Before we get into the process of how to formulate a researchable hypothesis, I think it is worthwhile to spend a moment on deciphering the difference between a research question and a research hypothesis. I think all too often we use these terms interchangeably (I myself am guilty of that), but there is a difference between the two that I think is important to clarify. To gain a better understanding of the difference, I conducted some basic research (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016; p.3) and came up with the following definitions: (Formatting a testable hypothesis, n.d.; Michaelson, n.d.; Prasad, Rao, and Rehani, 2001: slides 6&7; Research questions and hypotheses, n.d.) 1. Research Question 1. Written as a question 2. The conclusion will be an answer to the question 2. Research Hypothesis 1. Written as a statement 2. An educated guess 3. Predictive in nature 4. Prediction about the relationship between two or more variables 5. It is testable (testing the relationship between variables) 6. Used when a considerable amount of knowledge is already known about the subject 7. Data is used to support or negate the hypothesis to provide a conclusion Now to get back to the formulation of a researchable questions or hypotheses…. I think it pays to look back at the beginning of Qualitative Research: A guide to design and implementation, where Merriam and Tisdell (2016) start out by explaining that social sciences are fields of practice that deal with the daily concerns of people, and it is a desire to improve one’s practice in these fields that leads to the asking of researchable questions. (p.1) A testable hypothesis (or question) is one that can be proved or disproved by data collection, testing, or experimentation (Helmenstine, 2019). If we cannot investigate the question/statement in some way we will not be able to prove or disprove it; and if that’s the case, what is the point in asking the question. In much the same way that the videos we watched last week, from the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, regarding human test subjects in research studies, stressed the importance of ensuring the research question is important enough to warrant using humans in the study, so too is the formation of a research question important, in that if the question is of no value or not researchable, than it is not worth asking or stating. Let’s take the idea of a research hypothesis one step further. Formulating a good hypothesis will give us a statement that is not only testable but one in which the results are reproducible. (Helmenstine, 2019) To be a good study, others need to be able to collect the same data in order to draw their own conclusions about they hypothesis. If for example a research hypothesis states: Patients for whom the evaluation process starts in triage with the collection of blood samples and the initiation of radiology testing, have shorter lengths of stay in the emergency department. Perhaps this study used data collected from the hospital charting system in the emergency department to prove or disprove this hypothesis. The fact that the emergency department charting system can be used to collect this data by someone else who wanted to reproduce this test, is part of what makes this a good hypothesis. But how do we actually start to put our hypothesis together? This may be more complex than I can state in a single discussion board post, but I found a few helpful tips that I think are worth mentioning. (Formatting a testable hypothesis, n.d.; Helmenstine, 2019) 1. Identify your independent and dependent variables 1. Independent - the variable you are controlling/changing 2. Dependent - the variable that is effected (the variable you are measuring) 2. Your conclusion needs to be able to prove or disprove your hypothesis so write your hypothesis as a statement that indicates a relationship between variables 1. Consider writing the hypothesis as an if-then statement about the variables 1. If: the testable proposed relationship 2. Then: the prediction of the expected results 3. Ensure your hypothesis can be tested with results that are reproducible 1. It needs to be something that can be proved or disproved based on the type of research study you conduct When it comes to applied research, it is not just about asking a question or stating a hypothesis, but also choosing a question and phrasing it in a way that leads to answers that will improve our practice. The literature emphasizes that formulating your research question/hypothesis is so important, because it does not only indicate what you are studying, but also the type of research you will need to do. To understand how to apply this to our research I think it helps to look at some examples of types or research and the types of research hypotheses that might go along with them. (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016; p.4) Qualitative Research: 1. Evaluation research - collects data/evidence on the worth/value of a program, process, or technique to establish a basis for decision making 1. Example: When training new emergency department nurses, rotations on inpatient units during their orientation process, help them develop a better understanding of patient flow throughout the entire hospital. 2. Explanation: We believe that including off unit rotations in the orientation process, improves knowledge and understanding for new nurses 2. Action research - address a specific problem in a practice based setting to facilitate change 1. Example: Having a phone application on nurses' hospital issued phones, with built in reminders, helps improve nursing compliance with reevaluating patients’ pain levels with in one hour of pain medication administration. 