what is quantitative research pubmed

Advertisement

• Previous Issue
• Previous Article
• Next Article

Clarifying the Research Purpose

Methodology, measurement, data analysis and interpretation, tools for evaluating the quality of medical education research, research support, competing interests, quantitative research methods in medical education.

Submitted for publication January 8, 2018. Accepted for publication November 29, 2018.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Cite Icon Cite
• Get Permissions
• Search Site

John T. Ratelle , Adam P. Sawatsky , Thomas J. Beckman; Quantitative Research Methods in Medical Education. Anesthesiology 2019; 131:23–35 doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000002727

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

There has been a dramatic growth of scholarly articles in medical education in recent years. Evaluating medical education research requires specific orientation to issues related to format and content. Our goal is to review the quantitative aspects of research in medical education so that clinicians may understand these articles with respect to framing the study, recognizing methodologic issues, and utilizing instruments for evaluating the quality of medical education research. This review can be used both as a tool when appraising medical education research articles and as a primer for clinicians interested in pursuing scholarship in medical education.

Image: J. P. Rathmell and Terri Navarette.

There has been an explosion of research in the field of medical education. A search of PubMed demonstrates that more than 40,000 articles have been indexed under the medical subject heading “Medical Education” since 2010, which is more than the total number of articles indexed under this heading in the 1980s and 1990s combined. Keeping up to date requires that practicing clinicians have the skills to interpret and appraise the quality of research articles, especially when serving as editors, reviewers, and consumers of the literature.

While medical education shares many characteristics with other biomedical fields, substantial particularities exist. We recognize that practicing clinicians may not be familiar with the nuances of education research and how to assess its quality. Therefore, our purpose is to provide a review of quantitative research methodologies in medical education. Specifically, we describe a structure that can be used when conducting or evaluating medical education research articles.

Clarifying the research purpose is an essential first step when reading or conducting scholarship in medical education. 1   Medical education research can serve a variety of purposes, from advancing the science of learning to improving the outcomes of medical trainees and the patients they care for. However, a well-designed study has limited value if it addresses vague, redundant, or unimportant medical education research questions.

What is the research topic and why is it important? What is unknown about the research topic? Why is further research necessary?

What is the conceptual framework being used to approach the study?

What is the statement of study intent?

What are the research methodology and study design? Are they appropriate for the study objective(s)?

Which threats to internal validity are most relevant for the study?

What is the outcome and how was it measured?

Can the results be trusted? What is the validity and reliability of the measurements?

How were research subjects selected? Is the research sample representative of the target population?

Was the data analysis appropriate for the study design and type of data?

What is the effect size? Do the results have educational significance?

Fortunately, there are steps to ensure that the purpose of a research study is clear and logical. Table 1   2–5   outlines these steps, which will be described in detail in the following sections. We describe these elements not as a simple “checklist,” but as an advanced organizer that can be used to understand a medical education research study. These steps can also be used by clinician educators who are new to the field of education research and who wish to conduct scholarship in medical education.

Steps in Clarifying the Purpose of a Research Study in Medical Education

Literature Review and Problem Statement

A literature review is the first step in clarifying the purpose of a medical education research article. 2 , 5 , 6   When conducting scholarship in medical education, a literature review helps researchers develop an understanding of their topic of interest. This understanding includes both existing knowledge about the topic as well as key gaps in the literature, which aids the researcher in refining their study question. Additionally, a literature review helps researchers identify conceptual frameworks that have been used to approach the research topic. 2  

When reading scholarship in medical education, a successful literature review provides background information so that even someone unfamiliar with the research topic can understand the rationale for the study. Located in the introduction of the manuscript, the literature review guides the reader through what is already known in a manner that highlights the importance of the research topic. The literature review should also identify key gaps in the literature so the reader can understand the need for further research. This gap description includes an explicit problem statement that summarizes the important issues and provides a reason for the study. 2 , 4   The following is one example of a problem statement:

“Identifying gaps in the competency of anesthesia residents in time for intervention is critical to patient safety and an effective learning system… [However], few available instruments relate to complex behavioral performance or provide descriptors…that could inform subsequent feedback, individualized teaching, remediation, and curriculum revision.” 7  

This problem statement articulates the research topic (identifying resident performance gaps), why it is important (to intervene for the sake of learning and patient safety), and current gaps in the literature (few tools are available to assess resident performance). The researchers have now underscored why further research is needed and have helped readers anticipate the overarching goals of their study (to develop an instrument to measure anesthesiology resident performance). 4  

The Conceptual Framework

Following the literature review and articulation of the problem statement, the next step in clarifying the research purpose is to select a conceptual framework that can be applied to the research topic. Conceptual frameworks are “ways of thinking about a problem or a study, or ways of representing how complex things work.” 3   Just as clinical trials are informed by basic science research in the laboratory, conceptual frameworks often serve as the “basic science” that informs scholarship in medical education. At a fundamental level, conceptual frameworks provide a structured approach to solving the problem identified in the problem statement.

Conceptual frameworks may take the form of theories, principles, or models that help to explain the research problem by identifying its essential variables or elements. Alternatively, conceptual frameworks may represent evidence-based best practices that researchers can apply to an issue identified in the problem statement. 3   Importantly, there is no single best conceptual framework for a particular research topic, although the choice of a conceptual framework is often informed by the literature review and knowing which conceptual frameworks have been used in similar research. 8   For further information on selecting a conceptual framework for research in medical education, we direct readers to the work of Bordage 3   and Irby et al. 9  

To illustrate how different conceptual frameworks can be applied to a research problem, suppose you encounter a study to reduce the frequency of communication errors among anesthesiology residents during day-to-night handoff. Table 2 10 , 11   identifies two different conceptual frameworks researchers might use to approach the task. The first framework, cognitive load theory, has been proposed as a conceptual framework to identify potential variables that may lead to handoff errors. 12   Specifically, cognitive load theory identifies the three factors that affect short-term memory and thus may lead to communication errors:

Conceptual Frameworks to Address the Issue of Handoff Errors in the Intensive Care Unit

Intrinsic load: Inherent complexity or difficulty of the information the resident is trying to learn ( e.g. , complex patients).

Extraneous load: Distractions or demands on short-term memory that are not related to the information the resident is trying to learn ( e.g. , background noise, interruptions).

Germane load: Effort or mental strategies used by the resident to organize and understand the information he/she is trying to learn ( e.g. , teach back, note taking).

Using cognitive load theory as a conceptual framework, researchers may design an intervention to reduce extraneous load and help the resident remember the overnight to-do’s. An example might be dedicated, pager-free handoff times where distractions are minimized.

The second framework identified in table 2 , the I-PASS (Illness severity, Patient summary, Action list, Situational awareness and contingency planning, and Synthesis by receiver) handoff mnemonic, 11   is an evidence-based best practice that, when incorporated as part of a handoff bundle, has been shown to reduce handoff errors on pediatric wards. 13   Researchers choosing this conceptual framework may adapt some or all of the I-PASS elements for resident handoffs in the intensive care unit.

