formulation of hypothesis may not be required in survey method

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
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.36(50); 2021 Dec 27

Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs

Durga prasanna misra.

1 Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Armen Yuri Gasparyan

2 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK.

Olena Zimba

3 Department of Internal Medicine #2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine.

Marlen Yessirkepov

4 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.

Vikas Agarwal

George d. kitas.

5 Centre for Epidemiology versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).

Graphical Abstract

DEFINING WORKING AND STANDALONE SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

Science is the systematized description of natural truths and facts. Routine observations of existing life phenomena lead to the creative thinking and generation of ideas about mechanisms of such phenomena and related human interventions. Such ideas presented in a structured format can be viewed as hypotheses. After generating a hypothesis, it is necessary to test it to prove its validity. Thus, hypothesis can be defined as a proposed mechanism of a naturally occurring event or a proposed outcome of an intervention. 1 , 2

Hypothesis testing requires choosing the most appropriate methodology and adequately powering statistically the study to be able to “prove” or “disprove” it within predetermined and widely accepted levels of certainty. This entails sample size calculation that often takes into account previously published observations and pilot studies. 2 , 3 In the era of digitization, hypothesis generation and testing may benefit from the availability of numerous platforms for data dissemination, social networking, and expert validation. Related expert evaluations may reveal strengths and limitations of proposed ideas at early stages of post-publication promotion, preventing the implementation of unsupported controversial points. 4

Thus, hypothesis generation is an important initial step in the research workflow, reflecting accumulating evidence and experts' stance. In this article, we overview the genesis and importance of scientific hypotheses and their relevance in the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

DO WE NEED HYPOTHESES FOR ALL STUDY DESIGNS?

Broadly, research can be categorized as primary or secondary. In the context of medicine, primary research may include real-life observations of disease presentations and outcomes. Single case descriptions, which often lead to new ideas and hypotheses, serve as important starting points or justifications for case series and cohort studies. The importance of case descriptions is particularly evident in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic when unique, educational case reports have heralded a new era in clinical medicine. 5

Case series serve similar purpose to single case reports, but are based on a slightly larger quantum of information. Observational studies, including online surveys, describe the existing phenomena at a larger scale, often involving various control groups. Observational studies include variable-scale epidemiological investigations at different time points. Interventional studies detail the results of therapeutic interventions.

Secondary research is based on already published literature and does not directly involve human or animal subjects. Review articles are generated by secondary research. These could be systematic reviews which follow methods akin to primary research but with the unit of study being published papers rather than humans or animals. Systematic reviews have a rigid structure with a mandatory search strategy encompassing multiple databases, systematic screening of search results against pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, critical appraisal of study quality and an optional component of collating results across studies quantitatively to derive summary estimates (meta-analysis). 6 Narrative reviews, on the other hand, have a more flexible structure. Systematic literature searches to minimise bias in selection of articles are highly recommended but not mandatory. 7 Narrative reviews are influenced by the authors' viewpoint who may preferentially analyse selected sets of articles. 8

In relation to primary research, case studies and case series are generally not driven by a working hypothesis. Rather, they serve as a basis to generate a hypothesis. Observational or interventional studies should have a hypothesis for choosing research design and sample size. The results of observational and interventional studies further lead to the generation of new hypotheses, testing of which forms the basis of future studies. Review articles, on the other hand, may not be hypothesis-driven, but form fertile ground to generate future hypotheses for evaluation. Fig. 1 summarizes which type of studies are hypothesis-driven and which lead on to hypothesis generation.

STANDARDS OF WORKING AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

A review of the published literature did not enable the identification of clearly defined standards for working and scientific hypotheses. It is essential to distinguish influential versus not influential hypotheses, evidence-based hypotheses versus a priori statements and ideas, ethical versus unethical, or potentially harmful ideas. The following points are proposed for consideration while generating working and scientific hypotheses. 1 , 2 Table 1 summarizes these points.

Evidence-based data

A scientific hypothesis should have a sound basis on previously published literature as well as the scientist's observations. Randomly generated (a priori) hypotheses are unlikely to be proven. A thorough literature search should form the basis of a hypothesis based on published evidence. 7

Unless a scientific hypothesis can be tested, it can neither be proven nor be disproven. Therefore, a scientific hypothesis should be amenable to testing with the available technologies and the present understanding of science.

Supported by pilot studies

If a hypothesis is based purely on a novel observation by the scientist in question, it should be grounded on some preliminary studies to support it. For example, if a drug that targets a specific cell population is hypothesized to be useful in a particular disease setting, then there must be some preliminary evidence that the specific cell population plays a role in driving that disease process.

Testable by ethical studies

The hypothesis should be testable by experiments that are ethically acceptable. 9 For example, a hypothesis that parachutes reduce mortality from falls from an airplane cannot be tested using a randomized controlled trial. 10 This is because it is obvious that all those jumping from a flying plane without a parachute would likely die. Similarly, the hypothesis that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer cannot be tested by a clinical trial that makes people take up smoking (since there is considerable evidence for the health hazards associated with smoking). Instead, long-term observational studies comparing outcomes in those who smoke and those who do not, as was performed in the landmark epidemiological case control study by Doll and Hill, 11 are more ethical and practical.

