Did you know.
The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory
A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.
In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.
A theory , in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory . Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, it is understood to be more likely to be true than a hypothesis is.
In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice.
Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.
The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)
This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.
The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said , a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”
While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."
hypothesis , theory , law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature.
hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.
theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth.
law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions.
These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'hypothesis.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.
Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do
1641, in the meaning defined at sense 1a
This is the Difference Between a...
In scientific reasoning, they're two completely different things
hypothermia
hypothesize
“Hypothesis.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis. Accessed 30 Aug. 2024.
Kids definition of hypothesis, medical definition, medical definition of hypothesis, more from merriam-webster on hypothesis.
Nglish: Translation of hypothesis for Spanish Speakers
Britannica English: Translation of hypothesis for Arabic Speakers
Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about hypothesis
Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!
Word of the day, mise-en-scène.
See Definitions and Examples »
Get Word of the Day daily email!
Plural and possessive names: a guide, 31 useful rhetorical devices, more commonly misspelled words, why does english have so many silent letters, your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, popular in wordplay, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, 7 shakespearean insults to make life more interesting, birds say the darndest things, 10 words from taylor swift songs (merriam's version), games & quizzes.
Last updated on Fri Aug 23 2024
Imagine spending months or even years developing a new feature only to find out it doesn’t resonate with your users, argh! This kind of situation could be any worst Product manager’s nightmare.
There's a way to fix this problem called the Value Hypothesis . This idea helps builders to validate whether the ideas they’re working on are worth pursuing and useful to the people they want to sell to.
This guide will teach you what you need to know about Value Hypothesis and a step-by-step process on how to create a strong one. At the end of this post, you’ll learn how to create a product that satisfies your users.
Are you ready? Let’s get to it!
Scrutinizing this hypothesis helps you as a developer to come up with a product that your customers like and love to use.
Product managers use the Value Hypothesis as a north star, ensuring focus on client needs and avoiding wasted resources. For more on this, read about the product management process .
Let's get into the step-by-step process, but first, we need to understand the basics of the Value Hypothesis:
A Value Hypothesis is like a smart guess you can test to see if your product truly solves a problem for your customers. It’s your way of predicting how well your product will address a particular issue for the people you’re trying to help.
You need to know what a Value Hypothesis is, what it covers, and its key parts before you use it. To learn more about finding out what customers need, take a look at our guide on discovering features .
The Value Hypothesis does more than just help with the initial launch, it guides the whole development process. This keeps teams focused on what their users care about helping them choose features that their audience will like.
A strong Value Hypothesis rests on three key components:
Value Proposition: The Value Proposition spells out the main advantage your product gives to customers. It explains the "what" and "why" of your product showing how it eases a particular pain point.
This proposition targets a specific group of consumers. To learn more, check out our guide on roadmapping .
Customer Segmentation: Knowing and grasping your target audience is essential. This involves studying their demographics, needs, behaviors, and problems. By dividing your market, you can shape your value proposition to address the unique needs of each group.
Customer feedback surveys can prove priceless in this process. Find out more about this in our customer feedback surveys guide.
Problem Statement : The Problem Statement defines the exact issue your product aims to fix. It should zero in on a real fixable pain point your target users face. For hands-on applications, see our product launch communication plan .
Here are some key questions to guide you:
What are the primary challenges and obstacles faced by your target users?
What existing solutions are available, and where do they fall short?
What unmet needs or desires does your target audience have?
For a structured approach to prioritizing features based on customer needs, consider using a feature prioritization matrix .
Now that we've covered the basics, let's look at how to build a convincing Value Hypothesis. Here's a two-step method, along with value hypothesis templates, to point you in the right direction:
To start with, you need to carry out market research. By carrying out proper market research, you will have an understanding of existing solutions and identify areas in which customers' needs are yet to be met. This is integral to effective idea tracking .
Next, use customer interviews, surveys, and support data to understand your target audience's problems and what they want. Check out our list of tools for getting customer feedback to help with this.
Once you've completed your research, it's crucial to identify your customers' needs. By merging insights from market research with direct user feedback, you can pinpoint the key requirements of your customers.
Here are some key questions to think about:
What are the most significant challenges that your target users encounter daily?
Which current solutions are available to them, and how do these solutions fail to fully address their needs?
What specific pain points are your target users struggling with that aren't being resolved?