Note that both of the conceptual frameworks outlined above provide researchers with a structured approach to addressing the issue of handoff errors; one is not necessarily better than the other. Indeed, it is possible for researchers to use both frameworks when designing their study. Ultimately, we provide this example to demonstrate the necessity of selecting conceptual frameworks to clarify the research purpose. 3 , 8   Readers should look for conceptual frameworks in the introduction section and should be wary of their omission, as commonly seen in less well-developed medical education research articles. 14  

Statement of Study Intent

After reviewing the literature, articulating the problem statement, and selecting a conceptual framework to address the research topic, the final step in clarifying the research purpose is the statement of study intent. The statement of study intent is arguably the most important element of framing the study because it makes the research purpose explicit. 2   Consider the following example:

This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the introduction of the BASIC Examination was associated with an accelerated knowledge acquisition during residency training, as measured by increments in annual ITE scores. 15  

This statement of study intent succinctly identifies several key study elements including the population (anesthesiology residents), the intervention/independent variable (introduction of the BASIC Examination), the outcome/dependent variable (knowledge acquisition, as measure by in In-training Examination [ITE] scores), and the hypothesized relationship between the independent and dependent variable (the authors hypothesize a positive correlation between the BASIC examination and the speed of knowledge acquisition). 6 , 14  

The statement of study intent will sometimes manifest as a research objective, rather than hypothesis or question. In such instances there may not be explicit independent and dependent variables, but the study population and research aim should be clearly identified. The following is an example:

“In this report, we present the results of 3 [years] of course data with respect to the practice improvements proposed by participating anesthesiologists and their success in implementing those plans. Specifically, our primary aim is to assess the frequency and type of improvements that were completed and any factors that influence completion.” 16  

The statement of study intent is the logical culmination of the literature review, problem statement, and conceptual framework, and is a transition point between the Introduction and Methods sections of a medical education research report. Nonetheless, a systematic review of experimental research in medical education demonstrated that statements of study intent are absent in the majority of articles. 14   When reading a medical education research article where the statement of study intent is absent, it may be necessary to infer the research aim by gathering information from the Introduction and Methods sections. In these cases, it can be useful to identify the following key elements 6 , 14 , 17   :

Population of interest/type of learner ( e.g. , pain medicine fellow or anesthesiology residents)

Independent/predictor variable ( e.g. , educational intervention or characteristic of the learners)

Dependent/outcome variable ( e.g. , intubation skills or knowledge of anesthetic agents)

Relationship between the variables ( e.g. , “improve” or “mitigate”)

Occasionally, it may be difficult to differentiate the independent study variable from the dependent study variable. 17   For example, consider a study aiming to measure the relationship between burnout and personal debt among anesthesiology residents. Do the researchers believe burnout might lead to high personal debt, or that high personal debt may lead to burnout? This “chicken or egg” conundrum reinforces the importance of the conceptual framework which, if present, should serve as an explanation or rationale for the predicted relationship between study variables.

Research methodology is the “…design or plan that shapes the methods to be used in a study.” 1   Essentially, methodology is the general strategy for answering a research question, whereas methods are the specific steps and techniques that are used to collect data and implement the strategy. Our objective here is to provide an overview of quantitative methodologies ( i.e. , approaches) in medical education research.

The choice of research methodology is made by balancing the approach that best answers the research question against the feasibility of completing the study. There is no perfect methodology because each has its own potential caveats, flaws and/or sources of bias. Before delving into an overview of the methodologies, it is important to highlight common sources of bias in education research. We use the term internal validity to describe the degree to which the findings of a research study represent “the truth,” as opposed to some alternative hypothesis or variables. 18   Table 3   18–20   provides a list of common threats to internal validity in medical education research, along with tactics to mitigate these threats.

Threats to Internal Validity and Strategies to Mitigate Their Effects

Experimental Research

The fundamental tenet of experimental research is the manipulation of an independent or experimental variable to measure its effect on a dependent or outcome variable.

True Experiment

True experimental study designs minimize threats to internal validity by randomizing study subjects to experimental and control groups. Through ensuring that differences between groups are—beyond the intervention/variable of interest—purely due to chance, researchers reduce the internal validity threats related to subject characteristics, time-related maturation, and regression to the mean. 18 , 19  

Quasi-experiment

There are many instances in medical education where randomization may not be feasible or ethical. For instance, researchers wanting to test the effect of a new curriculum among medical students may not be able to randomize learners due to competing curricular obligations and schedules. In these cases, researchers may be forced to assign subjects to experimental and control groups based upon some other criterion beyond randomization, such as different classrooms or different sections of the same course. This process, called quasi-randomization, does not inherently lead to internal validity threats, as long as research investigators are mindful of measuring and controlling for extraneous variables between study groups. 19  

Single-group Methodologies

All experimental study designs compare two or more groups: experimental and control. A common experimental study design in medical education research is the single-group pretest–posttest design, which compares a group of learners before and after the implementation of an intervention. 21   In essence, a single-group pre–post design compares an experimental group ( i.e. , postintervention) to a “no-intervention” control group ( i.e. , preintervention). 19   This study design is problematic for several reasons. Consider the following hypothetical example: A research article reports the effects of a year-long intubation curriculum for first-year anesthesiology residents. All residents participate in monthly, half-day workshops over the course of an academic year. The article reports a positive effect on residents’ skills as demonstrated by a significant improvement in intubation success rates at the end of the year when compared to the beginning.

This study does little to advance the science of learning among anesthesiology residents. While this hypothetical report demonstrates an improvement in residents’ intubation success before versus after the intervention, it does not tell why the workshop worked, how it compares to other educational interventions, or how it fits in to the broader picture of anesthesia training.

Single-group pre–post study designs open themselves to a myriad of threats to internal validity. 20   In our hypothetical example, the improvement in residents’ intubation skills may have been due to other educational experience(s) ( i.e. , implementation threat) and/or improvement in manual dexterity that occurred naturally with time ( i.e. , maturation threat), rather than the airway curriculum. Consequently, single-group pre–post studies should be interpreted with caution. 18  

Repeated testing, before and after the intervention, is one strategy that can be used to reduce the some of the inherent limitations of the single-group study design. Repeated pretesting can mitigate the effect of regression toward the mean, a statistical phenomenon whereby low pretest scores tend to move closer to the mean on subsequent testing (regardless of intervention). 20   Likewise, repeated posttesting at multiple time intervals can provide potentially useful information about the short- and long-term effects of an intervention ( e.g. , the “durability” of the gain in knowledge, skill, or attitude).

Observational Research

Unlike experimental studies, observational research does not involve manipulation of any variables. These studies often involve measuring associations, developing psychometric instruments, or conducting surveys.

Association Research

Association research seeks to identify relationships between two or more variables within a group or groups (correlational research), or similarities/differences between two or more existing groups (causal–comparative research). For example, correlational research might seek to measure the relationship between burnout and educational debt among anesthesiology residents, while causal–comparative research may seek to measure differences in educational debt and/or burnout between anesthesiology and surgery residents. Notably, association research may identify relationships between variables, but does not necessarily support a causal relationship between them.

Psychometric and Survey Research

Psychometric instruments measure a psychologic or cognitive construct such as knowledge, satisfaction, beliefs, and symptoms. Surveys are one type of psychometric instrument, but many other types exist, such as evaluations of direct observation, written examinations, or screening tools. 22   Psychometric instruments are ubiquitous in medical education research and can be used to describe a trait within a study population ( e.g. , rates of depression among medical students) or to measure associations between study variables ( e.g. , association between depression and board scores among medical students).

