similarities of hypothesis and theory

Alchem Learning

Similarities and Differences Between Hypothesis and Theory

In the realm of scientific inquiry, two terms that are often used interchangeably but hold distinct meanings are “hypothesis” and “theory.” Both play crucial roles in the scientific method, contributing to the understanding and advancement of knowledge. This article delves into the similarities and differences between these two fundamental scientific concepts.

Hypothesis: The Starting Point

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. It is an educated guess or a tentative solution to a problem based on existing knowledge. Scientists formulate hypotheses to guide their research and make predictions that can be tested through experimentation or observation.

Characteristics

• Testability: A good hypothesis is testable, meaning it can be investigated through empirical methods.
• Falsifiability: It should be possible to prove the hypothesis false through experimentation or observation.
• Specificity: The hypothesis must be clear and specific, outlining the expected outcome of the experiment.

If plants receive more sunlight, then their growth rate will increase.

Theory: A Comprehensive Explanation

On the other hand, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Unlike a hypothesis, a theory has withstood extensive testing and scrutiny, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding a particular phenomenon.

• Explanatory Power: Theories explain a wide range of phenomena and observations.
• Predictive Capability: They can predict future observations and experiments accurately.
• Consistency: The components of a theory are internally consistent and align with existing scientific knowledge.

The theory of evolution explains the biodiversity of life through the processes of natural selection and genetic variation.

Similarities

1. both guide scientific inquiry.

Both hypotheses and theories play integral roles in the scientific method, guiding researchers in the pursuit of knowledge. Hypotheses set the initial direction for experiments, while theories provide overarching frameworks.

2. Subject to Revision

Scientific knowledge is dynamic, and both hypotheses and theories are subject to revision based on new evidence. As more data becomes available, scientists may refine or even discard hypotheses and theories.

Differences

1. level of certainty.

The primary distinction lies in the level of certainty associated with each term. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that requires testing, while a theory is a well-established explanation supported by a substantial body of evidence.

Hypotheses are narrow in scope, addressing specific questions or problems, while theories have a broader scope, encompassing a wide range of related phenomena.

In conclusion, hypotheses and theories are essential components of the scientific process, each serving distinct roles. Hypotheses initiate investigations, while theories provide robust explanations for observed phenomena. Recognizing the differences and similarities between these concepts is crucial for understanding how scientific knowledge evolves and progresses.

Related References:

• Scientific Method – Wikipedia
• Understanding Science – University of California Museum of Paleontology
• The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory – ThoughtCo

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply, discover more from alchem learning.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Hypothesis vs. Theory

A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science , a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.

Comparison chart

Examples of Theory and Hypothesis

Theory: Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory because it has been tested and verified innumerable times, with results consistently verifying Einstein's conclusion. However, simply because Einstein's conclusion has become a theory does not mean testing of this theory has stopped; all science is ongoing. See also the Big Bang theory , germ theory , and climate change .

Hypothesis: One might think that a prisoner who learns a work skill while in prison will be less likely to commit a crime when released. This is a hypothesis, an "educated guess." The scientific method can be used to test this hypothesis, to either prove it is false or prove that it warrants further study. (Note: Simply because a hypothesis is not found to be false does not mean it is true all or even most of the time. If it is consistently true after considerable time and research, it may be on its way to becoming a theory.)

This video further explains the difference between a theory and a hypothesis:

Common Misconception

People often tend to say "theory" when what they're actually talking about is a hypothesis. For instance, "Migraines are caused by drinking coffee after 2 p.m. — well, it's just a theory, not a rule."

This is actually a logically reasoned proposal based on an observation — say 2 instances of drinking coffee after 2 p.m. caused a migraine — but even if this were true, the migraine could have actually been caused by some other factors.

Because this observation is merely a reasoned possibility, it is testable and can be falsified — which makes it a hypothesis, not a theory.