Are there any gaps or shortcomings in the existing products or services that your customers use?
What unfulfilled needs or desires does your target audience express that aren't currently met by the market?
To prioritize features based on customer needs in a structured way, think about using a feature prioritization matrix .
Once you've created your Value Hypothesis with a template, you need to check if it holds up. Here's how you can do this:
Build a minimum viable product (MVP)—a basic version of your product with essential functions. This lets you test your value proposition with actual users and get feedback without spending too much. To achieve the best outcomes, look into the best practices for customer feedback software .
Build mock-ups to show your product idea. Use these mock-ups to get user input on the user experience and overall value offer.
After you've gathered data about your hypothesis, it's time to examine it. Here are some metrics you can use:
User Engagement : Monitor stats like time on the platform, feature use, and return visits to see how much users interact with your MVP or mock-up.
Conversion Rates : Check conversion rates for key actions like sign-ups, buys, or feature adoption. These numbers help you judge if your value offer clicks with users. To learn more, read our article on SaaS growth benchmarks .
The Value Hypothesis framework shines because you can keep making it better. Here's how to fine-tune your hypothesis:
Set up an ongoing system to gather user data as you develop your product.
Look at what users say to spot areas that need work then update your value proposition based on what you learn.
Read about managing product updates to keep your hypotheses current.
The market keeps changing, and your Value Hypothesis should too. Stay up to date on what's happening in your industry and watch how users' habits change. Tweak your value proposition to stay useful and ahead of the competition.
Here are some ways to keep your Value Hypothesis fresh:
Do market research often to keep up with what's happening in your industry and what your competitors are up to.
Keep an eye on what users are saying to spot new problems or things they need but don't have yet.
Try out different value statements and features to see which ones your audience likes best.
To keep your guesses up-to-date, check out our guide on handling product changes .
While the Value Hypothesis approach is powerful, it's key to steer clear of these common traps:
Avoid Confirmation Bias : People tend to focus on data that backs up their initial guesses. But it's key to look at feedback that goes against your ideas and stay open to different views.
Watch out for Shiny Object Syndrome : Don't let the newest fads sway you unless they solve a main customer problem. Your value proposition should fix actual issues for your users.
Don't Cling to Your First Hypothesis : As the market changes, your value proposition should too. Be ready to shift your hypothesis when new evidence and user feedback comes in.
Don't Mix Up Busywork with Real Progress : Getting user feedback is key, but making sense of it brings real value. Look at the data to find useful insights that can shape your product. To learn more about this, check out our guide on handling customer feedback .
To build a product that succeeds, you need to know your target users inside out and understand how you help them. The Value Hypothesis framework gives you a step-by-step way to do this.
If you follow the steps in this guide, you can create a strong value proposition, check if it works, and keep improving it to ensure your product stays useful and important to your customers.
Keep in mind, a good Value Hypothesis changes as your product and market change. When you use data and put customers first, you're on the right track to create a product that works.
Want to put the Value Hypothesis framework into action? Check out our top templates for creating product roadmaps to streamline your process. Think about using featureOS to manage customer feedback. This tool makes it easier to collect, examine, and put user feedback to work.
Announcements
Privacy Policy
Terms of use
Canny vs Frill
Beamer vs Frill
Hello Next vs Frill
Our Roadmap
© 2024 Frill – Independent & Bootstrapped.
What are research implications, why discuss research implications, types of implications in research, how do you present research implications.
Every scientific inquiry is built on previous studies and lays the groundwork for future research. The latter is where discussion of research implications lies. Researchers are expected not only to present what their findings suggest about the phenomenon being studied but also what the findings mean in a broader context.
In this article, we'll explore the nature of research implications as a means for contextualizing the findings of qualitative research and the foundation it sets for further research.
Research implications include any kind of discussion of what a particular study means for its research field and in general terms. Researchers write implications to lay out future research studies, make research recommendations based on proposed theoretical developments, and discuss practical and technological implications that can be applied in the real world.
To put it another way, research implications are intended to answer the question "what does this research mean?". Research implications look forward and out. Once findings are presented and discussed, the researcher lays out what the findings mean in a broader context and how they could guide subsequent research.