Psychometric and survey research studies are prone to the internal validity threats listed in table 3 , particularly those relating to mortality, location, and instrumentation. 18   Additionally, readers must ensure that the instrument scores can be trusted to truly represent the construct being measured. For example, suppose you encounter a research article demonstrating a positive association between attending physician teaching effectiveness as measured by a survey of medical students, and the frequency with which the attending physician provides coffee and doughnuts on rounds. Can we be confident that this survey administered to medical students is truly measuring teaching effectiveness? Or is it simply measuring the attending physician’s “likability”? Issues related to measurement and the trustworthiness of data are described in detail in the following section on measurement and the related issues of validity and reliability.

Measurement refers to “the assigning of numbers to individuals in a systematic way as a means of representing properties of the individuals.” 23   Research data can only be trusted insofar as we trust the measurement used to obtain the data. Measurement is of particular importance in medical education research because many of the constructs being measured ( e.g. , knowledge, skill, attitudes) are abstract and subject to measurement error. 24   This section highlights two specific issues related to the trustworthiness of data: the validity and reliability of measurements.

Validity regarding the scores of a measurement instrument “refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of the [instrument’s results] for the proposed use of the [instrument].” 25   In essence, do we believe the results obtained from a measurement really represent what we were trying to measure? Note that validity evidence for the scores of a measurement instrument is separate from the internal validity of a research study. Several frameworks for validity evidence exist. Table 4 2 , 22 , 26   represents the most commonly used framework, developed by Messick, 27   which identifies sources of validity evidence—to support the target construct—from five main categories: content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences.

Sources of Validity Evidence for Measurement Instruments

Reliability

Reliability refers to the consistency of scores for a measurement instrument. 22 , 25 , 28   For an instrument to be reliable, we would anticipate that two individuals rating the same object of measurement in a specific context would provide the same scores. 25   Further, if the scores for an instrument are reliable between raters of the same object of measurement, then we can extrapolate that any difference in scores between two objects represents a true difference across the sample, and is not due to random variation in measurement. 29   Reliability can be demonstrated through a variety of methods such as internal consistency ( e.g. , Cronbach’s alpha), temporal stability ( e.g. , test–retest reliability), interrater agreement ( e.g. , intraclass correlation coefficient), and generalizability theory (generalizability coefficient). 22 , 29  

Example of a Validity and Reliability Argument

This section provides an illustration of validity and reliability in medical education. We use the signaling questions outlined in table 4 to make a validity and reliability argument for the Harvard Assessment of Anesthesia Resident Performance (HARP) instrument. 7   The HARP was developed by Blum et al. to measure the performance of anesthesia trainees that is required to provide safe anesthetic care to patients. According to the authors, the HARP is designed to be used “…as part of a multiscenario, simulation-based assessment” of resident performance. 7  

Content Validity: Does the Instrument’s Content Represent the Construct Being Measured?

To demonstrate content validity, instrument developers should describe the construct being measured and how the instrument was developed, and justify their approach. 25   The HARP is intended to measure resident performance in the critical domains required to provide safe anesthetic care. As such, investigators note that the HARP items were created through a two-step process. First, the instrument’s developers interviewed anesthesiologists with experience in resident education to identify the key traits needed for successful completion of anesthesia residency training. Second, the authors used a modified Delphi process to synthesize the responses into five key behaviors: (1) formulate a clear anesthetic plan, (2) modify the plan under changing conditions, (3) communicate effectively, (4) identify performance improvement opportunities, and (5) recognize one’s limits. 7 , 30  

Response Process Validity: Are Raters Interpreting the Instrument Items as Intended?

In the case of the HARP, the developers included a scoring rubric with behavioral anchors to ensure that faculty raters could clearly identify how resident performance in each domain should be scored. 7  

Internal Structure Validity: Do Instrument Items Measuring Similar Constructs Yield Homogenous Results? Do Instrument Items Measuring Different Constructs Yield Heterogeneous Results?

Item-correlation for the HARP demonstrated a high degree of correlation between some items ( e.g. , formulating a plan and modifying the plan under changing conditions) and a lower degree of correlation between other items ( e.g. , formulating a plan and identifying performance improvement opportunities). 30   This finding is expected since the items within the HARP are designed to assess separate performance domains, and we would expect residents’ functioning to vary across domains.

Relationship to Other Variables’ Validity: Do Instrument Scores Correlate with Other Measures of Similar or Different Constructs as Expected?

As it applies to the HARP, one would expect that the performance of anesthesia residents will improve over the course of training. Indeed, HARP scores were found to be generally higher among third-year residents compared to first-year residents. 30  

Consequence Validity: Are Instrument Results Being Used as Intended? Are There Unintended or Negative Uses of the Instrument Results?

While investigators did not intentionally seek out consequence validity evidence for the HARP, unanticipated consequences of HARP scores were identified by the authors as follows:

“Data indicated that CA-3s had a lower percentage of worrisome scores (rating 2 or lower) than CA-1s… However, it is concerning that any CA-3s had any worrisome scores…low performance of some CA-3 residents, albeit in the simulated environment, suggests opportunities for training improvement.” 30  

That is, using the HARP to measure the performance of CA-3 anesthesia residents had the unintended consequence of identifying the need for improvement in resident training.

Reliability: Are the Instrument’s Scores Reproducible and Consistent between Raters?

The HARP was applied by two raters for every resident in the study across seven different simulation scenarios. The investigators conducted a generalizability study of HARP scores to estimate the variance in assessment scores that was due to the resident, the rater, and the scenario. They found little variance was due to the rater ( i.e. , scores were consistent between raters), indicating a high level of reliability. 7  

Sampling refers to the selection of research subjects ( i.e. , the sample) from a larger group of eligible individuals ( i.e. , the population). 31   Effective sampling leads to the inclusion of research subjects who represent the larger population of interest. Alternatively, ineffective sampling may lead to the selection of research subjects who are significantly different from the target population. Imagine that researchers want to explore the relationship between burnout and educational debt among pain medicine specialists. The researchers distribute a survey to 1,000 pain medicine specialists (the population), but only 300 individuals complete the survey (the sample). This result is problematic because the characteristics of those individuals who completed the survey and the entire population of pain medicine specialists may be fundamentally different. It is possible that the 300 study subjects may be experiencing more burnout and/or debt, and thus, were more motivated to complete the survey. Alternatively, the 700 nonresponders might have been too busy to respond and even more burned out than the 300 responders, which would suggest that the study findings were even more amplified than actually observed.

When evaluating a medical education research article, it is important to identify the sampling technique the researchers employed, how it might have influenced the results, and whether the results apply to the target population. 24  

Sampling Techniques

Sampling techniques generally fall into two categories: probability- or nonprobability-based. Probability-based sampling ensures that each individual within the target population has an equal opportunity of being selected as a research subject. Most commonly, this is done through random sampling, which should lead to a sample of research subjects that is similar to the target population. If significant differences between sample and population exist, those differences should be due to random chance, rather than systematic bias. The difference between data from a random sample and that from the population is referred to as sampling error. 24  

Nonprobability-based sampling involves selecting research participants such that inclusion of some individuals may be more likely than the inclusion of others. 31   Convenience sampling is one such example and involves selection of research subjects based upon ease or opportuneness. Convenience sampling is common in medical education research, but, as outlined in the example at the beginning of this section, it can lead to sampling bias. 24   When evaluating an article that uses nonprobability-based sampling, it is important to look for participation/response rate. In general, a participation rate of less than 75% should be viewed with skepticism. 21   Additionally, it is important to determine whether characteristics of participants and nonparticipants were reported and if significant differences between the two groups exist.