Balance between scientific temper and controversy

Novel findings, including novel hypotheses, particularly those that challenge established norms, are bound to face resistance for their wider acceptance. Such resistance is inevitable until the time such findings are proven with appropriate scientific rigor. However, hypotheses that generate controversy are generally unwelcome. For example, at the time the pandemic of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS was taking foot, there were numerous deniers that refused to believe that HIV caused AIDS. 12 , 13 Similarly, at a time when climate change is causing catastrophic changes to weather patterns worldwide, denial that climate change is occurring and consequent attempts to block climate change are certainly unwelcome. 14 The denialism and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, including unfortunate examples of vaccine hesitancy, are more recent examples of controversial hypotheses not backed by science. 15 , 16 An example of a controversial hypothesis that was a revolutionary scientific breakthrough was the hypothesis put forth by Warren and Marshall that Helicobacter pylori causes peptic ulcers. Initially, the hypothesis that a microorganism could cause gastritis and gastric ulcers faced immense resistance. When the scientists that proposed the hypothesis themselves ingested H. pylori to induce gastritis in themselves, only then could they convince the wider world about their hypothesis. Such was the impact of the hypothesis was that Barry Marshall and Robin Warren were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2005 for this discovery. 17 , 18

DISTINGUISHING THE MOST INFLUENTIAL HYPOTHESES

Influential hypotheses are those that have stood the test of time. An archetype of an influential hypothesis is that proposed by Edward Jenner in the eighteenth century that cowpox infection protects against smallpox. While this observation had been reported for nearly a century before this time, it had not been suitably tested and publicised until Jenner conducted his experiments on a young boy by demonstrating protection against smallpox after inoculation with cowpox. 19 These experiments were the basis for widespread smallpox immunization strategies worldwide in the 20th century which resulted in the elimination of smallpox as a human disease today. 20

Other influential hypotheses are those which have been read and cited widely. An example of this is the hygiene hypothesis proposing an inverse relationship between infections in early life and allergies or autoimmunity in adulthood. An analysis reported that this hypothesis had been cited more than 3,000 times on Scopus. 1

LESSONS LEARNED FROM HYPOTHESES AMIDST THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

The COVID-19 pandemic devastated the world like no other in recent memory. During this period, various hypotheses emerged, understandably so considering the public health emergency situation with innumerable deaths and suffering for humanity. Within weeks of the first reports of COVID-19, aberrant immune system activation was identified as a key driver of organ dysfunction and mortality in this disease. 21 Consequently, numerous drugs that suppress the immune system or abrogate the activation of the immune system were hypothesized to have a role in COVID-19. 22 One of the earliest drugs hypothesized to have a benefit was hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine was proposed to interfere with Toll-like receptor activation and consequently ameliorate the aberrant immune system activation leading to pathology in COVID-19. 22 The drug was also hypothesized to have a prophylactic role in preventing infection or disease severity in COVID-19. It was also touted as a wonder drug for the disease by many prominent international figures. However, later studies which were well-designed randomized controlled trials failed to demonstrate any benefit of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 Subsequently, azithromycin 27 , 28 and ivermectin 29 were hypothesized as potential therapies for COVID-19, but were not supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials. The role of vitamin D in preventing disease severity was also proposed, but has not been proven definitively until now. 30 , 31 On the other hand, randomized controlled trials identified the evidence supporting dexamethasone 32 and interleukin-6 pathway blockade with tocilizumab as effective therapies for COVID-19 in specific situations such as at the onset of hypoxia. 33 , 34 Clues towards the apparent effectiveness of various drugs against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro but their ineffectiveness in vivo have recently been identified. Many of these drugs are weak, lipophilic bases and some others induce phospholipidosis which results in apparent in vitro effectiveness due to non-specific off-target effects that are not replicated inside living systems. 35 , 36

Another hypothesis proposed was the association of the routine policy of vaccination with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) with lower deaths due to COVID-19. This hypothesis emerged in the middle of 2020 when COVID-19 was still taking foot in many parts of the world. 37 , 38 Subsequently, many countries which had lower deaths at that time point went on to have higher numbers of mortality, comparable to other areas of the world. Furthermore, the hypothesis that BCG vaccination reduced COVID-19 mortality was a classic example of ecological fallacy. Associations between population level events (ecological studies; in this case, BCG vaccination and COVID-19 mortality) cannot be directly extrapolated to the individual level. Furthermore, such associations cannot per se be attributed as causal in nature, and can only serve to generate hypotheses that need to be tested at the individual level. 39

IS TRADITIONAL PEER REVIEW EFFICIENT FOR EVALUATION OF WORKING AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES?