An aspect of academic writing that's related to implications is the discussion of the study's limitations. These limitations differ from implications in that they explore already acknowledged shortcomings in a study (e.g., a small sample size, an inherent weakness in a chosen methodological approach), but these limitations can also suggest how future research could address these shortcomings. Both the implications and recommendations are often coupled with limitations in a discussion section to explain the significance of the study's contributions to scientific knowledge.
Strictly speaking, there is a fine line between limitations and implications, one that a traditional approach to the scientific method may not adequately explore. Under the scientific method, the product of any research study addresses its research questions or confirms or challenges its expected outcomes. Fulfilling just this task, however, may overlook a more important step in the research process in terms of demonstrating significance.
One of the more famous research examples can provide useful insight. Galileo's experiments with falling objects allowed him to answer questions raised by Aristotle's understanding about gravity affecting objects of different weights. Galileo had something of a hypothesis - objects should fall at the same speed regardless of weight - based on a critique of then-current scientific knowledge - Aristotle's assertion about gravity - that he wanted to test in research. By conducting different experiments using inclines and pendulums (and supposedly one involving falling objects from the Tower of Pisa), he established a new understanding about gravity and its relationship (or lack thereof) to the weight of objects.
Discussion of that experiment focused on how the findings challenged Aristotle's understanding of physics. It did not, however, pose the next logical question: Why would an object like a feather fall at a much slower rate of descent than an object like a hammer if weight was not a factor?
Galileo's experiment and other similar experiments laid the groundwork for experiments on air resistance, most famously the Apollo 15 experiment on the moon where a feather and hammer fell at the same rate in a vacuum, absent any air resistance. The limitation Galileo had at the time was the inability to create a vacuum to test any theories about gravity and air resistance. The implications of his experiments testing Aristotle's claims include the call to further research that could eventually confirm or challenge his understanding of falling objects.
In formal scientific research, particularly in academic settings where peer review is an essential component, contemporary researchers are supposed to do more than simply report their findings. They are expected to engage in critical reflection in placing their research findings in a broader context. The peer review process in research publication often assesses the quality of a research paper by its ability to detail the significance of a given research study. Without an explicit description of the implications in research, readers may not necessarily know what importance the study and its findings holds for them.
Download a free trial of our powerful analysis platform to generate critical insights from your research.
Breaking down the kinds of implications that your research findings might have will be useful in crafting a clearer and more persuasive presentation. More important than saying that the findings are compelling is arguing in what aspects the findings should prove useful.
There are different types of implications, and the type you should emphasize depends on your target audience.
When research findings present novel scientific knowledge, it should have an influence on existing theories by affirming, contradicting, or contextualizing them. This can mean the proposal of a brand new theoretical framework or developments to a existing one.
Keep in mind that, in qualitative research , researchers will often contextualize a theory rather than confirm or refute it. This means that a theory or conceptual framework that is applied to an unfamiliar context (e.g., a theory about adolescent development in a study involving graduate students) will undergo some sort of transformation due to the new analysis.
New understandings will likely develop more complex descriptions of theories as they are interpreted and re-interpreted in new contexts. The discussion of theoretical implications here requires researchers to consider how new theoretical developments might be applied to new data in future research.
More applied forums are interested in how a study's findings can be used in the real world. New developments in psychology could yield discussion of applications in psychiatry, while research in physics can lead to technological innovations in engineering and architecture. While some researchers focus on developing theory, others conduct research to generate actionable insights and tangible results for stakeholders.
Education research, for example, may present pathways to a new teaching method or assessment of learining outcomes. Theories about how students passively and actively develop expertise in subject-matter knowledge could eventually prompt scholars and practitioners to change existing pedagogies and materials that account for more novel understandings of teaching and learning.
Exploring the practical dimensions of research findings may touch on political implications such as policy recommendations, marketable technologies, or novel approaches to existing methods or processes. Discussion of implications along these lines is meant to promote further research and activity in the field to support these practical developments.
Qualitative research methods are always under constant development and innovation. Moreover, applying research methods in new contexts or for novel research inquiries can lead to unanticipated results that might cause a researcher to reflect on and iterate on their methods of data collection and analysis .
Critical reflections on research methods are not meant to assert that the study was conducted without the necessary rigor . However, rigorous and transparent researchers are expected to argue that further iterations of the research that address any methodological gaps can only bolster the persuasiveness of the findings or generate richer insights.