Interpreting medical education research requires a basic understanding of common ways in which quantitative data are analyzed and displayed. In this section, we highlight two broad topics that are of particular importance when evaluating research articles.

The Nature of the Measurement Variable

Measurement variables in quantitative research generally fall into three categories: nominal, ordinal, or interval. 24   Nominal variables (sometimes called categorical variables) involve data that can be placed into discrete categories without a specific order or structure. Examples include sex (male or female) and professional degree (M.D., D.O., M.B.B.S., etc .) where there is no clear hierarchical order to the categories. Ordinal variables can be ranked according to some criterion, but the spacing between categories may not be equal. Examples of ordinal variables may include measurements of satisfaction (satisfied vs . unsatisfied), agreement (disagree vs . agree), and educational experience (medical student, resident, fellow). As it applies to educational experience, it is noteworthy that even though education can be quantified in years, the spacing between years ( i.e. , educational “growth”) remains unequal. For instance, the difference in performance between second- and third-year medical students is dramatically different than third- and fourth-year medical students. Interval variables can also be ranked according to some criteria, but, unlike ordinal variables, the spacing between variable categories is equal. Examples of interval variables include test scores and salary. However, the conceptual boundaries between these measurement variables are not always clear, as in the case where ordinal scales can be assumed to have the properties of an interval scale, so long as the data’s distribution is not substantially skewed. 32  

Understanding the nature of the measurement variable is important when evaluating how the data are analyzed and reported. Medical education research commonly uses measurement instruments with items that are rated on Likert-type scales, whereby the respondent is asked to assess their level of agreement with a given statement. The response is often translated into a corresponding number ( e.g. , 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree). It is remarkable that scores from Likert-type scales are sometimes not normally distributed ( i.e. , are skewed toward one end of the scale), indicating that the spacing between scores is unequal and the variable is ordinal in nature. In these cases, it is recommended to report results as frequencies or medians, rather than means and SDs. 33  

Consider an article evaluating medical students’ satisfaction with a new curriculum. Researchers measure satisfaction using a Likert-type scale (1 = very unsatisfied, 2 = unsatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 = satisfied, 5 = very satisfied). A total of 20 medical students evaluate the curriculum, 10 of whom rate their satisfaction as “satisfied,” and 10 of whom rate it as “very satisfied.” In this case, it does not make much sense to report an average score of 4.5; it makes more sense to report results in terms of frequency ( e.g. , half of the students were “very satisfied” with the curriculum, and half were not).

Effect Size and CIs

In medical education, as in other research disciplines, it is common to report statistically significant results ( i.e. , small P values) in order to increase the likelihood of publication. 34 , 35   However, a significant P value in itself does necessarily represent the educational impact of the study results. A statement like “Intervention x was associated with a significant improvement in learners’ intubation skill compared to education intervention y ( P < 0.05)” tells us that there was a less than 5% chance that the difference in improvement between interventions x and y was due to chance. Yet that does not mean that the study intervention necessarily caused the nonchance results, or indicate whether the between-group difference is educationally significant. Therefore, readers should consider looking beyond the P value to effect size and/or CI when interpreting the study results. 36 , 37  

Effect size is “the magnitude of the difference between two groups,” which helps to quantify the educational significance of the research results. 37   Common measures of effect size include Cohen’s d (standardized difference between two means), risk ratio (compares binary outcomes between two groups), and Pearson’s r correlation (linear relationship between two continuous variables). 37   CIs represent “a range of values around a sample mean or proportion” and are a measure of precision. 31   While effect size and CI give more useful information than simple statistical significance, they are commonly omitted from medical education research articles. 35   In such instances, readers should be wary of overinterpreting a P value in isolation. For further information effect size and CI, we direct readers the work of Sullivan and Feinn 37   and Hulley et al. 31  

In this final section, we identify instruments that can be used to evaluate the quality of quantitative medical education research articles. To this point, we have focused on framing the study and research methodologies and identifying potential pitfalls to consider when appraising a specific article. This is important because how a study is framed and the choice of methodology require some subjective interpretation. Fortunately, there are several instruments available for evaluating medical education research methods and providing a structured approach to the evaluation process.

The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) 21   and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale-Education (NOS-E) 38   are two commonly used instruments, both of which have an extensive body of validity evidence to support the interpretation of their scores. Table 5 21 , 39   provides more detail regarding the MERSQI, which includes evaluation of study design, sampling, data type, validity, data analysis, and outcomes. We have found that applying the MERSQI to manuscripts, articles, and protocols has intrinsic educational value, because this practice of application familiarizes MERSQI users with fundamental principles of medical education research. One aspect of the MERSQI that deserves special mention is the section on evaluating outcomes based on Kirkpatrick’s widely recognized hierarchy of reaction, learning, behavior, and results ( table 5 ; fig .). 40   Validity evidence for the scores of the MERSQI include its operational definitions to improve response process, excellent reliability, and internal consistency, as well as high correlation with other measures of study quality, likelihood of publication, citation rate, and an association between MERSQI score and the likelihood of study funding. 21 , 41   Additionally, consequence validity for the MERSQI scores has been demonstrated by its utility for identifying and disseminating high-quality research in medical education. 42  

Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy of outcomes as applied to education research. Reaction = Level 1, Learning = Level 2, Behavior = Level 3, Results = Level 4. Outcomes become more meaningful, yet more difficult to achieve, when progressing from Level 1 through Level 4. Adapted with permission from Beckman and Cook, 2007. 2  

The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument for Evaluating the Quality of Medical Education Research

The NOS-E is a newer tool to evaluate the quality of medication education research. It was developed as a modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale 43   for appraising the quality of nonrandomized studies. The NOS-E includes items focusing on the representativeness of the experimental group, selection and compatibility of the control group, missing data/study retention, and blinding of outcome assessors. 38 , 39   Additional validity evidence for NOS-E scores includes operational definitions to improve response process, excellent reliability and internal consistency, and its correlation with other measures of study quality. 39   Notably, the complete NOS-E, along with its scoring rubric, can found in the article by Cook and Reed. 39  

A recent comparison of the MERSQI and NOS-E found acceptable interrater reliability and good correlation between the two instruments 39   However, noted differences exist between the MERSQI and NOS-E. Specifically, the MERSQI may be applied to a broad range of study designs, including experimental and cross-sectional research. Additionally, the MERSQI addresses issues related to measurement validity and data analysis, and places emphasis on educational outcomes. On the other hand, the NOS-E focuses specifically on experimental study designs, and on issues related to sampling techniques and outcome assessment. 39   Ultimately, the MERSQI and NOS-E are complementary tools that may be used together when evaluating the quality of medical education research.