Traditionally, publication after peer review has been considered the gold standard before any new idea finds acceptability amongst the scientific community. Getting a work (including a working or scientific hypothesis) reviewed by experts in the field before experiments are conducted to prove or disprove it helps to refine the idea further as well as improve the experiments planned to test the hypothesis. 40 A route towards this has been the emergence of journals dedicated to publishing hypotheses such as the Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics. 41 Another means of publishing hypotheses is through registered research protocols detailing the background, hypothesis, and methodology of a particular study. If such protocols are published after peer review, then the journal commits to publishing the completed study irrespective of whether the study hypothesis is proven or disproven. 42 In the post-pandemic world, online research methods such as online surveys powered via social media channels such as Twitter and Instagram might serve as critical tools to generate as well as to preliminarily test the appropriateness of hypotheses for further evaluation. 43 , 44

Some radical hypotheses might be difficult to publish after traditional peer review. These hypotheses might only be acceptable by the scientific community after they are tested in research studies. Preprints might be a way to disseminate such controversial and ground-breaking hypotheses. 45 However, scientists might prefer to keep their hypotheses confidential for the fear of plagiarism of ideas, avoiding online posting and publishing until they have tested the hypotheses.

SUGGESTIONS ON GENERATING AND PUBLISHING HYPOTHESES

Publication of hypotheses is important, however, a balance is required between scientific temper and controversy. Journal editors and reviewers might keep in mind these specific points, summarized in Table 2 and detailed hereafter, while judging the merit of hypotheses for publication. Keeping in mind the ethical principle of primum non nocere, a hypothesis should be published only if it is testable in a manner that is ethically appropriate. 46 Such hypotheses should be grounded in reality and lend themselves to further testing to either prove or disprove them. It must be considered that subsequent experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis have an equal chance of failing or succeeding, akin to tossing a coin. A pre-conceived belief that a hypothesis is unlikely to be proven correct should not form the basis of rejection of such a hypothesis for publication. In this context, hypotheses generated after a thorough literature search to identify knowledge gaps or based on concrete clinical observations on a considerable number of patients (as opposed to random observations on a few patients) are more likely to be acceptable for publication by peer-reviewed journals. Also, hypotheses should be considered for publication or rejection based on their implications for science at large rather than whether the subsequent experiments to test them end up with results in favour of or against the original hypothesis.

Hypotheses form an important part of the scientific literature. The COVID-19 pandemic has reiterated the importance and relevance of hypotheses for dealing with public health emergencies and highlighted the need for evidence-based and ethical hypotheses. A good hypothesis is testable in a relevant study design, backed by preliminary evidence, and has positive ethical and clinical implications. General medical journals might consider publishing hypotheses as a specific article type to enable more rapid advancement of science.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Data curation: Gasparyan AY, Misra DP, Zimba O, Yessirkepov M, Agarwal V, Kitas GD.

How to Write a Hypothesis: A Step-by-Step Guide

Introduction

An overview of the research hypothesis, different types of hypotheses, variables in a hypothesis, how to formulate an effective research hypothesis, designing a study around your hypothesis.

The scientific method can derive and test predictions as hypotheses. Empirical research can then provide support (or lack thereof) for the hypotheses. Even failure to find support for a hypothesis still represents a valuable contribution to scientific knowledge. Let's look more closely at the idea of the hypothesis and the role it plays in research.

As much as the term exists in everyday language, there is a detailed development that informs the word "hypothesis" when applied to research. A good research hypothesis is informed by prior research and guides research design and data analysis , so it is important to understand how a hypothesis is defined and understood by researchers.

What is the simple definition of a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about an outcome between two or more variables . It functions as a navigational tool in the research process, directing what you aim to predict and how.

What is the hypothesis for in research?

In research, a hypothesis serves as the cornerstone for your empirical study. It not only lays out what you aim to investigate but also provides a structured approach for your data collection and analysis.

Essentially, it bridges the gap between the theoretical and the empirical, guiding your investigation throughout its course.

What is an example of a hypothesis?

If you are studying the relationship between physical exercise and mental health, a suitable hypothesis could be: "Regular physical exercise leads to improved mental well-being among adults."

This statement constitutes a specific and testable hypothesis that directly relates to the variables you are investigating.

What makes a good hypothesis?

A good hypothesis possesses several key characteristics. Firstly, it must be testable, allowing you to analyze data through empirical means, such as observation or experimentation, to assess if there is significant support for the hypothesis. Secondly, a hypothesis should be specific and unambiguous, giving a clear understanding of the expected relationship between variables. Lastly, it should be grounded in existing research or theoretical frameworks , ensuring its relevance and applicability.

Understanding the types of hypotheses can greatly enhance how you construct and work with hypotheses. While all hypotheses serve the essential function of guiding your study, there are varying purposes among the types of hypotheses. In addition, all hypotheses stand in contrast to the null hypothesis, or the assumption that there is no significant relationship between the variables .

Here, we explore various kinds of hypotheses to provide you with the tools needed to craft effective hypotheses for your specific research needs. Bear in mind that many of these hypothesis types may overlap with one another, and the specific type that is typically used will likely depend on the area of research and methodology you are following.

Null hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that there is no effect or relationship between the variables being studied. In statistical terms, it serves as the default assumption that any observed differences are due to random chance.

For example, if you're studying the effect of a drug on blood pressure, the null hypothesis might state that the drug has no effect.

Alternative hypothesis

Contrary to the null hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis suggests that there is a significant relationship or effect between variables.

Using the drug example, the alternative hypothesis would posit that the drug does indeed affect blood pressure. This is what researchers aim to prove.