There are many possible avenues for implications in terms of innovating on methodology. Does the nature of your interview questions change when interviewing certain populations? Should you change certain practices when collecting data in an ethnography to establish rapport with research participants ? How does the use of technology influence the collection and analysis of data?
All of these questions are worth discussing, with the answers providing useful guidance to those who want to base their own study design on yours. As a result, it's important to devote some space in your paper or presentation to how you conducted your study and what you would do in future iterations of your study to bolster its research rigor.
Presenting research implications or writing research implications in a research paper is a matter of answering the following question: Why should scholars read or pay attention to your research? Especially in the social sciences, the potential impact of a study is not always a foregone conclusion. In other words, to make the findings as insightful and persuasive to your audience as they are to you, you need to persuade them beyond the presentation of the analysis and the insights generated.
Here are a few main principles to achieve this task. In broad terms, they focus on what the findings mean to you, what it should mean to others, and what those impacts might mean in context.
Academic research writing tends to follow a structure that narrates a study from the researcher's motivation to conduct the research to why the research's findings matter. While there's seldom a strict requirement for sections in a paper or presentation, understanding commonly used patterns in academic writing will point out where the research implications are discussed.
If you look at a typical research paper abstract in a peer-reviewed journal , for example, you might find that the last sentence or two explicitly establishes why the research is useful to motivate readers to look at the paper more deeply. In the body of the paper, this is further explained in detail towards the end of the introduction and discussion sections and in the conclusion section. These areas are where you should focus on detailing the research implications and explaining how you perceive the impact of your study.
It's essential that you use these spaces to highlight why the findings matter to you. As mentioned earlier, this impact should never be assumed to be understood. Rather, you should explain in detail how your initial motivation to conduct the research has been satisfied and how you might use what you have learned from the research in theoretical and practical terms.
Research is partly about sharing expertise and partly about understanding your audience. Scientific knowledge is generated through consensus, and the more that the researcher ensures their implications are understood by their audience, the more it will resonate in the field.
A good strategy for tailoring your research paper to a particular journal is to read its articles for the implications that are explored in the research. Applied journals will focus on more practical implications while more theoretical publications will emphasize theoretical or conceptual frameworks for other scholars to rely on. As a result, there's no need to detail every single possible implication from your study; simply describing those implications that are most relevant to your audience is often sufficient.
One of the easier ways to persuade readers of the potential implications of your research is to provide concrete examples that are simple to understand.
Think about a study that interviews children, for example, where the methodological implications dwell on establishing an emotional connection before collecting data. This might include practical considerations such as bringing toys or conducting the interview in a setting familiar to them like their classroom so they are comfortable during data collection. Explicitly detailing this example can guide scholars in useful takeaways for their research design.
Analyze your qualitative data with ease using ATLAS.ti. Start with a free trial today.
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Patricia farrugia.
* Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, the
† Division of Orthopaedic Surgery and the
‡ Departments of Surgery and
§ Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont
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
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.
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).
Feasible | ||
Interesting | ||
Novel | ||
Ethical | ||
Relevant |
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.
Population (patients) | ||
Intervention (for intervention studies only) | ||
Comparison group | ||
Outcome of interest | ||
Time |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Aftab, A., Lee, E.E., Klaus, F., Daly, R., Wu, T.C., Tu, X., Huege, S., Jeste, D.V. (2019) Meaning in Life and Its Relationship With Physical, Mental, and Cognitive Functioning: A Study of 1,042 Community-Dwelling Adults Across the Lifespan. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry , 81(1):19m13064. doi: 10.4088/JCP.19m13064. PMID: 31846240; PMCID: PMC7138140.
Akhtar, H. (2019). Evaluasi properti psikometris dan perbandingan model pengukuran konstruk subjective well-being. Jurnal Psikologi, 18 (1) , 29-40. https://doi.org/10.14710/jp.18.1.29-40
Adhandayani, A., & Takwin, B. (2018). Pengaruh self-enhancement dan authenticity terhadap prediksi diri masa depan. Psikogenesis, 6 (1), 104-117. https://doi.org/10.24854/jps.v6i1.637
Abeyta, A. A., & Routledge, C. (2018). The need for meaning and religiosity: An individual differences approach to assessing existential needs and the relation with religious commitment, beliefs, and experiences. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.038
Anggraini, W. Y. (2022, August 29). 4 Artis Korea Meninggal Bunuh Diri, Akibat Komentar Jahat Netizen (4 Korean Artists Committed Suicide, Due to Malicious Comments from Netizens). Harian Terbit - Halaman 2. https://www.harianterbit.com/selebritas/pr-2744298045/4-artis-korea-meninggal-bunuh-diri-akibat-komentar-jahat-netizen?page=2
Anglim, J., Horwood, S., Smillie, L. D., Marrero, R. J., & Wood, J. K. (2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146 (4), 279–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226
Arnett, J. J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: the winding road from the late teens through the twenties (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (2019). Stalking the True Self Through the Jungles of Authenticity: Problems, Contradictions, Inconsistencies, Disturbing Findings—and a Possible Way Forward. Review of General Psychology , 23 (1), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019829472
Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death . New York: Free Press.