• What is a Scientific Hypothesis? - LiveScience
• Wikipedia:Scientific theory

Related Comparisons

Share this comparison via:

If you read this far, you should follow us:

"Hypothesis vs Theory." Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 3 Sep 2024. < >

Comments: Hypothesis vs Theory

Anonymous comments (2).

October 11, 2013, 1:11pm "In science, a theory is a well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses." But there's no such thing as "proven hypotheses". Hypotheses can be tested/falsified, they can't be "proven". That's just not how science works. Logical deductions based on axioms can be proven, but not scientific hypotheses. On top of that I find it somewhat strange to claim that a theory doesn't have to be testable, if it's built up from hypotheses, which DO have to be testable... — 80.✗.✗.139

May 6, 2014, 11:45pm "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." this statement is poorly formed because it implies that a thing is a theory until it gets proven and then it is somehow promoted to fact. this is just a misunderstanding of what the words mean, and of how science progresses generally. to say that a theory is inherently dubious because "it isn't a fact" is pretty much a meaningless statement. no expression which qualified as a mere fact could do a very good job of explaining the complicated process by which species have arisen on Earth over the last billion years. in fact, if you claimed that you could come up with such a single fact, now THAT would be dubious! everything we observe in nature supports the theory of evolution, and nothing we observe contradicts it. when you can say this about a theory, it's a pretty fair bet that the theory is correct. — 71.✗.✗.151

• Accuracy vs Precision
• Deductive vs Inductive
• Subjective vs Objective
• Subconscious vs Unconscious mind
• Qualitative vs Quantitative
• Creationism vs Evolution

Edit or create new comparisons in your area of expertise.

Stay connected

© All rights reserved.

Hypothesis vs. Theory

What's the difference.

Hypothesis and theory are two terms commonly used in scientific research, but they have distinct meanings and purposes. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation or prediction for a specific phenomenon or observation. It is based on limited evidence and serves as a starting point for further investigation. In contrast, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation that has been extensively tested and supported by a wide range of evidence. It is a comprehensive framework that explains a broad set of phenomena and is widely accepted within the scientific community. While a hypothesis is more tentative and subject to change, a theory represents a higher level of confidence and understanding in the scientific field.

Further Detail

Introduction.

In the realm of scientific inquiry, hypotheses and theories play crucial roles in the development and understanding of knowledge. While both are essential components of the scientific method, they differ in their scope, level of evidence, and the degree of generalization they offer. This article aims to explore and compare the attributes of hypotheses and theories, shedding light on their distinct characteristics and their contributions to scientific progress.

Hypothesis: The Foundation of Scientific Inquiry

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation or prediction for a specific phenomenon or observation. It serves as the initial step in the scientific method, where researchers formulate educated guesses based on existing knowledge and observations. Hypotheses are typically testable and falsifiable, allowing scientists to design experiments or gather data to either support or reject them.

One key attribute of a hypothesis is its specificity. It focuses on a particular aspect of a phenomenon and aims to explain or predict it. For example, a hypothesis might propose that increased exposure to sunlight leads to higher vitamin D levels in humans. This hypothesis is specific to the relationship between sunlight and vitamin D, providing a clear direction for further investigation.

Furthermore, hypotheses are often based on preliminary evidence or observations. They are formulated to address gaps in knowledge or to explain puzzling phenomena. Hypotheses can be derived from existing theories or can emerge from exploratory research. They serve as the foundation for scientific inquiry, guiding researchers towards the collection of empirical evidence.

It is important to note that a hypothesis is not considered a proven fact, even if it is supported by initial evidence. It requires rigorous testing and validation through experimentation and data analysis. If a hypothesis withstands repeated testing and scrutiny, it may evolve into a theory.

Theory: A Comprehensive Explanation

A theory, in the scientific context, is a well-substantiated explanation that encompasses a wide range of observations, experiments, and hypotheses. Unlike a hypothesis, a theory is supported by a substantial body of evidence and has withstood extensive testing and scrutiny. Theories provide a comprehensive framework for understanding natural phenomena and have a higher level of generalization compared to hypotheses.