2. Explanation: If we have a problem with nursing compliance on pain reevaluation, and we predict that providing a reminder tool will help resolve the problem 3. Appreciative inquiry - usually in organization based settings to tell a story of what works well to facilitate innovation 1. Example: Patients who already have a profile within the hospital network and are registered on subsequent visits via biometric fingerprint scanning, are registered faster and with fewer data errors in the hospital registration system. 2. Explanation: If we want to show that a change in practice behavior within the hospital organization, of registering patients via fingerprint technology, rather than typing in data is working well to help manage the registration process I think the topic of formulating a testable research hypothesis is extremely vast. I have probably only skimmed the surface of it, but I hope this helps give everyone a basic idea and serves as a point for further discussion. Sources: Helmenstine, A. (2019). Requirements for a testable hypothesis. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/testable-hypothesis-explanation-and-examples-609100 Formatting a testable hypothesis (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/bio100/bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm Merriam, S. and Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. 4th Ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Michaelson, A. (n.d.). The difference between research questions and hypothesis. Retrieved from https://sciencing.com/the-difference-between-research-questions-hypothesis12749682.html Prasad, S.; Rao, A.; Rehani, E. (2001). Developing hypothesis and research questions [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://www.public.asu.edu/~kroel/www500/hypothesis.pdf Research questions and hypotheses, (n.d.). Retrieved from https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/research_ready/quantresearch/que stion_hypoth I’ll begin putting up the framework that we can all work to refine into a formal quantitative research question. Please use all the creative license you desire. QUESTION: How do we notify the most people, across the spectrum age and functionally limited groups to provide advisement for evacuation? IS IT WORTH ASKING? It was noted in an online blog for the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) that the elderly and functionally limited were a large portion of fire fatalities. As emergency managers, we should strive to have an optimal response to notifications of impending harm. https://community.nfpa.org/community/fire-break/blog/2018/11/19/7-questions-answersabout-californias-wildfires POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS?: The same system that broadcasts AMBER alerts via cell phone texts should be used to transmit evacuation messages. Though I have a metropolitan bias, even if I am not carrying my phone, I can hear the multiple phones going off near me and then ask what is going on. The older style of mass notification is reverse 911 calling but is dependent on the municipality. POTENTIAL STRUCTURES: • Descriptive: We can ask HOW MUCH of the entire population can we successfully notify based on which method. I think this is the crux of what we want to know but may not parse out the best method here • Comparative: We can compare notification methods of either mass text or reverse 911 along with comparing between chosen age groups/function groups. This would also potentially yield the highest risk group to focus on. • Relationship-Based: We can compare the relationship between the use of technology and age group/functional group. I feel that it would just become a convoluted process to eventually discuss which method of notification is best. COMPARATIVE STRUCTURE: • Starting phrase: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE in the number of people can we successfully notify using mass text versus reverse 911 • Dependant variable: Successful delivery of information i.e. notification of mass alert message • Independent variable: Method of how we notify, mass text or reverse 911 • Groups we have an interest in: I see three groups: maybe bias but including children in 60 years (using the World Health Organization indication of “elderly”) ; functionally limited (developmental delayed, mobility impaired) VARIABLES: • Categorical: I believe our variable fits this best, we could propose that it would be dichotomous as it will be an either/or response: Yes, I received the notification : No, no reply was generated implying they did not receive notification • Continuous: I imagine we could argue we are on a ration as no replies could be interpreted as absolute zero on our notification scale Laerd Dissertation. (2012) How to Structure Quantitative Research Questions Lund Research LTD. Retrieved 2/4/2019 http://dissertation.laerd.com/how-to-structure-quantitative-researchquestions.php World Health Organization. (2019) Proposed Working Definition of Older People in Africa for MDS Project Retrieved 2/4/2019 https://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/ageingdefnolder/en/ Deaton, L. (2018) 7 Questions & Answers About California’s Wildfires National Fire Protection Association XChange blog. Retrieved 2/4/2019 https://community.nfpa.org/community/firebreak/blog/2018/11/19/7-questions-answers-about-californias-wildfires What is the purpose of Qualitative Research? What is it? ANS: some say to develop new theory some say to verify existing theory The answer is probably both Some define qualitative research as that which the researcher observes and questions subjects in their own habitat, to engage them and learn their understanding in a natural setting. The qualitative approach uses: interviews of people, who are necessary, observe the interactions of subjects, review written documentation, and summarize data gathered Publish documented findings The qualitative design yields a tremendous amount of data to be analyzed. Decisions on how to collect and analysis techniques need to be decided prior to data collection. Qualitative research is based upon a theory as is all research. A driving question. Let’s look at one - the area of volunteerism. What is going on