Hajder QUESTIONS? Please click the Q&A button at the top of the screen and enter your question We will have time for Q&A at the end of the session.

683 views • 42 slides

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. (Business Research Methods). Week 3. Decision-Making. Decision-Making is the process of resolving a problem or choosing amongst alternative opportunities What is the problem or opportunity? How much Information is available? What Information is needed?. Absolute

697 views • 16 slides

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. (Business Research Methods). Week 13. Editing and Coding Data. Editing is the process of checking data for errors such as omissions, illegibility and inconsistency, and correcting data where and when the need arises

988 views • 18 slides

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. (Business Research Methods). Week 1. How This Course Will Be Conducted. Comprehensive introduction to Research Methodology (Business Research Methods) Knowledge acquisition and application of subject matter to real-life situations

1.13k views • 36 slides

Research Methodology

Research Methodology. Basic Information. Research Methodology. Basic Information Your Instructors Program of the Lessons Goal of the Course Material Modalities of Examination. Your Instructor Fausto Giunchiglia (http://www.dit.unitn.it/~fausto). Program of the Lessons

852 views • 57 slides

Research Methodology in Psycholinguistics

Research Methodology in Psycholinguistics. 4. Neurolinguistic Approach It studies the brain mechanism for language functioning –where is language functioning localized in the brain? Lesion study –using brain-damage patients Functional brain imaging study –using the intact human brain.

878 views • 55 slides

Research Methodology. Group Members: April Tulloch Kerekia Walker Sashield Walker Daneik Wallace Juliann Wallace Nicole Wallace Lecturer: Dr. J. Lindo. PICO.

505 views • 24 slides

Research Methodology. Session 11 Research Design Sampling. Latest Schedule (1). Latest Schedule (2). Recap. Assignments Language feedback Language self-reflection Structural PS -> RO -> RQ Sub-problems => hypotheses / research questions Presentation Participation Feedback. Preview.

985 views • 25 slides

Health Sciences Research Program

Health Sciences Research Program. Professor Helen Keleher School of Primary Health Care Department of Health Science Peninsula campus. HK – Pathways. Sociology + politics + health = public health social science (+ rusty clinical knowledge) NGO activity:

301 views • 16 slides

Research Methodology. SDLC MDLC Waterfall Model RAD. Introduction. A framework that describes the activities performed at each stage of a software development project.

1.27k views • 30 slides

CDT403 Research Methodology in Natural Sciences and Engineering

CDT403 Research Methodology in Natural Sciences and Engineering A History of Computing: A History of Ideas Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic Department of Computer Science and Electronic Mälardalen University, Sweden. HISTORY OF COMPUTING. LEIBNIZ: LOGICAL CALCULUS BOOLE: LOGIC AS ALGEBRA

1.95k views • 181 slides

CDT403 Research Methodology in Natural Sciences and Engineering COURSE INTRODUCTION

CDT403 Research Methodology in Natural Sciences and Engineering COURSE INTRODUCTION Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University. CDT403 Research Methodology in Natural Sciences and Engineering. HISTORICAL NOTES.

479 views • 29 slides

Research Methodology. EPH 7112 LECTURE 8: VALIDATION. Contents. Validation Compute Performance Draw Conclusions Peer Review. Scientific Method. Objectives. Objective of Validation phase is To decide whether the objective of the task has been achieved Based on formal conclusions

721 views • 9 slides

Research Methodology. Research Traditions What is research? Research is “the systematic approach to finding answers to questions.” “Questions” comes first – questions drive inquiry; questions will inform the kind of research we do. Quantitative and Qualitative research traditions

1.4k views • 41 slides

Research Methodology. Definition: Business Research. Systematic and Scientific inquiry aimed at providing information to solve managerial problems. Basic (Fundamental) Research. Generalization of natural phenomenon or human behavior

2.05k views • 83 slides

Methodology in quantitative research

Methodology in quantitative research. Bas Kooijman Dept theoretical biology Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam [email protected] http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb. master course WTC methods Amsterdam, 2005/10/31. University  School. in the sense that you learn things that you must reproduce later

203 views • 18 slides

Research Methodology. 尚惠芳 教授兼系主任 義守大學應用英語學系. 98 學年度第一學期. 1. Outline. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Literature Review and Research Problems Survey Research Qualitative Methods Mixed-Methods and Mixed-Model Designs Sampling Data Collection

1.86k views • 144 slides

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. Sampling. Introduction. Our Knowledge, Attitudes and Actions are based to a large extent on samples. This is equally true in every day life and scientific research. Introduction (Cont’d).