One key attribute of a theory is its ability to explain and predict a broad range of related phenomena. For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life on Earth, the fossil record, and the similarities between different species. Theories are built upon a foundation of multiple lines of evidence, including experimental data, observational studies, and mathematical models.

Theories are also subject to revision and refinement as new evidence emerges. However, this does not undermine their validity or significance. The process of scientific inquiry involves constantly challenging and refining existing theories to accommodate new findings. Theories are not static, but rather dynamic frameworks that adapt to incorporate new knowledge.

Moreover, theories are widely accepted within the scientific community due to their robustness and explanatory power. They have undergone rigorous peer review and scrutiny, ensuring that they meet the highest standards of scientific integrity. Theories provide a solid foundation for further research and serve as a basis for the development of new hypotheses.

Comparing Hypotheses and Theories

While hypotheses and theories share the common goal of explaining natural phenomena, they differ in several key attributes. Let's explore some of the main points of comparison:

Scope and Generalization

Hypotheses are typically narrow in scope, focusing on specific aspects of a phenomenon. They aim to explain or predict a particular observation or relationship. In contrast, theories have a broader scope and offer a higher level of generalization. They provide comprehensive explanations that encompass multiple phenomena and observations.

Evidence and Testing

Hypotheses are formulated based on preliminary evidence or observations. They serve as starting points for scientific investigation and require empirical testing to determine their validity. Hypotheses are often tested through experiments, data analysis, or observational studies. Theories, on the other hand, are supported by a substantial body of evidence. They have withstood extensive testing and scrutiny, incorporating multiple lines of evidence from various sources.

Level of Certainty

Due to their preliminary nature, hypotheses do not offer a high level of certainty. They are educated guesses that require further testing and validation. In contrast, theories provide a higher level of certainty and confidence. They are well-substantiated explanations that have been extensively tested and supported by a wide range of evidence.

Development and Evolution

Hypotheses are often derived from existing theories or emerge from exploratory research. They serve as the initial step in scientific inquiry and can evolve into theories if supported by substantial evidence. Theories, on the other hand, are the result of extensive research, testing, and refinement. They are dynamic frameworks that adapt to incorporate new evidence and insights.

Acceptance and Consensus

While hypotheses are subject to individual interpretation and may vary among researchers, theories are widely accepted within the scientific community. Theories have undergone rigorous peer review and scrutiny, ensuring a high level of consensus among experts. They provide a solid foundation for scientific understanding and guide further research.

In summary, hypotheses and theories are integral components of the scientific method, each serving distinct roles in the pursuit of knowledge. Hypotheses provide specific explanations or predictions for phenomena and act as the initial step in scientific inquiry. They require empirical testing and validation to determine their validity. Theories, on the other hand, offer comprehensive explanations that encompass a wide range of observations and have withstood extensive testing. They provide a higher level of generalization and serve as the foundation for scientific understanding. While hypotheses and theories differ in their scope, level of evidence, and generalization, they both contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge and our understanding of the natural world.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

What to Know A hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data. Because of the rigors of experiment and control, it is much more likely that a theory will be true than a hypothesis.

As anyone who has worked in a laboratory or out in the field can tell you, science is about process: that of observing, making inferences about those observations, and then performing tests to see if the truth value of those inferences holds up. The scientific method is designed to be a rigorous procedure for acquiring knowledge about the world around us.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Toward that end, science employs a particular vocabulary for describing how ideas are proposed, tested, and supported or disproven. And that's where we see the difference between a hypothesis and a theory .