Simple hypothesis

A simple hypothesis makes a prediction about the relationship between two variables, and only two variables.

For example, "Increased study time results in better exam scores." Here, "study time" and "exam scores" are the only variables involved.

Complex hypothesis

A complex hypothesis, as the name suggests, involves more than two variables. For instance, "Increased study time and access to resources result in better exam scores." Here, "study time," "access to resources," and "exam scores" are all variables.

This hypothesis refers to multiple potential mediating variables. Other hypotheses could also include predictions about variables that moderate the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable .

Directional hypothesis

A directional hypothesis specifies the direction of the expected relationship between variables. For example, "Eating more fruits and vegetables leads to a decrease in heart disease."

Here, the direction of heart disease is explicitly predicted to decrease, due to effects from eating more fruits and vegetables. All hypotheses typically specify the expected direction of the relationship between the independent and dependent variable, such that researchers can test if this prediction holds in their data analysis .

Statistical hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is one that is testable through statistical methods, providing a numerical value that can be analyzed. This is commonly seen in quantitative research .

For example, "There is a statistically significant difference in test scores between students who study for one hour and those who study for two."

Empirical hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is derived from observations and is tested through empirical methods, often through experimentation or survey data . Empirical hypotheses may also be assessed with statistical analyses.

For example, "Regular exercise is correlated with a lower incidence of depression," could be tested through surveys that measure exercise frequency and depression levels.

Causal hypothesis

A causal hypothesis proposes that one variable causes a change in another. This type of hypothesis is often tested through controlled experiments.

For example, "Smoking causes lung cancer," assumes a direct causal relationship.

Associative hypothesis

Unlike causal hypotheses, associative hypotheses suggest a relationship between variables but do not imply causation.

For instance, "People who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer," notes an association but doesn't claim that smoking causes lung cancer directly.

Relational hypothesis

A relational hypothesis explores the relationship between two or more variables but doesn't specify the nature of the relationship.

For example, "There is a relationship between diet and heart health," leaves the nature of the relationship (causal, associative, etc.) open to interpretation.

Logical hypothesis

A logical hypothesis is based on sound reasoning and logical principles. It's often used in theoretical research to explore abstract concepts, rather than being based on empirical data.

For example, "If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal," employs logical reasoning to make its point.

Let ATLAS.ti take you from research question to key insights

Get started with a free trial and see how ATLAS.ti can make the most of your data.

In any research hypothesis, variables play a critical role. These are the elements or factors that the researcher manipulates, controls, or measures. Understanding variables is essential for crafting a clear, testable hypothesis and for the stages of research that follow, such as data collection and analysis.

In the realm of hypotheses, there are generally two types of variables to consider: independent and dependent. Independent variables are what you, as the researcher, manipulate or change in your study. It's considered the cause in the relationship you're investigating. For instance, in a study examining the impact of sleep duration on academic performance, the independent variable would be the amount of sleep participants get.

Conversely, the dependent variable is the outcome you measure to gauge the effect of your manipulation. It's the effect in the cause-and-effect relationship. The dependent variable thus refers to the main outcome of interest in your study. In the same sleep study example, the academic performance, perhaps measured by exam scores or GPA, would be the dependent variable.

Beyond these two primary types, you might also encounter control variables. These are variables that could potentially influence the outcome and are therefore kept constant to isolate the relationship between the independent and dependent variables . For example, in the sleep and academic performance study, control variables could include age, diet, or even the subject of study.

By clearly identifying and understanding the roles of these variables in your hypothesis, you set the stage for a methodologically sound research project. It helps you develop focused research questions, design appropriate experiments or observations, and carry out meaningful data analysis . It's a step that lays the groundwork for the success of your entire study.

Crafting a strong, testable hypothesis is crucial for the success of any research project. It sets the stage for everything from your study design to data collection and analysis . Below are some key considerations to keep in mind when formulating your hypothesis:

• Be specific : A vague hypothesis can lead to ambiguous results and interpretations . Clearly define your variables and the expected relationship between them.
• Ensure testability : A good hypothesis should be testable through empirical means, whether by observation , experimentation, or other forms of data analysis.
• Ground in literature : Before creating your hypothesis, consult existing research and theories. This not only helps you identify gaps in current knowledge but also gives you valuable context and credibility for crafting your hypothesis.
• Use simple language : While your hypothesis should be conceptually sound, it doesn't have to be complicated. Aim for clarity and simplicity in your wording.
• State direction, if applicable : If your hypothesis involves a directional outcome (e.g., "increase" or "decrease"), make sure to specify this. You also need to think about how you will measure whether or not the outcome moved in the direction you predicted.
• Keep it focused : One of the common pitfalls in hypothesis formulation is trying to answer too many questions at once. Keep your hypothesis focused on a specific issue or relationship.
• Account for control variables : Identify any variables that could potentially impact the outcome and consider how you will control for them in your study.
• Be ethical : Make sure your hypothesis and the methods for testing it comply with ethical standards , particularly if your research involves human or animal subjects.

Designing your study involves multiple key phases that help ensure the rigor and validity of your research. Here we discuss these crucial components in more detail.