Conclusions

This article provides an overview of quantitative research in medical education, underscores the main components of education research, and provides a general framework for evaluating research quality. We highlighted the importance of framing a study with respect to purpose, conceptual framework, and statement of study intent. We reviewed the most common research methodologies, along with threats to the validity of a study and its measurement instruments. Finally, we identified two complementary instruments, the MERSQI and NOS-E, for evaluating the quality of a medical education research study.

Bordage G: Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Medical education. 2009; 43(4):312–9.

Cook DA, Beckman TJ: Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: Theory and application. The American journal of medicine. 2006; 119(2):166. e7–166. e116.

Franenkel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH: How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 9th edition. New York, McGraw-Hill Education, 2015.

Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB: Designing clinical research. 4th edition. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2011.

Irby BJ, Brown G, Lara-Alecio R, Jackson S: The Handbook of Educational Theories. Charlotte, NC, Information Age Publishing, Inc., 2015

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association & American Psychological Association, 2014)

Swanwick T: Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory and practice, 2nd edition. Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.

Sullivan GM, Artino Jr AR: Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of graduate medical education. 2013; 5(4):541–2.

Sullivan GM, Feinn R: Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. Journal of graduate medical education. 2012; 4(3):279–82.

Tavakol M, Sandars J: Quantitative and qualitative methods in medical education research: AMEE Guide No 90: Part II. Medical teacher. 2014; 36(10):838–48.

Support was provided solely from institutional and/or departmental sources.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Citing articles via

Most viewed, email alerts, related articles, social media, affiliations.

• ASA Practice Parameters
• Online First
• Author Resource Center
• About the Journal
• Editorial Board
• Rights & Permissions
• Online ISSN 1528-1175
• Print ISSN 0003-3022
• Anesthesiology
• ASA Monitor

• Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
• Manage Cookie Preferences
• © Copyright 2024 American Society of Anesthesiologists

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Research for Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences pp 13–23 Cite as

Quantitative and Qualitative Research: An Overview of Approaches

• Euclid Seeram 5 , 6 , 7  
• First Online: 03 January 2022

523 Accesses

In Chap. 1 , the nature and scope of research were outlined and included an overview of quantitative and qualitative research and a brief description of research designs. In this chapter, both quantitative and qualitative research will be described in a little more detail with respect to essential features and characteristics. Furthermore, the research designs used in each of these approaches will be reviewed. Finally, this chapter will conclude with examples of published quantitative and qualitative research in medical imaging and radiation therapy.

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

Buying options

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Anvari, A., Halpern, E. F., & Samir, A. E. (2015). Statistics 101 for radiologists. Radiographics, 35 , 1789–1801.

Article   Google Scholar  

Battistelli, A., Portoghese, I., Galletta, M., & Pohl, S. (2013). Beyond the tradition: Test of an integrative conceptual model on nurse turnover. International Nursing Review, 60 (1), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-7657.2012.01024.x

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices . In Textbooks Collection , 3. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3 . University of South Florida.

Chenail, R. (2011). Ten steps for conceptualizing and conducting qualitative research studies in a pragmatically curious manner. The Qualitative Report, 16 (6), 1713–1730. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR16-6/chenail.pdf

Google Scholar  

Coyle, M. K. (2012). Depressive symptoms after a myocardial infarction and self-care. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 26 (2), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2011.06.004

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed.). Pearson Education.

Curtis, E. A., Comiskey, C., & Dempsey, O. (2016). Importance and use of correlational research. Nurse Researcher, 23 (6), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2016.e1382

Gibson, D. J., & Davidson, R. A. (2012). Exposure creep in computed radiography: A longitudinal study. Academic Radiology, 19 (4), 458–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2011.12.003 . Epub 2012 Jan 5.

Gray, J. R., Grove, S. K., & Sutherland, S. (2017). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence . Elsevier.

Miles, M., Hubermann, A., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.

Munhall, P. L. (2012). Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (5th ed.). Jones and Bartlett.

Munn, Z., & Jordan, Z. (2011). The patient experience of high technology medical imaging: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence. JBI Library of Systematic Reviews, 9 (19), 631–678. https://doi.org/10.11124/01938924-201109190-00001

Munn, Z., Pearson, A., Jordan, Z., Murphy, F., & Pilkington, D. (2013). Action research in radiography: What it is and how it can be conducted. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, 60 (2), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.8

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

O’Regan, T., Robinson, L., Newton-Hughes, A., & Strudwick, R. (2019). A review of visual ethnography: Radiography viewed through a different lens. Radiography, 25 (Supplement 1), S9–S13.

Price, P., Jhangiani, R., & Chiang, I. (2015). Research methods of psychology (2nd Canadian ed.). BC Campus. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/

Seeram, E., Davidson, R., Bushong, S., & Swan, H. (2015). Education and training required for the digital radiography environment: A non-interventional quantitative survey study of radiologic technologists. International Journal of Radiology & Medical Imaging, 2 , 103. https://doi.org/10.15344/ijrmi/2015/103

Seeram, E., Davidson, R., Bushong, S., & Swan, H. (2016). Optimizing the exposure indicator as a dose management strategy in computed radiography. Radiologic Technology, 87 (4), 380–391.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Solomon, P., & Draine, J. (2010). An overview of quantitative methods. In B. Thyer (Ed.), The handbook of social work research methods (2nd ed., pp. 26–36). Sage.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Suchsland, M. Z., Cruz, M. J., Hardy, V., Jarvik, J., McMillan, G., Brittain, A., & Thompson, M. (2020). Qualitative study to explore radiologist and radiologic technologist perceptions of outcomes patients experience during imaging in the USA. BMJ Open, 10 , e033961. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033961

Thomas, L. (2020). An introduction to quasi-experimental designs. Retrieved from Scribbr.com https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quasi-experimental-design/ . Accessed 8 Jan 2021.

University of Lethbridge (Alberta, Canada). (2020). An introduction to action research. https://www.uleth.ca/education/research/research-centers/action-research/introduction . Accessed 12 Jan 2020.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Euclid Seeram

Faculty of Science, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia

Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Medical Imaging, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Burnaby, BC, Canada

Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Robert Davidson

Brookfield Health Sciences, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Andrew England

Mark F. McEntee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Seeram, E. (2021). Quantitative and Qualitative Research: An Overview of Approaches. In: Seeram, E., Davidson, R., England, A., McEntee, M.F. (eds) Research for Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79956-4_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79956-4_2

Published : 03 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-79955-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-79956-4

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (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

• MJC Library & Learning Center
• Research Guides

Finding Qualitative & Quantitative Research Articles

• Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research
• General Strategies
• Other Resources

When to Use PubMed

Use pubmed: .

• If you are unable to access subscription databases.
• For easy keyword searching (automatically maps to MeSH).
• For clinical queries.
• For genetics topics.
• To be offered related citations and links to systematic reviews citing a study.
• To find new articles that are "in process." PubMed includes "future MEDLINE" articles that have not yet been fully indexed (assigned detailed MeSH / Medical Subject Headings). 
• When you are doing research in life science journals. 

What is PubMed?