Boyraz, G., Waits, J. B., & Felix, V. A. (2014). Authenticity, life satisfaction, and distress: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 498–505. DOI: 10.1037/cou0000031
Chen, S. (2019). Authenticity in context: Being true to working selves. Review of General Psychology, 23 (1), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000160
Chen, S., & Murphy, D. (2019). The mediating role of authenticity on mindfulness and wellbeing: A cross cultural analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 10(1), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507686.2018.1556171
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison K. (2013). Research methods in education (8 th ed.). Routledge.
Costanza, A. Prelati, M., & Pompili, M. (2019). Review the meaning in life in suicidal patients: the presence and the search for constructs. A Systematic Review. Medicina, 55 , 465. doi:10.3390/medicina55080465
De Freitas, J., Cikara, M., Grossmann, I., & Schlegel, R. (2017). Origins of the belief in good true selves. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(9) , 634–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.009
Dezutter, J., Waterman, A.S., Schwartz, S.J., Luyckx, K., Beyers, W., Meca, A., Kim, S.Y., Whitbourne, S.K., Zamboanga, B.L., Lee, R.M., Hardy, S.A., Forthun, L.F., Ritchie, R.A., Weisskirch, R.S., Brown, E.J., Caraway, S.J. (2014). Meaning in life in emerging adulthood: a person-oriented approach. Journal of Personality, 82 (1):57-68. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12033. Epub 2013 Apr 8. PMID: 23437779; PMCID: PMC7885257.
Dezutter, J., Casalin, S., Wachholtz, A., Luyckx, K., Hekking, J., Vandewiele, W. (2013). Meaning in life: an important factor for the psychological well-being of chronically ill patients? Rehabil Psychol, 58(4) :334-41. doi: 10.1037/a0034393. PMID: 24295525
Deutsche Welle. (2017, December 19). Jong Hyun shinee bunuh diri Karena Depresi (Jong Hyun Shinee Committed Suicide Due to Depression) – DW – 19.12.2017. dw.com . https://www.dw.com/id/jong-hyun-shinee-bunuh-diri-karena-depresi/a-41858973
Elfida, D. (2021). Jalan menuju bahagia: Studi mixed method tentang peran religiusitas, spiritualitas, kebersyukuran, dan makna hidup dalam kebahagiaan (Road to happiness: A mixed method study about the role of religiosity, spirituality, gratitude, and meaning in life on happiness) [Disertasi Doktor, Universitas Indonesia]. Universitas Indonesia Library. https://lib.ui.ac.id/detail?id=20517827&lokasi=lokal
Febrianti, R.., Milla, M.N., Setiamurti, A., Wulandari, A., Handayani, I., & Yuniar. (2023). Measurement of authentic personality: adaptation of the indonesian version of the authenticity scale. Jurnal Riset Aktual Psikologi, 14 (1) . https://doi.org/10.24036/rapun.v14i1.122731
Frankl, V. E. (1976). Man’s search for meaning . New York: Pocket. (Original work published 1959)
Frankl, V. E. (1988). The will to meaning: Foundations and applications of logotherapy . Penguin (originally published in 1969).
García-Alandete, J. (2015). Does Meaning in Life Predict Psychological Well-Being? An Analysis Using the Spanish Versions of the Purpose-In-Life Test and the Ryff’s Scales. The European Journal of Counselling Psychology, 3(2) , 89–98, doi:10.5964/ejcop.v3i2.27
George, L. S., & Park, C. L. (2016). Meaning in life as comprehension, purpose, and mattering: Toward integration and new research questions. Review of General Psychology, 20(3), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000077
George, L. S., & Park, C. L. (2017). The Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale: A tripartite approach to measuring meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(6), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1209546
Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Assn, 5(6) , 18–20. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-11420-003
Goss-Sampson, M. A. (2019). Statistical Analysis in JASP 0.10.2: A Guide for Students . July 2019.
Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. Dalam C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (Hal.382–394). Oxford University Press.
Heisel, M.J., Neufeld, E., Flett, G.L. (2016). Reasons for living, meaning in life, and suicide ideation: investigating the roles of key positive psychological factors in reducing suicide risk in community-residing older adults. Aging & mental health, 20 (2), 1364-6915. DOI: 10.1080/13607863.2015.1078279
Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2019). Routines and meaning in life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 45 (5), 688-699. DOI: 10.1177/0146167218795133.
Hicks, J. A., Schlegel, R. J., & King, L. A. (2010). Social threats, happiness, and the dynamics of meaning in life judgements. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 36 (10), 1305-1317. DOI: 10.1177/0146167210381650.
Hicks, J. A., Schlegel, R. J., & Newman, G. E. (2019). Introduction to the special issue: Authenticity: Novel insights into a valued, yet elusive, concept. Review of General Psychology, 23(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019829474
Hill, P. L., & Turiano, N. A. (2014). Purpose in Life as a Predictor of Mortality Across Adulthood. Psychological Science, 25 (7), 1482-1486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614531799
Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth: The struggle towards self-realization . W. W. Norton & Co., Inc.
Ito, M., Horikoshi, M., & Kodama, M. (2009). A cross-sectional survey of age and sense of authenticity among Japanese. Psychological Reports, 105, 575–581. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PR0.105.2.575-581
Jongman-Sereno, K. P., & Leary, M. R. (2016). Self-perceived authenticity is contaminated by the valence of one’s behavior. Self and Identity, 15, 283–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2015.1128964
Jung, C. G. (1983). The essential Jung . (A. Storr, Ed.). Princeton University Press.
Kernis, M. H. & Goldman, B.M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances In Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-257. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9.
Keyes, C.L.M., Ryff, C.D., & Shmokin, D. (2002). Optimizing Well-Being: The Empirical Encounter of Two Traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6) :1007-22. Doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007
Kleiman, E. M. & Beaver, J.K. (2013). A meaningful life is worth living: Meaning in life as a suicide resiliency factor, Psychiatry Research, 210 (3) , 934-939. ISSN 0165-1781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2013.08.002 .
Krok, D. (2018). When is meaning in life most beneficial to young people? Styles of meaning in life and well-being among late adolescents. Journal of Adult Development, 25(2) , 96-106. doi: 10.1007/s10804-017-9280-y.
Lambert, N. M., Stillman, T. F., Baumeister, R. F., Fincham, F. D., Hicks, J. A., & Graham, S. M. (2010). Family as a salient source of meaning in young adulthood. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5 (5), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2010.516616
Larasati, D. A. (2017, December 19). Jonghyun “shinee” Ungkap Alasan Bunuh Diri di surat terakhir (Jonghyun “Shinee” reveals reasons for suicide in last letter). detikhot . https://hot.detik.com/kpop/d-3775974/jonghyun-shinee-ungkap-alasan-bunuh-diri-di-surat-terakhir
Lavigne, K.M., Hofman, S., Ring, A.J., Ryder, A.G., & Woodward, T.S. (2013) The personality of meaning in life: Associations between dimensions of life meaning and the Big Five. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(1), 34-43, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2012.736527
Lee-Won, R. J., Shim, M., Joo, Y. K., & Park, S. G. (2014). Who puts the best “face” forward on Facebook? Positive self-presentation in online social networking and the role of self-consciousness, actual-to-total friends ratio, and culture. Computers in Human Behavior, 39 , 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.08.007 Lutz, P. K., Newman, D. B., Schlegel, R. J., & Wirtz, D. (2022). Authenticity, meaning in life, and life satisfaction: A multicomponent investigation of relationships at the trait and state levels. Journal of Personality , 00, 1– 15. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12753
MacDonald, G. (2012). Individual differences in self-esteem (M. R. Leary, Ed.). In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 354–377). The Guilford Press.
Maddi, S. R. (1970). The search for meaning. In M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Hal. 137–186). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Martela, F., & Steger, M. F. (2016). The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(5) , 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623 .