Literature review

Starting with a comprehensive literature review is essential. This step allows you to understand the existing body of knowledge related to your hypothesis and helps you identify gaps that your research could fill. Your research should aim to contribute some novel understanding to existing literature, and your hypotheses can reflect this. A literature review also provides valuable insights into how similar research projects were executed, thereby helping you fine-tune your own approach.

Research methods

Choosing the right research methods is critical. Whether it's a survey, an experiment, or observational study, the methodology should be the most appropriate for testing your hypothesis. Your choice of methods will also depend on whether your research is quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods. Make sure the chosen methods align well with the variables you are studying and the type of data you need.

Preliminary research

Before diving into a full-scale study, it’s often beneficial to conduct preliminary research or a pilot study . This allows you to test your research methods on a smaller scale, refine your tools, and identify any potential issues. For instance, a pilot survey can help you determine if your questions are clear and if the survey effectively captures the data you need. This step can save you both time and resources in the long run.

Data analysis

Finally, planning your data analysis in advance is crucial for a successful study. Decide which statistical or analytical tools are most suited for your data type and research questions . For quantitative research, you might opt for t-tests, ANOVA, or regression analyses. For qualitative research , thematic analysis or grounded theory may be more appropriate. This phase is integral for interpreting your results and drawing meaningful conclusions in relation to your research question.

Turn data into evidence for insights with ATLAS.ti

Powerful analysis for your research paper or presentation is at your fingertips starting with a free trial.

Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
• 2 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK. [email protected].
• 3 Department of Internal Medicine #2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine.
• 4 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.
• 5 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK.
• 6 Centre for Epidemiology versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
• PMID: 34962112
• PMCID: PMC8728594
• DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e338

Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).

Keywords: Hypotheses; Pandemic; Research Ethics; Study Design.

© 2021 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.

Publication types

• COVID-19 / epidemiology
• COVID-19 Drug Treatment*
• Ethics, Research
• Peer Review
• Pilot Projects
• Research Design*
• SARS-CoV-2*

Teach yourself statistics

How to Analyze Survey Data for Hypothesis Tests

Traditionally, researchers analyze survey data to estimate population parameters. But very similar analytical techniques can also be applied to test hypotheses.

In this lesson, we describe how to analyze survey data to test statistical hypotheses.

The Logic of the Analysis

In a big-picture sense, the analysis of survey sampling data is easy. When you use sample data to test a hypothesis, the analysis includes the same seven steps:

• Estimate a population parameter.
• Estimate population variance.
• Compute standard error.
• Set the significance level.
• Find the critical value (often a z-score or a t-score).
• Define the upper limit of the region of acceptance.
• Define the lower limit of the region of acceptance.

It doesn't matter whether the sampling method is simple random sampling, stratified sampling, or cluster sampling. And it doesn't matter whether the parameter of interest is a mean score, a proportion, or a total score. The analysis of survey sampling data always includes the same seven steps.

However, formulas used in the first three steps of the analysis can differ, based on the sampling method and the parameter of interest. In the next section, we'll list the formulas to use for each step. By the end of the lesson, you'll know how to test hypotheses about mean scores, proportions, and total scores using data from simple random samples, stratified samples, and cluster samples.

Data Analysis for Hypothesis Testing

Now, let's look in a little more detail at the seven steps required to conduct a hypothesis test, when you are working with data from a survey sample.

Sample mean = x = Σx / n

where x is a sample estimate of the population mean, Σx is the sum of all the sample observations, and n is the number of sample observations.

Population total = t = N * x

where N is the number of observations in the population, and x is the sample mean.

Or, if we know the sample proportion, we can estimate the population total (t) as:

Population total = t = N * p

where t is an estimate of the number of elements in the population that have a specified attribute, N is the number of observations in the population, and p is the sample proportion.

Sample mean = x = Σ( N h / N ) * x h

where N h is the number of observations in stratum h of the population, N is the number of observations in the population, and x h is the mean score from the sample in stratum h .

Sample proportion = p = Σ( N h / N ) * p h

where N h is the number of observations in stratum h of the population, N is the number of observations in the population, and p h is the sample proportion in stratum h .

Population total = t = ΣN h * x h

where N h is the number of observations in the population from stratum h , and x h is the sample mean from stratum h .

Or if we know the population proportion in each stratum, we can use this formula to estimate a population total:

Population total = t = ΣN h * p h

where t is an estimate of the number of observations in the population that have a specified attribute, N h is the number of observations from stratum h in the population, and p h is the sample proportion from stratum h .

x = ( N / ( n * M ) ] * Σ ( M h * x h )

where N is the number of clusters in the population, n is the number of clusters in the sample, M is the number of observations in the population, M h is the number of observations in cluster h , and x h is the mean score from the sample in cluster h .

p = ( N / ( n * M ) ] * Σ ( M h * p h )

where N is the number of clusters in the population, n is the number of clusters in the sample, M is the number of observations in the population, M h is the number of observations in cluster h , and p h is the proportion from the sample in cluster h .

Population total = t = N/n * ΣM h * x h

where N is the number of clusters in the population, n is the number of clusters in the sample, M h is the number of observations in the population from cluster h , and x h is the sample mean from cluster h .