A hypothesis is an assumption, something proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

What is a Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is usually tentative, an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

When a character which has been lost in a breed, reappears after a great number of generations, the most probable hypothesis is, not that the offspring suddenly takes after an ancestor some hundred generations distant, but that in each successive generation there has been a tendency to reproduce the character in question, which at last, under unknown favourable conditions, gains an ascendancy. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species , 1859 According to one widely reported hypothesis , cell-phone transmissions were disrupting the bees' navigational abilities. (Few experts took the cell-phone conjecture seriously; as one scientist said to me, "If that were the case, Dave Hackenberg's hives would have been dead a long time ago.") Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker , 6 Aug. 2007

What is a Theory?

A theory , in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory . Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, its likelihood as truth is much higher than that of a hypothesis.

It is evident, on our theory , that coasts merely fringed by reefs cannot have subsided to any perceptible amount; and therefore they must, since the growth of their corals, either have remained stationary or have been upheaved. Now, it is remarkable how generally it can be shown, by the presence of upraised organic remains, that the fringed islands have been elevated: and so far, this is indirect evidence in favour of our theory . Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle , 1839 An example of a fundamental principle in physics, first proposed by Galileo in 1632 and extended by Einstein in 1905, is the following: All observers traveling at constant velocity relative to one another, should witness identical laws of nature. From this principle, Einstein derived his theory of special relativity. Alan Lightman, Harper's , December 2011

Non-Scientific Use

In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch (though theory is more common in this regard):

The theory of the teacher with all these immigrant kids was that if you spoke English loudly enough they would eventually understand. E. L. Doctorow, Loon Lake , 1979 Chicago is famous for asking questions for which there can be no boilerplate answers. Example: given the probability that the federal tax code, nondairy creamer, Dennis Rodman and the art of mime all came from outer space, name something else that has extraterrestrial origins and defend your hypothesis . John McCormick, Newsweek , 5 Apr. 1999 In his mind's eye, Miller saw his case suddenly taking form: Richard Bailey had Helen Brach killed because she was threatening to sue him over the horses she had purchased. It was, he realized, only a theory , but it was one he felt certain he could, in time, prove. Full of urgency, a man with a mission now that he had a hypothesis to guide him, he issued new orders to his troops: Find out everything you can about Richard Bailey and his crowd. Howard Blum, Vanity Fair , January 1995

And sometimes one term is used as a genus, or a means for defining the other:

Laplace's popular version of his astronomy, the Système du monde , was famous for introducing what came to be known as the nebular hypothesis , the theory that the solar system was formed by the condensation, through gradual cooling, of the gaseous atmosphere (the nebulae) surrounding the sun. Louis Menand, The Metaphysical Club , 2001 Researchers use this information to support the gateway drug theory — the hypothesis that using one intoxicating substance leads to future use of another. Jordy Byrd, The Pacific Northwest Inlander , 6 May 2015 Fox, the business and economics columnist for Time magazine, tells the story of the professors who enabled those abuses under the banner of the financial theory known as the efficient market hypothesis . Paul Krugman, The New York Times Book Review , 9 Aug. 2009

Incorrect Interpretations of "Theory"

Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.

The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)

This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general use to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.

The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said , a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”

While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."

More Differences Explained

• Epidemic vs. Pandemic
• Diagnosis vs. Prognosis
• Treatment vs. Cure

Word of the Day

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Games & Quizzes

Commonly Confused

'canceled' or 'cancelled', 'virus' vs. 'bacteria', your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, is it 'jail' or 'prison', 'deduction' vs. 'induction' vs. 'abduction', grammar & usage, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), the difference between 'i.e.' and 'e.g.', plural and possessive names: a guide, 31 useful rhetorical devices, pilfer: how to play and win, 8 words with fascinating histories, flower etymologies for your spring garden, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat.

• Key Differences

Know the Differences & Comparisons

Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory

The term ‘hypothesis’ is often contrasted with the term theory which implies an idea, typically proven, which aims at explaining facts and events. Both hypothesis and theory are important components of developing an approach, but these are not same. There exist a fine line of difference between hypothesis and theory, discussed in this article, have a look.

Content: Hypothesis Vs Theory

Comparison chart.