Martela, F., & Steger, M. F. (2023). The role of significance relative to the other dimensions of meaning in life—An examination utilizing the Three Dimensional Meaning in Life Scale (3DM). The Journal of Positive Psychology, 18 (4), 606–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2022.2070528
Maroqi, N. (2018). Uji validitas konstruk pada instrumen rosenberg self esteem scale dengan metode confirmatory factor analysis. JP3I (Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia), 7(2) , 92-96. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v7i2.12101
Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature . New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2013). Culture & psychology (5th Edition). Canada: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Moisseron-Baudé, M., Bernaud, J. & Sovet, L. (2022). Relationships between Sense of Community, Authenticity, and Meaning in Life in Four Social Communities in France. Sustainability, 14, 1018. Doi: 10.3390/su14021018.
Nartova-Bochaver, S., Reznichenko, S., & Maltby, J. (2021). The authenticity scale: Validation in Russian culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(January) , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.609617
Puspitasari, D.A., & Mas’ud, F. (2018). Pengaruh nilai budaya nasional indonesia terhadap preferensi gaya manajemen konflik (The role of Indonesian cultural values on conflict management style). Diponegoro Journal Of Management, 7(4) , 1-12. http://ejournal-s1.undip.ac.id/index.php/dbr ISSN (Online): 2337-3792
Rivera G. N., Christy, A.G., Kim J., Vess, M., Hicks, J.A., Schlegel, R.J. (2019). Understanding the relationship between perceived authenticity and well-Being. Review of General Psychology, 23(1) , 113-126. doi:10.1037/gpr0000161
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy . Constable.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0901_1
Schlegel, R. J., Smith, C. M., & Hirsch, K. A. (2013). Examining the true self as a wellspring of meaning. In J. A. Hicks & C. Routledge (Eds.), The experience of meaning in life: Classical perspectives, emerging themes, and controversies (pp. 177–188). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6527-6_14
Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., & Christy, A. G. (2016). The eudaimonics of the true self. Dalam J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (Hal. 205–213). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_14
Slabu, L., Lenton, A. P., Sedikides, C., & Bruder, M. (2014). Trait and state authenticity across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(9) , 1347–1373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114543520
Steger, M. F. (2018). Meaning and well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being . Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers. DOI: nobascholar.com
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1) , 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80
Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., Sullivan, B. A., & Lorentz, D. (2008). Understanding the search for meaning in life: Personality, cognitive style, and the dynamic between seeking and experiencing meaning. Journal of Personality, 76 (2), 199–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00484.x
Steger, M.F., Oishi, S., & Kashdan, T.B. (2009). Meaning in life across the life span: Levels and correlates of meaning in life from emerging adulthood to older adulthood. The Journal of Positive Psychology,(4) 1, 43-52, DOI: 10.1080/17439760802303127
Sutton, A. (2020). Living the good life: A meta-analysis of authenticity, well-being and engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 153, Article 109645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109645
Swann, W. B., Jr. (2012). Self-verification theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 23–42). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n27
Swann, W. B., Jr., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 857-869. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.857
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Tran, V. (2020). Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). In: Gellman, M.D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39903-0_978
Van Tongeren, D. R., Hook, J. N., & Davis, D. E. (2013). Defensive religion as a source of meaning in life: A dual mediational model. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5(3), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/a003269
Watson, D., & Naragon, K. (2009). Positive affectivity: The disposition to experience positive emotional states. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 207–215). Oxford University Press.
Adriana S. Ginanjar Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia Indonesia
Template Manuscript
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
A research hypothesis is a statement about the expected outcome of a study that is clear, specific and testable. Learn how to write a research hypothesis, what is a null hypothesis, and see examples of both.
A research hypothesis is a testable statement that proposes a possible explanation to a phenomenon, and it may include a prediction. Learn the characteristics, types, and examples of a good research hypothesis, and how to create one based on literature review and research question.
A hypothesis is a tentative statement that can be tested and potentially proven or disproven through further investigation and experimentation. Learn about the different types of hypotheses, how to write them, and how they are applied in various fields of research.
A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process. Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test ...
A research hypothesis is a testable prediction about the results of a study, connecting theory to data and guiding the research process. Learn about different types of hypotheses, such as alternative, null, directional, and non-directional, and how to write and test them.