PubMed, the online version of Index Medicus , is produced by the US National Library of Medicine (NLM).There is no subscription for the  PubMed database ; it is freely accessible, but it is a literature citation database rather than a full-text provider.  It contains citation information (title, authors, journal, and publication date) and abstracts of articles published in biomedical and scientific journals. PubMed does not contain full-text articles, but in some cases, you can link to full text directly from PubMed. If you have searched PubMed (or accessed PubMed through a web link) and located a citation of interest, check for full-text icons in the upper right corner of the display above the citation. Some full-text articles may be free, for example those archived in the  PubMed Central ®  (PMC) database .

What's the Difference Between PubMed & Medline? 

PubMed vs. MEDLINE

• Both databases search a similar group of medical literature (mostly medical journals) compiled by the National Library of Medicine (NLM).   PubMed includes "future MEDLINE" articles that have not yet been fully indexed (assigned detailed MeSH / Medical Subject Headings), as well as a small amount of additional content (from life sciences journals and selected medical books).
• All MEDLINE content is from a medical journals and all content includes detailed indexing according to carefully controlled and applied Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), insuring all research on a specific content is accessible under standardized terms.

PubMed Search Strategies: Qualitative

Tips for locating qualitative research in pubmed.

• Qualitative Research  [research that derives data from observation, interviews, or verbal interactions and focuses on the meanings and interpretations of the participants. Year introduced 2003]
• Interviews as Topic  [conversations with an individual or individuals held in order to obtain information about their background and other personal biographical data, their attitudes and opinions, etc. It includes school admission or job interviews. Year introduced: 2008 (1980)]
• Focus Groups  [a method of data collection and a qualitative research tool in which a small group of individuals are brought together and allowed to interact in a discussion of their opinions about topics, issues, or questions. Year introduced: 1993]
• Grounded Theory  [The generation of theories from analysis of empirical data. Year introduced 2015]
• Nursing Methodology Research  [research carried out by nurses concerning techniques and methods to implement projects and to document information, including methods of interviewing patients, collecting data, and forming inferences. The concept includes exploration of methodological issues such as human subjectivity and human experience. Year introduced: 1991(1989)]
• Anecdotes as Topic  [brief accounts or narratives of an incident or event. Year introduced: 2008(1963)]
• Narration  [the act, process, or an instance of narrating, i.e., telling a story. In the context of MEDICINE or ETHICS, narration includes relating the particular and the personal in the life story of an individual. Year introduced: 2003]
• Video Recording  [the storing or preserving of video signals for television to be played back later via a transmitter or receiver. Recordings may be made on magnetic tape or discs (VIDEODISC RECORDING). Year introduced: 1984]
• Tape Recording  [recording of information on magnetic or punched paper tape. Year introduced: 1967(1964)]
• Personal Narratives as Topic  [works about accounts of individual experience in relation to a particular field or of participation in related activities. Year introduced: 2013]
• Observational Study as Topic  [A clinical study in which participants may receive diagnostic, therapeutic, or other types of interventions, but the investigator does not assign participants to specific interventions (as in an interventional study). Year introduced: 2014]

NOTE:  Inconsistent indexing in PubMed. For example, grounded theory articles are not always indexed for qualitative research. Need to TextWord search for additional terms: “grounded theory”, “action research”, ethnograph* etc.

Additional MeSH terms that may be applicable to your topic include:  Attitude of Health Personnel ;  Attitude to Death ;  Attitude to Health ; or  Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice.

• Interview  [work consisting of a conversation with an individual regarding his or her background and other personal and professional details, opinions on specific subjects posed by the interviewer, etc. Year introduced: 2008(1993)]
• Diaries  [works consisting of records, usually private, of writers' experiences, observations, feelings, attitudes, etc. They may also be works marked in calendar order in which to note appointments and the like. (From Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2d ed) Year introduced: 2008(1997)]
• Anecdotes  [works consisting of brief accounts or narratives of incidents or events. Year introduced: 2008(1999)]
• Personal Narratives  [works consisting of accounts of individual experience in relation to a particular field or of participation in related activities. Year introduced: 2013]
• Observational Study  [A clinical study in which participants may receive diagnostic, therapeutic, or other types of interventions, but the investigator does not assign participants to specific interventions (as in an interventional study).Year introduced: 2014]
• You will find articles that have not yet been indexed in PubMed: MeSH terms have not yet been assigned to them.
• It is not possible to cover all concepts with a single MeSH term.
• A MeSH term may not have been assigned to articles, despite the fact that they are related to the topic.

In your query, use the  [tiab]  field code after each free text term. This will restrict your query to search in the  title  or  abstract  of the articles. These are the fields in an article citation that you will use when you select relevant articles. By using both MeSH and tiab terms, you will increase the likelihood of finding all relevant articles. Try to think of as many free text terms as possible. This will be beneficial for your search results, producing more relevant articles.

• Select Topic - Specific Queries from the PubMed home page and then Health Services Research Queries.
• This page provides a filter for specialized PubMed searches on healthcare quality and costs.
• Enter your search topic and select Qualitative Research under Category
• Qualitative Research search filter example  [copy and paste the following modified filter into PubMed and combine your subject terms with this search filter]

(((“semi-structured”[TIAB] OR semistructured[TIAB] OR unstructured[TIAB] OR informal[TIAB] OR “in-depth”[TIAB] OR indepth[TIAB] OR “face-to-face”[TIAB] OR structured[TIAB] OR guide[TIAB] OR guides[TIAB]) AND (interview*[TIAB] OR discussion*[TIAB] OR questionnaire*[TIAB])) OR (“focus group”[TIAB] OR “focus groups”[TIAB] OR qualitative[TIAB] OR ethnograph*[TIAB] OR fieldwork[TIAB] OR “field work”[TIAB] OR “key informant”[TIAB])) OR “interviews as topic”[Mesh] OR “focus groups”[Mesh] OR narration[Mesh] OR qualitative research[Mesh] OR "personal narratives as topic"[Mesh] OR (theme[TIAB] OR thematic[TIAB]) OR "ethnological research"[TIAB] OR phenomenol*[TIAB] OR "grounded theory" [TIAB]  OR "grounded study" [TIAB]  OR "grounded studies" [TIAB]  OR "grounded research" [TIAB]  OR "grounded analysis"[TIAB] OR "grounded analyses" [TIAB]  OR "life story" [TIAB]  OR "life stories"[TIAB] OR emic[TIAB] OR etic[TIAB] OR hermeneutics[TIAB] OR heuristic*[TIAB] OR semiotic[TIAB] OR "data saturation"[TIAB] OR "participant observation"[TIAB] OR "action research"[TIAB] OR "cooperative inquiry" [TIAB]  OR  "co-operative inquiry" [TIAB]  OR "field study" [TIAB] OR "field studies"[TIAB] OR "field  research"[TIAB] OR "theoretical sample"[TIAB] OR "theoretical samples" [TIAB] OR "theoretical sampling"[TIAB]  OR "purposive sampling"[TIAB] OR   "purposive sample"[TIAB] OR "purposive samples"[TIAB]   OR "lived experience"[TIAB] OR "lived experiences"[TIAB] OR  "purposive sampling"[TIAB]   OR "content analysis"[TIAB] OR discourse[TIAB] OR "narrative analysis"[TIAB] OR heidegger*[TIAB] OR colaizzi[TIAB] OR spiegelberg[TIAB] OR "van manen*"[TIAB] OR "van kaam"[TIAB] OR "merleau ponty"[TIAB] OR husserl*[TIAB] OR Foucault[TIAB] or Corbin[TIAB] OR Strauss[TIAB] OR Glaser[TIAB]

More Research Filters

• PubMed Search Strategies Blog This blog has been created to share PubMed search strategies. Search strategies posted here are not perfect. They are posted in the hope that others will benefit from the work already put into their creation and/or will offer suggestions for improvements.
• Center for Evidence-Based Management (CEBMa) Hedges include: meta-analysis/systematic reviews, controlled/longitudinal studies
• McMaster University's Health Information Research Unit: HEDGES Search Filters for MEDLINE in Ovid Syntax and the PubMed translation

PubMed Search Strategies--Quantitative

Tips for locating quantitative research in pubmed.