900 views • 38 slides

Research Methodology. Introduction to Research Methodology. Stages of Research Project. Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Literature Review Chapter 3: Methodology Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Interpretation of Findings Chapter 5: Discussion and conclusion. Why do we research?.

901 views • 37 slides

Research Methodology*

Research Methodology*. Mian Ali Haider L.L.B., L.L.M ( Cum Laude) U.K. *(Contents of this PPT are not mine, infact, gathered from different electronic materials). What is Research ?.

749 views • 37 slides

Methodology Matters: Doing Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Methodology Matters: Doing Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences. ICS 205 Ha Nguyen Chad Ata. The way we do research matters. Because the meaning of the discovered evidence is based on the way it is obtained 3 domains are always involved when doing research

312 views • 30 slides

Research Methodology. Gopinath Ganapathy BDU. Basic Terminology. What is Research? What is Science? What is Technology? What is Methodology?. Why Methodology?. Need for methodology for Research? Science is a collection and observation of data for certain questions.

2.09k views • 22 slides

Please log in to save materials. Log in

• Resource Library
• Research Methods
• VIVA Grant Recipients
• Vgr-social-work-research

Education Standards

Radford university.

Learning Domain: Social Work

Standard: Basic Research Methodology

Lesson 10: Sampling in Qualitative Research

Lesson 11: qualitative measurement & rigor, lesson 12: qualitative design & data gathering, lesson 1: introduction to research, lesson 2: getting started with your research project, lesson 3: critical information literacy, lesson 4: paradigm, theory, and causality, lesson 5: research questions, lesson 6: ethics, lesson 7: measurement in quantitative research, lesson 8: sampling in quantitative research, lesson 9: quantitative research designs, powerpoint slides: sowk 621.01: research i: basic research methodology.

The twelve lessons for SOWK 621.01: Research I: Basic Research Methodology as previously taught by Dr. Matthew DeCarlo at Radford University. Dr. DeCarlo and his team developed a complete package of materials that includes a textbook, ancillary materials, and a student workbook as part of a VIVA Open Course Grant.

The PowerPoint slides associated with the twelve lessons of the course, SOWK 621.01: Research I: Basic Research Methodology, as previously taught by Dr. Matthew DeCarlo at Radford University. 

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY- ppt-1

Related Papers

Bakhtawer Zain

Fatjon Muca

The term “research” is semantically overloaded given its use in everyday language. In an academic context, research is used to refer to the activity of a diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation in an area, with the objective of discovering or revising facts, theories, applications etc.

Research is any original and systematic investigation undertaken to increase knowledge and understanding and to establish facts and principles. It comprises the creation of ideas and generation of new knowledge that lead to new and improved insights and the development of new material, devices, products and processes. The word " research " perhaps originates from the old French word recerchier that meant to 'search again'. It implicitly assumes that the earlier search was not exhaustive and complete and hence a repeated search is called for.

Egesa Romans

According to Mugenda & Mugenda (2010), research is process of carrying out a diligent inquiry or a critical examination of a given phenomenonexhaustive study that follows some logical sequence. Mouly defines research as a process of arriving at effective solutions to problems through systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of data. Research also involves a critical analysis of existing conclusions or theories with regard to newly discovered facts Research is the continued search for knowledge and understanding of the world around us. Clifford Woody argues that research is the process of designing and redefining problems, formulating hypothesis or suggested solutions, collecting, organizing and evaluating data, making deductions and reaching conclusions and carefully testing the conclusions to determine whether they fit the formulated hypothesis.

mohamed O mohamed taha

Oscar Masaka

WILBERT M G A N G A MTESSIGWA

Saeed Anwar

Educational Journal

Ganizani Nkhambule

In the simplest of terms, the research definition is a process of seeking out knowledge. This knowledge can be new, or it can support an already known fact. The purpose of research is to inform and is based on collected and analyzed data. This exploration occurs systematically, where it is either tested or investigated to add to a body of knowledge. Research is a systematic and scientific approach to understanding the world around us. It is a process of inquiry that involves the collection and analysis of data to answer questions or solve problems.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

사다리타기〃〃GCN777。COM〃〃골드카지노

OIKOS Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan Ekonomi dan Ilmu Ekonomi

Dwinto Martri Aji Buana

liane rucinski

Magda Benavides

Proc. Design, Automation and Test in Europe Workshop Dependable Software Systems

Alberto Sangiovanni Vincentelli

Laura Isabella Pardo

Linda Diaz Fernandez

Entrever Revista Das Licenciaturas

Suellen Lemonje

Journal of Biomedical Optics

Martin Leahy

International Social Work

Victor Karunan

Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure

Ahmad jazuli

Erekpitan Ola-Adisa

Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Business, Law And Pedagogy, ICBLP 2019, 13-15 February 2019, Sidoarjo, Indonesia