5. Phrase your hypothesis in three ways. To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in if…then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable. If a first-year student starts attending more lectures, then their exam scores will improve.
A research hypothesis helps test theories. A hypothesis plays a pivotal role in the scientific method by providing a basis for testing existing theories. For example, a hypothesis might test the predictive power of a psychological theory on human behavior. It serves as a great platform for investigation activities.
A hypothesis (from the Greek, foundation) is a logical construct, interposed between a problem and its solution, which represents a proposed answer to a research question. It gives direction to the investigator's thinking about the problem and, therefore, facilitates a solution. Unlike facts and assumptions (presumed true and, therefore, not ...
A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested by scientific research. Learn how to develop, phrase, and refine hypotheses for your research project with examples and tips.
A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question. A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on ...
HYPOTHESIS TESTING. A clinical trial begins with an assumption or belief, and then proceeds to either prove or disprove this assumption. In statistical terms, this belief or assumption is known as a hypothesis. Counterintuitively, what the researcher believes in (or is trying to prove) is called the "alternate" hypothesis, and the opposite ...
The steps to write a research hypothesis are: 1. Stating the problem: Ensure that the hypothesis defines the research problem. 2. Writing a hypothesis as an 'if-then' statement: Include the action and the expected outcome of your study by following a 'if-then' structure.
What they need at the start of their research is to formulate a scientific hypothesis that revisits conventional theories, real-world processes, and related evidence to propose new studies and test ideas in an ethical way.3 Such a hypothesis can be of most benefit if published in an ethical journal with wide visibility and exposure to relevant ...
Meaning. A research hypothesis is a statement that a researcher makes at the beginning of their research to outline what they expect the outcome to be. ... Research Hypothesis: Null Hypothesis: Statistical Hypothesis: Meaning: States the expected relationship between two or more variables.
Research hypothesis checklist. Once you've written a possible hypothesis, make sure it checks the following boxes: It must be testable: You need a means to prove your hypothesis. If you can't test it, it's not a hypothesis. It must include a dependent and independent variable: At least one independent variable ( cause) and one dependent ...
A hypothesis is a statement that explains the predictions and reasoning of your research—an "educated guess" about how your scientific experiments will end. As a fundamental part of the scientific method, a good hypothesis is carefully written, but even the simplest ones can be difficult to put into words.
INTRODUCTION. Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses.1,2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results.3,4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the ...
A hypothesis is a prediction of what will be found at the outcome of a research project and is typically focused on the relationship between two different variables studied in the research. It is usually based on both theoretical expectations about how things work and already existing scientific evidence. Within social science, a hypothesis can ...
A research hypothesis defines the theory or problem your research intends to test. It is the "educated guess" of what the final results of your research or experiment will be. Before you can write the research hypothesis and its alternative, you must focus and define your research problem. ... You need a feasible research question, meaning ...
Hypothesis is a prediction of the outcome of a study. Hypotheses are drawn from theories and research questions or from direct observations. In fact, a research problem can be formulated as a hypothesis. To test the hypothesis we need to formulate it in terms that can actually be analysed with statistical tools.
There are seven different types of research hypotheses. Simple Hypothesis. A simple hypothesis predicts the relationship between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable. Complex Hypothesis. A complex hypothesis predicts the relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables. Directional Hypothesis.
The meaning of HYPOTHESIS is an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument. How to use hypothesis in a sentence. ... In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a ...
Definition and Scope of Value Hypothesis. Let's get into the step-by-step process, but first, we need to understand the basics of the Value Hypothesis: ... Research and Analysis. To start with, you need to carry out market research. By carrying out proper market research, you will have an understanding of existing solutions and identify areas ...
Moreover, applying research methods in new contexts or for novel research inquiries can lead to unanticipated results that might cause a researcher to reflect on and iterate on their methods of data collection and analysis. Critical reflections on research methods are not meant to assert that the study was conducted without the necessary rigor ...
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 ...
On other words, the DCV has shaped the hypothesis and provided a robust theoretical foundation for this research. This research also draws on the dynamic capability theory to test the relationship between strategic agility and organizational performance with consideration of market orientation and innovation capabilities.
Self-authenticity and the meaning of life are important for an individual's psychological well-being. However, studies on the relationship between authenticity and the meaning of life using a quantitative approach have been largely carried out in Western countries, with minimum research being conducted in the Indonesian context.