And, if we know the sample proportion for each cluster, we can estimate a population total:

Population total = t = N/n * ΣM h * p h

where t is an estimate of the number of elements in the population that have a specified attribute, N is the number of clusters in the population, n is the number of clusters in the sample, M h is the number of observations from cluster h in the population, and p h is the sample proportion from cluster h .

s 2 = P * (1 - P)

where s 2 is an estimate of population variance, and P is the value of the proportion in the null hypothesis.

s 2 = Σ ( x i - x ) 2 / ( n - 1 )

where s 2 is a sample estimate of population variance, x is the sample mean, x i is the i th element from the sample, and n is the number of elements in the sample.

s 2 h = Σ ( x i h - x h ) 2 / ( n h - 1 )

where s 2 h is a sample estimate of population variance in stratum h , x i h is the value of the i th element from stratum h, x h is the sample mean from stratum h , and n h is the number of sample observations from stratum h .

s 2 h = Σ ( x i h - x h ) 2 / ( m h - 1 )

where s 2 h is a sample estimate of population variance in cluster h , x i h is the value of the i th element from cluster h, x h is the sample mean from cluster h , and m h is the number of observations sampled from cluster h .

s 2 b = Σ ( t h - t/N ) 2 / ( n - 1 )

where s 2 b is a sample estimate of the variance between sampled clusters, t h is the total from cluster h, t is the sample estimate of the population total, N is the number of clusters in the population, and n is the number of clusters in the sample.

You can estimate the population total (t) from the following formula:

where M h is the number of observations in the population from cluster h , and x h is the sample mean from cluster h .

SE = sqrt [ (1 - n/N) * s 2 / n ]

where n is the sample size, N is the population size, and s is a sample estimate of the population standard deviation.

SE = sqrt [ N 2 * (1 - n/N) * s 2 / n ]

where N is the population size, n is the sample size, and s 2 is a sample estimate of the population variance.

SE = (1 / N) * sqrt { Σ [ N 2 h * ( 1 - n h /N h ) * s 2 h / n h ] }

where n h is the number of sample observations from stratum h, N h is the number of elements from stratum h in the population, N is the number of elements in the population, and s 2 h is a sample estimate of the population variance in stratum h.

SE = sqrt { Σ [ N 2 h * ( 1 - n h /N h ) * s 2 h / n h ] }

where N h is the number of elements from stratum h in the population, n h is the number of sample observations from stratum h, and s 2 h is a sample estimate of the population variance in stratum h.

where M is the number of observations in the population, N is the number of clusters in the population, n is the number of clusters in the sample, M h is the number of elements from cluster h in the population, m h is the number of elements from cluster h in the sample, x h is the sample mean from cluster h, s 2 h is a sample estimate of the population variance in stratum h, and t is a sample estimate of the population total. For the equation above, use the following formula to estimate the population total.

t = N/n * Σ M h x h

With one-stage cluster sampling, the formula for the standard error reduces to:

where M is the number of observations in the population, N is the number of clusters in the population, n is the number of clusters in the sample, M h is the number of elements from cluster h in the population, m h is the number of elements from cluster h in the sample, p h is the value of the proportion from cluster h, and t is a sample estimate of the population total. For the equation above, use the following formula to estimate the population total.

t = N/n * Σ M h p h

where N is the number of clusters in the population, n is the number of clusters in the sample, s 2 b is a sample estimate of the variance between clusters, m h is the number of elements from cluster h in the sample, M h is the number of elements from cluster h in the population, and s 2 h is a sample estimate of the population variance in cluster h.

SE = N * sqrt { [ ( 1 - n/N ) / n ] * s 2 b /n }

• Choose a significance level. The significance level (denoted by α) is the probability of committing a Type I error . Researchers often set the significance level equal to 0.05 or 0.01.

When the null hypothesis is two-tailed, the critical value is the z-score or t-score that has a cumulative probability equal to 1 - α/2. When the null hypothesis is one-tailed, the critical value has a cumulative probability equal to 1 - α.

Researchers use a t-score when sample size is small; a z-score when it is large (at least 30). You can use the Normal Distribution Calculator to find the critical z-score, and the t Distribution Calculator to find the critical t-score.

If you use a t-score, you will have to find the degrees of freedom (df). With simple random samples, df is often equal to the sample size minus one.

Note: The critical value for a one-tailed hypothesis does not equal the critical value for a two-tailed hypothesis. The critical value for a one-tailed hypothesis is smaller.

UL = M + SE * CV

• If the null hypothesis is μ > M: The theoretical upper limit of the region of acceptance is plus infinity, unless the parameter in the null hypothesis is a proportion or a percentage. The upper limit is 1 for a proportion, and 100 for a percentage.

LL = M - SE * CV

• If the null hypothesis is μ < M: The theoretical lower limit of the region of acceptance is minus infinity, unless the test statistic is a proportion or a percentage. The lower limit for a proportion or a percentage is zero.

The region of acceptance is the range of values between LL and UL. If the sample estimate of the population parameter falls outside the region of acceptance, the researcher rejects the null hypothesis. If the sample estimate falls within the region of acceptance, the researcher does not reject the null hypothesis.