with volunteerism? Why do you think it is declining? Example: A lot of different areas have noticed a decline in volunteerism. There used to be a high percentage of volunteers. Today we have far less. If we wanted to find out why people are not volunteering how would we go about it? Develop a theory statement about volunteerism of today. Qualitative research must begin with a hypothesis or theory question. However, qualitative research is grounded in the ideals that more questions will be developed as the research progresses. That is the beauty of the design that it is flexible enough to allow new direction. Quantitative is not so flexible. If you change in mid stream the entire study is invalidated. The term you will find in the literature is that the research question is fluid in qualitative research. Another characteristic of qualitative research is that is does not have strict boundaries. Validity and Reliability How can a qualitative phenomenological or an ethnographic study be more valid than a quantitative study? Answer: many will say that the quantitative researcher gathers data in an artificial setting as opposed to the qualitative researcher who works in the habitat of the subject. The ethnographic designer studies subjects in their natural settings for long periods of time. Many times the research is guided by what is found by the subjects and how important they feel the information truly is. Many times the data collected is shared with the subjects to see if they “feel” it is correct or justifiable. Validity takes on one of 4 forms: Rival Explanations - key is to look for alternative themes or other possibilities, looking for other explanations that would be logical. The inability to find any data or evidence to support another theme adds credibility to the initial findings. Negative Cases - studying the cases that do not fit the pattern. They can tell us as much. Example: in studying drug abusers and the Dare program. We look at the successes. In the negative cases we look at the kids who went through the program and still choose to use drugs. Why? Triangulation - using different collection techniques to study the same program. What we did previously with the three methods is a form of triangulation. Example would be to use questionnaires and interview or having two simultaneous studies being conducted with the same design obtaining two interviews of the same topic and getting the same answers. This validates. Design Checks - it is important to know if you had flaws in design based upon time frames or any outside influences. i.e., interviewing personnel while the union rep was in the base or observing while JCAHO was in town. Or simple time frame differences prior to patients getting their medications. Researcher Effects program participants behaving differently because of the presence of a researcher something like the Hawthorne Effect Investigators becoming personally involved Researcher biases - volunteers should not be involved in EMS Researcher competence Intellectual Rigor - the ability to be tenacious in looking at the data over and over again to review categories and organization of the data gathered. Reliability - is concerned with the ability to replicate the study findings. External reliability is concerned with whether two researchers would come to similar conclusions in the same study setting. Internal reliability is concerned with the extent to which another researcher would organize and draw the same conclusions of field data gathered. In other words, if one researcher gathers and interprets the data, would another take that same data and organize it and interpret it the same. Some would say that ethnographic studies have trouble with reliability. Why? ANS: because they can never truly be replicated. We study at a certain time and in a unique manner. Externally this can be eased by the following Researcher status position - by simply recording in the study report exactly what the role of the researcher was and his status. May not be able to duplicate but can now understand this better. Informant Choices - the problem of informant bias or the fact that different groupings of informants may not get along with each other, or that the researcher may have chosen subjects or subjects may have gravitated to the research that may be atypical of the total group. Social situations - informants may be influenced by the social setting they are interviewed. If you ask a paramedic questions in the work setting versus out of uniform at home or in a group or individually. Reliability can be aided by reporting the setting. Analytic Constructs - one must be as clear and concise about how the study was conducted the relationships, assumptions that were made, terminology etc... Lastly you must be complete in how you designed and constructed data collection. Shortcuts cannot be taken. Internal Reliability - that two or more researchers in the same study agree on what they have seen. To increase internal reliability: In field interviews you must keep detailed notes of what people say (low inference notes) and detailed notes of what behaviors and activities were seen (high inference notes). By using larger numbers of researchers you increase the internal reliability. This is not always done and usually conducted by a pair rather than just one. The use of participant researchers to clarify and interpret what the researcher thinks he heard. This is a second set of eyes and ears that are educated. This is an ongoing problem with the media. Why do they always get it wrong? They do not understand the culture many times. The researcher can review his work with peers, including simultaneous studies supporting similar findings and include other researcher interpretations of the findings using mechanically recorded data: audiotape, videotape, pictures This allows other researchers to review the data with more reliability and relevance for comparison and duplication.
Purchase answer to see full attachment