Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.
Showing 576–600 of 608 results
A pretest usually examines a specific instrument or procedure, a feasibility study investigates whether and how a future study can be done, and a pilot tests part or all of the intended future study on a smaller scale. The boundaries can vary across disciplines, so purpose matters more than the label alone.
Read Guide →You can test much more than a questionnaire before the full study begins. Recruitment, consent, participant procedures, intervention delivery, measurements, follow-up, data management, staff workflows, and planned analysis processes may all warrant testing when they contain meaningful uncertainty.
Read Guide →A data collection procedure is practical when researchers and participants can complete it consistently under realistic study conditions without unacceptable burden, missing data, resource demands, or operational problems. Testing the full workflow can reveal problems that an instrument alone cannot.
Read Guide →A pilot showing that the original design will not work is not necessarily a failed pilot. The finding may prevent a much larger failure by identifying what needs revision, further testing, or reconsideration before the main study begins.
Read Guide →There is no universal number or percentage of changes that turns a revised study into a different study. What matters is whether the modifications preserve the core research question and inferential structure or materially change what is being studied, in whom, how, and for what conclusion.
Read Guide →A research protocol is the written plan for how a study will be conducted. Writing it before data collection makes key methodological decisions explicit, reviewable, and easier to distinguish from decisions made after seeing the data.
Read Guide →A research protocol should contain enough information to explain why the study is being conducted and exactly how it will be carried out. Its contents should reflect the study design and applicable requirements rather than a universal template.
Read Guide →A research protocol should be detailed enough for the study to be understood, critically reviewed, and implemented without guessing at consequential methodological decisions. More detail is not automatically better; the right level depends on the study and the purpose of the information.
Read Guide →Not every research decision must be permanently fixed before data collection. Legitimate flexibility is possible when the methodology requires adaptation, circumstances cannot reasonably be anticipated, or later decisions follow criteria established in advance.
Read Guide →A coherent research protocol creates an explicit chain from the research problem to the questions or objectives and then to the design, evidence, and analysis. Every major methodological choice should help answer a stated question rather than merely appearing reasonable on its own.
Read Guide →Sampling, measurement, data collection, and analysis should operate as one connected system. A strong protocol checks not only whether each component is defensible on its own, but whether the evidence produced at one stage is suitable for what the next stage requires.
Read Guide →A research protocol benefits from review by people who can evaluate its scientific logic, methods, analysis, feasibility, and ethical implications. The right reviewers depend on the study, and formal ethics review should not be confused with the broader methodological review a protocol may need.
Read Guide →Preregistration records important research decisions before the results are known, while Registered Reports add peer review before the study is completed. Neither requires researchers to predict everything perfectly or abandon legitimate changes and exploration.
Read Guide →Preregistration creates a time-stamped record of important research decisions before the relevant results are known. Its main value is making it easier to distinguish advance plans from decisions influenced by the data.
Read Guide →A useful preregistration specifies the decisions that matter for interpreting your eventual claims, not every minor detail of the study. Learn what usually deserves advance specification and how detailed the plan should be.
Read Guide →A protocol describes how you plan to conduct a study; preregistration creates a time-stamped record of research decisions before the relevant results are known. The same document can sometimes serve both purposes, but the concepts are not interchangeable.
Read Guide →Preregistration records a study plan before the relevant results are known. A Registered Report adds prospective journal peer review and in-principle acceptance, making publication less dependent on how the results turn out.
Read Guide →Preregistration can be valuable beyond conventional experiments, but not every study benefits in the same way. Its usefulness depends on which decisions can meaningfully be specified in advance and what transparency the advance record adds.
Read Guide →Qualitative research can be preregistered without pretending that its design is fixed or hypothesis-driven. A useful qualitative preregistration documents the study's starting point while preserving legitimate methodological adaptation.
Read Guide →Exploratory research can be preregistered without turning it into confirmatory research. The key is to preregister the starting point, scope, procedures, and decision rules you genuinely know in advance while leaving discoveries open.
Read Guide →You do not have to classify an entire study as either exploratory or confirmatory before collecting data. What matters is whether particular claims and analyses were specified before researchers learned from the evidence used to evaluate them.
Read Guide →A useful deviation report tells readers what was preregistered, what actually happened, why the change occurred, and when the decision was made. The goal is to make differences easy to find and interpret rather than forcing readers to reconstruct them.
Read Guide →Recruitment problems do not automatically mean that a study has failed. Diagnose why recruitment is falling short before changing the strategy, because some solutions can alter the sample, introduce bias, or change the study itself.
Read Guide →Falling short of a planned sample size does not automatically make a study worthless, but it may substantially change what the data can establish. The appropriate response is to assess the consequences of the smaller sample rather than retroactively making the original target disappear.
Read Guide →A control or comparison group can fail to function as intended even when recruitment and data collection continue normally. The key is to determine what actually happened in each group, why it happened, and whether the intended comparison still supports the study's research question.
Read Guide →