By following the steps outlined above, you define the region of acceptance in such a way that the chance of making a Type I error is equal to the significance level .

Test Your Understanding

In this section, two hypothesis testing examples illustrate how to define the region of acceptance. The first problem shows a two-tailed test with a mean score; and the second problem, a one-tailed test with a proportion.

Sample Size Calculator

As you probably noticed, defining the region of acceptance can be complex and time-consuming. Stat Trek's Sample Size Calculator can do the same job quickly, easily, and error-free.The calculator is easy to use, and it is free. You can find the Sample Size Calculator in Stat Trek's main menu under the Stat Tools tab. Or you can tap the button below.

An inventor has developed a new, energy-efficient lawn mower engine. He claims that the engine will run continuously for 5 hours (300 minutes) on a single ounce of regular gasoline. Suppose a random sample of 50 engines is tested. The engines run for an average of 295 minutes, with a standard deviation of 20 minutes.

Consider the null hypothesis that the mean run time is 300 minutes against the alternative hypothesis that the mean run time is not 300 minutes. Use a 0.05 level of significance. Find the region of acceptance. Based on the region of acceptance, would you reject the null hypothesis?

Solution: The analysis of survey data to test a hypothesis takes seven steps. We work through those steps below:

However, if we had to compute the sample mean from raw data, we could do it, using the following formula:

where Σx is the sum of all the sample observations, and n is the number of sample observations.

If we hadn't been given the standard deviation, we could have computed it from the raw sample data, using the following formula:

For this problem, we know that the sample size is 50, and the standard deviation is 20. The population size is not stated explicitly; but, in theory, the manufacturer could produce an infinite number of motors. Therefore, the population size is a very large number. For the purpose of the analysis, we'll assume that the population size is 100,000. Plugging those values into the formula, we find that the standard error is:

SE = sqrt [ (1 - 50/100,000) * 20 2 / 50 ]

SE = sqrt(0.9995 * 8) = 2.828

• Choose a significance level. The significance level (α) is chosen for us in the problem. It is 0.05. (Researchers often set the significance level equal to 0.05 or 0.01.)

When the null hypothesis is two-tailed, the critical value has a cumulative probability equal to 1 - α/2. When the null hypothesis is one-tailed, the critical value has a cumulative probability equal to 1 - α.

For this problem, the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis can be expressed as:

Since this problem deals with a two-tailed hypothesis, the critical value will be the z-score that has a cumulative probability equal to 1 - α/2. Here, the significance level (α) is 0.05, so the critical value will be the z-score that has a cumulative probability equal to 0.975.

We use the Normal Distribution Calculator to find that the z-score with a cumulative probability of 0.975 is 1.96. Thus, the critical value is 1.96.

where M is the parameter value in the null hypothesis, SE is the standard error, and CV is the critical value. So, for this problem, we compute the lower limit of the region of acceptance as:

LL = 300 - 2.828 * 1.96

LL = 300 - 5.54

LL = 294.46

LL = 300 + 2.828 * 1.96

LL = 300 + 5.54

LL = 305.54

Thus, given a significance level of 0.05, the region of acceptance is range of values between 294.46 and 305.54. In the tests, the engines ran for an average of 295 minutes. That value is within the region of acceptance, so the inventor cannot reject the null hypothesis that the engines run for 300 minutes on an ounce of fuel.

Problem 2 Suppose the CEO of a large software company claims that at least 80 percent of the company's 1,000,000 customers are very satisfied. A survey of 100 randomly sampled customers finds that 73 percent are very satisfied. To test the CEO's hypothesis, find the region of acceptance. Assume a significance level of 0.05.

However, if we had to compute the sample proportion (p) from raw data, we could do it by using the following formula:

where s 2 is the population variance when the true population proportion is P, and P is the value of the proportion in the null hypothesis.

For the purpose of estimating population variance, we assume the null hypothesis is true. In this problem, the null hypothesis states that the true proportion of satisfied customers is 0.8. Therefore, to estimate population variance, we insert that value in the formula:

s 2 = 0.8 * (1 - 0.8)

s 2 = 0.8 * 0.2 = 0.16

For this problem, we know that the sample size is 100, the variance ( s 2 ) is 0.16, and the population size is 1,000,000. Plugging those values into the formula, we find that the standard error is:

SE = sqrt [ (1 - 100/1,000,000) * 0.16 / 100 ]

SE = sqrt(0.9999 * 0.0016) = 0.04

Since this problem deals with a one-tailed hypothesis, the critical value will be the z-score that has a cumulative probability equal to 1 - α. Here, the significance level (α) is 0.05, so the critical value will be the z-score that has a cumulative probability equal to 0.95.

We use the Normal Distribution Calculator to find that the z-score with a cumulative probability of 0.95 is 1.645. Thus, the critical value is 1.645.

LL = 0.8 - 0.04 * 1.645

LL = 0.8 - 0.0658 = 0.7342

• Find the upper limit of the region of acceptance. For this type of one-tailed hypothesis, the theoretical upper limit of the region of acceptance is 1; since any proportion greater than 0.8 is consistent with the null hypothesis, and 1 is the largest value that a proportion can have.