Definition of Hypothesis

An unproven statement or a mere assumption to be proved or disproved, about a factor, on which the researcher is interested, is called a hypothesis. It is a tentative statement, which is concerned with the relationship between two or more phenomena, as specified by the theoretical framework. The hypothesis has to go through a test, to determine its validity.

In other words, the hypothesis is a predictive statement, which can be objectively verified and tested through scientific methods, and relates the independent factor to the dependent one. To a researcher, a hypothesis is more like a question which he intends to resolve. The salient features of hypothesis are:

• It must be clear and precise or else the reliability of the inferences drawn will be questioned.
• It can be put to the test.
• If the hypothesis is relational, it should state the relationship between independent and dependent variables.
• The hypothesis should be open and responsive to testing within the stipulated time.
• It should be limited in scope and must be clearly defined.

Definition of Theory

An idea or a broad range of ideas that are assumed to be true, which aims at explaining cause and effect relationship between multiple observed phenomena. It is based on hypothesis, which after a thorough analysis and continuous testing and confirmation through observation and experiments, becomes a theory. As it is backed by evidence, it is scientifically proven.

Just like hypothesis, theories can also be accepted or rejected. As more and more information is gathered on the subject, theories are modified accordingly, to increase the accuracy of prediction over time.

Key Differences Between Hypothesis and Theory

The points given below are vital, so far as the difference between hypothesis and theory is concerned:

• Hypothesis refers to a supposition, based on few pieces of evidence, as an inception of further research or investigation. A theory is a well-affirmed explanation of natural phenomena, which is frequently validated through experimentation and observation.
• While the hypothesis is based on a little amount of data, the theory is based on a wide set of data.
• The hypothesis is an unproven statement; that can be tested. On the other hand, the theory is a scientifically tested and proven explanation of fact or event.
• Hypothesis relies on suggestions, prediction, possibility or projects whereas a theory is supported by evidence and is verified.
• The hypothesis may or may not be proved true, so the result is uncertain. On the contrary, the theory is one, that is assumed to be true and so its result is certain.
• Hypothesis and theory are two levels of the scientific method, i.e. theory follows hypothesis and the basis for research is hypothesis whose outcome is a theory.

Both hypothesis and theory are testable and falsifiable. When a hypothesis is proved true, by passing all critical tests and analysis, it becomes a theory. So, the hypothesis is very different from theory, as the former is something unproven but the latter is a proven and tested statement.

You Might Also Like:

BELLENS MOTEBEJANE says

July 15, 2019 at 2:31 pm

AMAIZING !WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEORY AND LAW?

February 17, 2022 at 3:47 am

Thanks, I’m finally clear on this for the first time in my life of 65 years

Curtis Le Gendre says

September 14, 2022 at 8:02 am

Great Information

Kenneth says

November 19, 2022 at 2:10 am

I was looking for some takes on this topic, and I found your article quite informative. It has given me a fresh perspective on the topic tackled. Thanks!

Stefanie Banis says

February 9, 2024 at 6:35 pm

Very informative! Thank you! I understand the difference much better now!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Science Notes Posts
• Contact Science Notes
• Todd Helmenstine Biography
• Anne Helmenstine Biography
• Free Printable Periodic Tables (PDF and PNG)
• Periodic Table Wallpapers
• Interactive Periodic Table
• Periodic Table Posters
• Science Experiments for Kids
• How to Grow Crystals
• Chemistry Projects
• Fire and Flames Projects
• Holiday Science
• Chemistry Problems With Answers
• Physics Problems
• Unit Conversion Example Problems
• Chemistry Worksheets
• Biology Worksheets
• Periodic Table Worksheets
• Physical Science Worksheets
• Science Lab Worksheets
• My Amazon Books

Scientific Theory Definition and Examples

A scientific theory is a well-established explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Theories come from scientific data and multiple experiments. While it is not possible to prove a theory, a single contrary result using the scientific method can disprove it. In other words, a theory is testable and falsifiable.