Khoirul Umam

Developmental & Comparative Immunology

Chartchai Krittanai

Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Humaniora dan Politik

MATIUS LIARAN

Industrial Engineering & Management

Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies

Kaleem Razzaq Malik

Jurnal Teknologi

พอใจ เนติโสภากุล

Dicionário de Tradutores Literários no Brasil

Andréa Cesco , Mara Gonzalez Bezerra

Filaria journal

Sitti Wahyuni

Anticancer Research

Nina Rembialkowska

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review

Peter Khaola

The Journal of Infectious Diseases

Håkan Billig

Computers in Human Behavior

Luca Bastiani

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• My presentations

Auth with social network:

Download presentation

We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Lecture Notes on Research Methodology

Published by Eileen Garrison Modified over 6 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Lecture Notes on Research Methodology"— Presentation transcript:

Introduction to Research Methodology

Sabine Mendes Lima Moura Issues in Research Methodology PUC – November 2014.

Today Concepts underlying inferential statistics

Richard M. Jacobs, OSA, Ph.D.

Research Methodology Lecture 1.

Chapter 12 Inferential Statistics Gay, Mills, and Airasian

Sample Design.

Copyright © 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey All rights reserved. John W. Creswell Educational Research: Planning,

Magister of Electrical Engineering Udayana University September 2011

Chapter 1: Introduction to Statistics

RESEARCH A systematic quest for undiscovered truth A way of thinking

Research Methodology.

Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, 9 th edition. Gay, Mills, & Airasian © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Research Seminars in IT in Education (MIT6003) Quantitative Educational Research Design 2 Dr Jacky Pow.

PROCESSING OF DATA The collected data in research is processed and analyzed to come to some conclusions or to verify the hypothesis made. Processing of.

Academic Research Academic Research Dr Kishor Bhanushali M

Question paper 1997.

Chapter 6: Analyzing and Interpreting Quantitative Data

Module III Multivariate Analysis Techniques- Framework, Factor Analysis, Cluster Analysis and Conjoint Analysis Research Report.

Chapter 7 Measuring of data Reliability of measuring instruments The reliability* of instrument is the consistency with which it measures the target attribute.

About project

© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.

Got any suggestions?

We want to hear from you! Send us a message and help improve Slidesgo

Top searches

Trending searches

24 templates

10 templates

20 templates

education technology

181 templates

23 templates

biochemistry

37 templates

Research Methodology Workshop

Research methodology workshop presentation, premium google slides theme and powerpoint template.

The backbone of any scientific inquiry: the methodology. A systematic process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data to draw conclusions about a particular subject matter. However, many researchers struggle with selecting the appropriate research design, sampling methods, data collection, and analysis techniques. But your workshop is ready to tackle that issue so as to help researchers to get started! With this template and its captivating design, you'll get everyone paying close attention to your explanations. Remember that you can customize everything!

Features of this template

• 100% editable and easy to modify
• 31 different slides to impress your audience
• Contains easy-to-edit graphics such as graphs, maps, tables, timelines and mockups
• Includes 500+ icons and Flaticon’s extension for customizing your slides
• Designed to be used in Google Slides and Microsoft PowerPoint
• 16:9 widescreen format suitable for all types of screens
• Includes information about fonts, colors, and credits of the resources used

What are the benefits of having a Premium account?

What Premium plans do you have?

What can I do to have unlimited downloads?

Don’t want to attribute Slidesgo?

Gain access to over 22500 templates & presentations with premium from 1.67€/month.

Are you already Premium? Log in

Related posts on our blog

How to Add, Duplicate, Move, Delete or Hide Slides in Google Slides

How to Change Layouts in PowerPoint

How to Change the Slide Size in Google Slides

Related presentations.

Premium template

Unlock this template and gain unlimited access

Home Collections Education Research Methodology

Research Methodology PPT And Google Slides Templates

Research Methodology Presentation Slides

Features of the templates:.

• 100% customizable slides and easy to download
• The slides contained 16:9 and 4:3 formats.
• Easy to change the slide colors quickly.
• Planets animation inserted template.
• Ready-made nodes are given to you.
• Research Methodology
• Methodology
• Research Methodology Model
• Research Methodology Diagram
• Research Methodology Infographics
• Research Studies
• Google Slides

49+ Templates

177+ Templates

1294+ Templates

Animals and birds

266+ Templates

Country Flags

46+ Templates

417+ Templates

179+ Templates

Galaxy or Space

124+ Templates

30+ Templates

You May Also Like These PowerPoint Templates