Finding Quantitative studies is a bit different than finding Qualitative studies.  You must run your search and then apply limits by clicking on the Customize link under Article Types. There are many different types of quantitative studies.  You can choose as many as you want - or as few. They are listed below.  After you choose the types you want, click Show.  Then the types show up in the Article Type field and you can click on them to filter out the types you want.  

• << Previous: MEDLINE
• Next: Other Resources >>
• Last Updated: Dec 6, 2021 1:27 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mjc.edu/qualresearch

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and CC BY-NC 4.0 Licenses .

Quantitative and Qualitative Research

• I NEED TO . . .

What is Quantitative Research?

• What is Qualitative Research?
• Quantitative vs Qualitative
• Step 1: Accessing CINAHL
• Step 2: Create a Keyword Search
• Step 3: Create a Subject Heading Search
• Step 4: Repeat Steps 1-3 for Second Concept
• Step 5: Repeat Steps 1-3 for Quantitative Terms
• Step 6: Combining All Searches
• Step 7: Adding Limiters
• Step 8: Save Your Search!
• What Kind of Article is This?
• More Research Help This link opens in a new window

Quantitative methodology is the dominant research framework in the social sciences. It refers to a set of strategies, techniques and assumptions used to study psychological, social and economic processes through the exploration of numeric patterns . Quantitative research gathers a range of numeric data. Some of the numeric data is intrinsically quantitative (e.g. personal income), while in other cases the numeric structure is  imposed (e.g. ‘On a scale from 1 to 10, how depressed did you feel last week?’). The collection of quantitative information allows researchers to conduct simple to extremely sophisticated statistical analyses that aggregate the data (e.g. averages, percentages), show relationships among the data (e.g. ‘Students with lower grade point averages tend to score lower on a depression scale’) or compare across aggregated data (e.g. the USA has a higher gross domestic product than Spain). Quantitative research includes methodologies such as questionnaires, structured observations or experiments and stands in contrast to qualitative research. Qualitative research involves the collection and analysis of narratives and/or open-ended observations through methodologies such as interviews, focus groups or ethnographies.

Coghlan, D., Brydon-Miller, M. (2014).  The SAGE encyclopedia of action research  (Vols. 1-2). London, : SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781446294406

What is the purpose of quantitative research?

The purpose of quantitative research is to generate knowledge and create understanding about the social world. Quantitative research is used by social scientists, including communication researchers, to observe phenomena or occurrences affecting individuals. Social scientists are concerned with the study of people. Quantitative research is a way to learn about a particular group of people, known as a sample population. Using scientific inquiry, quantitative research relies on data that are observed or measured to examine questions about the sample population.

Allen, M. (2017).  The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods  (Vols. 1-4). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc doi: 10.4135/9781483381411

How do I know if the study is a quantitative design?  What type of quantitative study is it?

Quantitative Research Designs: Descriptive non-experimental, Quasi-experimental or Experimental?

Studies do not always explicitly state what kind of research design is being used.  You will need to know how to decipher which design type is used.  The following video will help you determine the quantitative design type.

• << Previous: I NEED TO . . .
• Next: What is Qualitative Research? >>
• Last Updated: Dec 8, 2023 10:05 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/quantitative_and_qualitative_research

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

• Connelly Library

Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Locating articles in pubmed.

• What is "Empirical Research"?
• Locating Articles in Cinahl and PsycInfo
• Getting the Articles

Remember to use  PUBMED FROM CONNELLY  to take advantage of Connelly library links to journals, ILL etc. Read more about PubMed from Connelly here

When searching for Qualitative studies in PubMed you can use the controlled MeSH terms. Use the Advanced Search, change the field to MeSH terms and enter the phrase qualitative resesearch

Finding Quantitative studies is a bit different.  You must run your search and then apply limits by clicking on the Customize link under Article Types. There are many different types of quantitative studies.  You can choose as many as you want - or as few. They are listed below.  After you choose the types you want, click Show.  Then the types show up in the Article Type field and you can click on them to filter out the types you want

When you click Show the Article Types show up on the left hand side.  Click the ones you want to filter out the correct type of article

• << Previous: Locating Articles in Cinahl and PsycInfo
• Next: Getting the Articles >>

© Copyright La Salle University. All rights reserved.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

StatPearls [Internet].

Human subjects research design.

Marlon L. Bayot ; Grace D. Brannan ; Janelle M. Brannan ; Steven Tenny .

Affiliations

Last Update: August 14, 2023 .

• Definition/Introduction

Human subjects research is a heavily regulated type of research, hence this paper will start with two critical definitions. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Code of Federal Regulations, 45 CFR 46, provides the following definitions: [1]  “A living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research:

• Obtains information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction with the individual, and uses, studies, or analyzes the information or biospecimens; or
• Obtains, uses, studies, analyzes, or generates identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens."

Research means “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” Human subjects research is at the intersection of these two federal definitions and must obtain Institutional Review Board approval before starting, regardless of the type of design involved. The topic of a human research study varies and can include building a theory or hypothesis, determining patient satisfaction, or testing a medication, tool, device, process, or health intervention, to name a few. 

Research studies are classified into a qualitative study, a quantitative study, or a combination of both, called a mixed-methods study. [2] [3]  Qualitative studies gather non-numerical data, whereas quantitative research involves collecting numerical data. Other classifications of research studies exist depending on the purpose and utility of the study, [4]  examples include health systems research and operational research. [5] This review will be limited to the most common quantitative and qualitative research designs.

Quantitative Research

A research study can be done to describe variables and/or to determine the association of test and outcome variables regarding the research topic. [1] Quantitative research studies also subdivide into either interventional studies or non-interventional (observational) studies.  For interventional research studies, the researcher performs some intervention or manipulation of one or more groups in the research study and compares the outcomes to the other groups to help analyze the variables of interest. It may or may not be randomized, although a randomized controlled trial is considered a gold standard, as randomization of patients into the treatment groups reduce bias. Interventional studies apply to medical drugs, biologics, and devices.