Examples of Scientific Theories

There are many scientific theory in different disciplines:

• Astronomy : theory of stellar nucleosynthesis , theory of stellar evolution
• Biology : cell theory, theory of evolution, germ theory, dual inheritance theory
• Chemistry : atomic theory, Bronsted Lowry acid-base theory , kinetic molecular theory of gases , Lewis acid-base theory , molecular theory, valence bond theory
• Geology : climate change theory, plate tectonics theory
• Physics : Big Bang theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity, quantum field theory

Criteria for a Theory

In order for an explanation of the natural world to be a theory, it meets certain criteria:

• A theory is falsifiable. At some point, a theory withstands testing and experimentation using the scientific method.
• A theory is supported by lots of independent evidence.
• A theory explains existing experimental results and predicts outcomes of new experiments at least as well as other theories.

Difference Between a Scientific Theory and Theory

Usually, a scientific theory is just called a theory. However, a theory in science means something different from the way most people use the word. For example, if frogs rain down from the sky, a person might observe the frogs and say, “I have a theory about why that happened.” While that theory might be an explanation, it is not based on multiple observations and experiments. It might not be testable and falsifiable. It’s not a scientific theory (although it could eventually become one).

Value of Disproven Theories

Even though some theories are incorrect, they often retain value.

For example, Arrhenius acid-base theory does not explain the behavior of chemicals lacking hydrogen that behave as acids. The Bronsted Lowry and Lewis theories do a better job of explaining this behavior. Yet, the Arrhenius theory predicts the behavior of most acids and is easier for people to understand.

Another example is the theory of Newtonian mechanics. The theory of relativity is much more inclusive than Newtonian mechanics, which breaks down in certain frames of reference or at speeds close to the speed of light . But, Newtonian mechanics is much simpler to understand and its equations apply to everyday behavior.

Difference Between a Scientific Theory and a Scientific Law

The scientific method leads to the formulation of both scientific theories and laws . Both theories and laws are falsifiable. Both theories and laws help with making predictions about the natural world. However, there is a key difference.

A theory explains why or how something works, while a law describes what happens without explaining it. Often, you see laws written in the form of equations or formulas.

Theories and laws are related, but theories never become laws or vice versa.

Theory vs Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a proposition that is tested via an experiment. A theory results from many, many tested hypotheses.

Theory vs Fact

Theories depend on facts, but the two words mean different things. A fact is an irrefutable piece of evidence or data. Facts never change. A theory, on the other hand, may be modified or disproven.

Difference Between a Theory and a Model

Both theories and models allow a scientist to form a hypothesis and make predictions about future outcomes. However, a theory both describes and explains, while a model only describes. For example, a model of the solar system shows the arrangement of planets and asteroids in a plane around the Sun, but it does not explain how or why they got into their positions.

• Frigg, Roman (2006). “ Scientific Representation and the Semantic View of Theories .”  Theoria . 55 (2): 183–206. 
• Halvorson, Hans (2012). “What Scientific Theories Could Not Be.”  Philosophy of Science . 79 (2): 183–206. doi: 10.1086/664745
• McComas, William F. (December 30, 2013).  The Language of Science Education: An Expanded Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts in Science Teaching and Learning . Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-94-6209-497-0.
• National Academy of Sciences (US) (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (2nd ed.). National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6024  ISBN 978-0-309-06406-4. 
• Suppe, Frederick (1998). “Understanding Scientific Theories: An Assessment of Developments, 1969–1998.”  Philosophy of Science . 67: S102–S115. doi: 10.1086/392812

Related Posts

Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law

Dorling Kindersley / Getty Images

• Physics Laws, Concepts, and Principles
• Quantum Physics
• Important Physicists
• Thermodynamics
• Cosmology & Astrophysics
• Weather & Climate

• M.S., Mathematics Education, Indiana University
• B.A., Physics, Wabash College

In common usage, the words hypothesis, model, theory, and law have different interpretations and are at times used without precision, but in science they have very exact meanings.