Thus, given a significance level of 0.05, the region of acceptance is the range of values between 0.7342 and 1.0. In the sample survey, the proportion of satisfied customers was 0.73. That value is outside the region of acceptance, so null hypothesis must be rejected.

Survey Method

• First Online: 01 January 2022

Cite this chapter

• Sergey K. Aityan 2  

Part of the book series: Classroom Companion: Business ((CCB))

3397 Accesses

A survey is a research method used for collecting data from a group of respondents to collect information and opinions about various topics of interest. Surveys may have multiple purposes, and researchers can conduct it in many ways depending on the chosen methodology and the goals. In the modern time, surveys are an essential tool in social research. Surveys are mostly used to collect subjective information by asking respondent’s opinion such as opinion, preference, expectation, intention, health, and other type of information which is hard or impossible to measure objectively. However, surveys may help in collecting some objective information too when the direct access to such information is uneasy or even impossible.

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

Access this chapter

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Lincoln University - California, Oakland, CA, USA

Sergey K. Aityan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sergey K. Aityan .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Aityan, S.K. (2022). Survey Method. In: Business Research Methodology. Classroom Companion: Business. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76857-7_16

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76857-7_16

Published : 01 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-76856-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-76857-7

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.1C: Formulating the Hypothesis

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 7913

A hypothesis is a potential answer to your research question; the research process helps you determine if your hypothesis is true.

Learning Objectives

• Explain how hypotheses are used in sociological research and the difference between dependent and independent variables
• Hypotheses are testable explanations of a problem, phenomenon, or observation.
• Both quantitative and qualitative research involve formulating a hypothesis to address the research problem.
• Hypotheses that suggest a causal relationship involve at least one independent variable and at least one dependent variable; in other words, one variable which is presumed to affect the other.
• An independent variable is one whose value is manipulated by the researcher or experimenter.
• A dependent variable is a variable whose values are presumed to change as a result of changes in the independent variable.
• dependent variable : In an equation, the variable whose value depends on one or more variables in the equation.
• independent variable : In an equation, any variable whose value is not dependent on any other in the equation.
• hypothesis : Used loosely, a tentative conjecture explaining an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further observation, investigation, or experimentation.

A hypothesis is an assumption or suggested explanation about how two or more variables are related. It is a crucial step in the scientific method and, therefore, a vital aspect of all scientific research. There are no definitive guidelines for the production of new hypotheses. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a flash of inspiration, or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute the idea.

While there is no single way to develop a hypothesis, a useful hypothesis will use deductive reasoning to make predictions that can be experimentally assessed. If results contradict the predictions, then the hypothesis under examination is incorrect or incomplete and must be revised or abandoned. If results confirm the predictions, then the hypothesis might be correct but is still subject to further testing.

Both quantitative and qualitative research involve formulating a hypothesis to address the research problem. A hypothesis will generally provide a causal explanation or propose some association between two variables. Variables are measurable phenomena whose values can change under different conditions. For example, if the hypothesis is a causal explanation, it will involve at least one dependent variable and one independent variable. In research, independent variables are the cause of the change. The dependent variable is the effect, or thing that is changed. In other words, the value of a dependent variable depends on the value of the independent variable. Of course, this assumes that there is an actual relationship between the two variables. If there is no relationship, then the value of the dependent variable does not depend on the value of the independent variable.

Formulation of hypothesis may not be necessary in

A. Survey studies

B. Fact finding (historical) studies

C. Normative studies

D. Experimental studies

Answer: Option B

Solution(By Examveda Team)

This Question Belongs to General Knowledge >> Teaching And Research

Join The Discussion

Comments ( 2 ).

Give one example of an ethical issue social researchers need to consider when conducting social research

Example for the fact-finding study is

Related Questions on Teaching and Research

Most important work of teacher is

A. To organize teaching work

B. To deliver lecture in class

C. To take care of children

D. To evaluate the students

A teacher should be

B. Diligent

D. Punctual

Environmental education should be taught in schools because

A. It will affect environmental pollution

B. It is important part of life

C. It will provide job to teachers

D. We cannot escape from environment

At primary level, it is better to teach in mother language because

A. It develops self-confidence in children

B. It makes learning easy

C. It is helpful in intellectual development

D. It helps children in learning in natural atmosphere

More Related Questions on Teaching and Research

Read More: MCQ Type Questions and Answers

•   Arithmetic Ability
•   Competitive Reasoning
•   Competitive English
•   Data Interpretation
•   General Knowledge
•   State GK
•   History
•   Geography
•   Current Affairs
•   Banking Awareness
•   Computer Fundamentals
•   Networking
•   C Program
•   Java Program
•   Database
•   HTML
•   Javascript
•   Computer Science
•   Electronics and Communications Engineering
•   Electrical Engineering
•   Mechanical Engineering
•   Civil Engineering
•   Chemical Engineering
•   Automobile Engineering
•   Biotechnology Engineering
•   Mining Engineering
•   Commerce
•   Management
•   Philosophy
•   Agriculture
•   Sociology
•   Political Science
•   Pharmacy