For observational or non-interventional research studies, the investigator gathers data for identified variables of interest without any intervention or outside influence by the investigator on the groups under study. Cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control are the common types. [2]

A cohort study involves longitudinally following a group or groups of population with certain known exposures to determine who develops certain diseases or illnesses. This type of study could establish causal relationships between exposure and outcomes such as illness. [2] A cross-sectional study deals with a population at a given point in time as opposed to longitudinally and could provide information such as prevalence. Case-control studies compare populations with and without the exposure to determine if an illness will develop and at what rate in either group. A classic example is comparing smokers and non-smokers to determine which group develops lung cancer.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research aims to answer the more open-ended questions that arise during the research process. Rather than trying to answer quantitative ‘how much’ or ‘how many’-type questions, qualitative research seeks to answer ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. [3] Qualitative research often aims to understand and explain why or how a phenomenon is the way it is in order to provide insights and explanations of real-life problems and experiences. [4] Qualitative research can be used alone, in conjunction with quantitative research in mixed methods research, or as a way to explain the findings of a quantitative study because a quantitative study might show that there is a correlation between two things, but a qualitative study could then tell why that correlation exists, and not just that it does indeed exist.

There are many approaches used for qualitative research. Some of the most common are ethnography, grounded theory, phenomenology, and narrative research. [3] Ethnography is an approach that involves the researcher to be immersed in their participant’s environment, and through this immersion, collect insight into the actions, behaviors, and events that could aid them in their research. [4]  Grounded theory is an approach where the researcher observes the population of interest in order to develop a theory that explains the topic of interest. [3] Phenomenology as an approach emphasizes the importance of the ‘lived experience’ for explaining phenomena. [4] Grounded theory and phenomenology are similar, but grounded theory focuses on observation as a whole to create a theory, whereas phenomenology focuses on the perspective of participants themselves to explain why or how something happens. Lastly, narrative research showcases one of qualitative research’s strengths, the ability to tell a story. When research includes the perspective of the individuals involved, it can create robust theory-building because it takes into account the real-life implications and impacts of phenomena in a way that quantitative research often lacks. Data for qualitative research is collected in many ways, including interviews, focus groups, case studies, and medical record reviews.

Mixed Methods Research

In some cases, a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods, or what is called a mixed-methods research is performed. Mixed methods approaches that combine qualitative and quantitative research can allow for hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing to help try to answer questions in a more well-rounded way. This is usually done to get the benefits of both numerical and non-numerical information to answer the research questions on hand. For example, a cross-sectional study found that young teens are vaping at a high rate. For further elucidation of the reasons why these teens vape, a subsequent focus group could be performed. 

• Issues of Concern

One of the primary concerns in doing research is the identification and formulation of the research problem (i.e., research question). [5]  The research problem should be ethical, researchable, significant, and feasible. In medicine, the goal of the research is not only to add relevant findings to the scientific body of knowledge but also to provide a beneficial, useful contribution to stakeholders, particularly the patients.

The second area of concern for research studies is selecting the correct research study to perform.  Many times descriptive and qualitative research must first take place to produce a robust, significant, and feasible research hypothesis for later quantitative research methods. [6]   Additionally, different research study types have different levels of strength and risk of bias as delineated in the hierarchy of research study designs. [7]  

• Clinical Significance

The significance of research studies and its findings collectively support both clinical and public health needs. The discovery of new medicines and new treatment modalities for specific diseases is possible using randomized clinical (control) trials, more commonly termed as RCTs. [8] Public health, both as medical and social science, can choose from a wide range of qualitative studies, descriptive, analytic, community-based trials [9] , and operations researches, among others, to explore and describe the characteristics of certain groups of populations and its associations to the disease process or a particular health intervention, yielding findings that will inform policymakers and stakeholders.

In clinical settings, case studies and case series can be used by clinicians, surgeons, and other clinical specialists to scientifically document and describe the occurrence of rare diseases. [10]  Researchers can perform studies to determine the association of exposure variables or risk factors in rare diseases or cohort studies to investigate rare exposure variables present in the study population. Meanwhile, studies such as meta-analysis and systematic review are good choices for researchers who want to summarize the results of previous research findings, in quantitative and qualitative means, respectively. [11] [12] Mixed methods are employed to combine and exhaust the utility of the research type or study design combinations (e.g., quantitative and qualitative studies). [13]

Research studies can be both simple and complex; thus, they can be performed in several ways, which must be consistently systematic and scientific. The acquisition of new research findings will eventually find utility in the application of evidence-based medicine (EBM). [14] Research studies must be carried out within the walls of medical ethics, free of bias, and primarily geared towards the welfare of our patients rather than just merely the expedition of science. [15]

• Review Questions
• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Comment on this article.

Disclosure: Marlon Bayot declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Grace Brannan declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Janelle Brannan declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Steven Tenny declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.

• Cite this Page Bayot ML, Brannan GD, Brannan JM, et al. Human Subjects Research Design. [Updated 2023 Aug 14]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

In this Page

Bulk download.

• Bulk download StatPearls data from FTP

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• Recognizing Alcohol and Drug Impairment in the Workplace in Florida. [StatPearls. 2024] Recognizing Alcohol and Drug Impairment in the Workplace in Florida. Toney-Butler TJ, Siela D. StatPearls. 2024 Jan
• Pilot Medical Certification. [StatPearls. 2024] Pilot Medical Certification. Matthews MJ, Stretanski MF. StatPearls. 2024 Jan
• Currently effective Indian Health Service eligibility regulations. Indian Health Service, HHS. Republication of currently effective Indian Health Service eligibility regulations. [Fed Regist. 1999] Currently effective Indian Health Service eligibility regulations. Indian Health Service, HHS. Republication of currently effective Indian Health Service eligibility regulations. . Fed Regist. 1999 Oct 28; 64(208):58318-22.
• Review How to Determine if a Project Is Human Subjects Research, a Quality Improvement Project, or Both. [Ochsner J. 2020] Review How to Determine if a Project Is Human Subjects Research, a Quality Improvement Project, or Both. Bass PF 3rd, Maloy JW. Ochsner J. 2020 Spring; 20(1):56-61.
• Review Understanding Food and Drug Administration regulatory requirements for an investigational device exemption for sponsor-investigators. [J Investig Med. 2012] Review Understanding Food and Drug Administration regulatory requirements for an investigational device exemption for sponsor-investigators. Holbein ME, Berglund JP. J Investig Med. 2012 Oct; 60(7):987-94.

Recent Activity

• Human Subjects Research Design - StatPearls Human Subjects Research Design - StatPearls

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research: what method for nursing?

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Professional Development, Wealden College of Health and Social Studies, East Surrey Hospital, Redhill, Surrey, England.
• PMID: 7822608
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1994.20040716.x

The overall purpose of research for any profession is to discover the truth of the discipline. This paper examines the controversy over the methods by which truth is obtained, by examining the differences and similarities between quantitative and qualitative research. The historically negative bias against qualitative research is discussed, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, with issues highlighted by reference to nursing research. Consideration is given to issues of sampling; the relationship between the researcher and subject; methodologies and collated data; validity; reliability, and ethical dilemmas. The author identifies that neither approach is superior to the other; qualitative research appears invaluable for the exploration of subjective experiences of patients and nurses, and quantitative methods facilitate the discovery of quantifiable information. Combining the strengths of both approaches in triangulation, if time and money permit, is also proposed as a valuable means of discovering the truth about nursing. It is argued that if nursing scholars limit themselves to one method of enquiry, restrictions will be placed on the development of nursing knowledge.

Publication types

• Comparative Study
• Data Collection / methods
• Ethics, Nursing
• Nurse-Patient Relations
• Nursing Research / methods*
• Nursing Research / standards
• Reproducibility of Results
• Research Design / standards*
• Research Personnel / psychology