Perhaps the most difficult and intriguing step is the development of a specific, testable hypothesis. A useful hypothesis enables predictions by applying deductive reasoning, often in the form of mathematical analysis. It is a limited statement regarding the cause and effect in a specific situation, which can be tested by experimentation and observation or by statistical analysis of the probabilities from the data obtained. The outcome of the test hypothesis should be currently unknown, so that the results can provide useful data regarding the validity of the hypothesis.

Sometimes a hypothesis is developed that must wait for new knowledge or technology to be testable. The concept of atoms was proposed by the ancient Greeks , who had no means of testing it. Centuries later, when more knowledge became available, the hypothesis gained support and was eventually accepted by the scientific community, though it has had to be amended many times over the year. Atoms are not indivisible, as the Greeks supposed.

A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity. The Bohr model of the atom , for example, depicts electrons circling the atomic nucleus in a fashion similar to planets in the solar system. This model is useful in determining the energies of the quantum states of the electron in the simple hydrogen atom, but it is by no means represents the true nature of the atom. Scientists (and science students) often use such idealized models  to get an initial grasp on analyzing complex situations.

Theory and Law

A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis (or group of related hypotheses) which has been confirmed through repeated testing, almost always conducted over a span of many years. Generally, a theory is an explanation for a set of related phenomena, like the theory of evolution or the big bang theory . 

The word "law" is often invoked in reference to a specific mathematical equation that relates the different elements within a theory. Pascal's Law refers an equation that describes differences in pressure based on height. In the overall theory of universal gravitation developed by Sir Isaac Newton , the key equation that describes the gravitational attraction between two objects is called the law of gravity .

These days, physicists rarely apply the word "law" to their ideas. In part, this is because so many of the previous "laws of nature" were found to be not so much laws as guidelines, that work well within certain parameters but not within others.

Scientific Paradigms

Once a scientific theory is established, it is very hard to get the scientific community to discard it. In physics, the concept of ether as a medium for light wave transmission ran into serious opposition in the late 1800s, but it was not disregarded until the early 1900s, when Albert Einstein proposed alternate explanations for the wave nature of light that did not rely upon a medium for transmission.

The science philosopher Thomas Kuhn developed the term scientific paradigm to explain the working set of theories under which science operates. He did extensive work on the scientific revolutions that take place when one paradigm is overturned in favor of a new set of theories. His work suggests that the very nature of science changes when these paradigms are significantly different. The nature of physics prior to relativity and quantum mechanics is fundamentally different from that after their discovery, just as biology prior to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is fundamentally different from the biology that followed it. The very nature of the inquiry changes.

One consequence of the scientific method is to try to maintain consistency in the inquiry when these revolutions occur and to avoid attempts to overthrow existing paradigms on ideological grounds.

Occam’s Razor

One principle of note in regards to the scientific method is Occam’s Razor (alternately spelled Ockham's Razor), which is named after the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Occam did not create the concept—the work of Thomas Aquinas and even Aristotle referred to some form of it. The name was first attributed to him (to our knowledge) in the 1800s, indicating that he must have espoused the philosophy enough that his name became associated with it.

The Razor is often stated in Latin as:

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

or, translated to English:

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity

Occam's Razor indicates that the most simple explanation that fits the available data is the one which is preferable. Assuming that two hypotheses presented have equal predictive power, the one which makes the fewest assumptions and hypothetical entities takes precedence. This appeal to simplicity has been adopted by most of science, and is invoked in this popular quote by Albert Einstein:

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

It is significant to note that Occam's Razor does not prove that the simpler hypothesis is, indeed, the true explanation of how nature behaves. Scientific principles should be as simple as possible, but that's no proof that nature itself is simple.

However, it is generally the case that when a more complex system is at work there is some element of the evidence which doesn't fit the simpler hypothesis, so Occam's Razor is rarely wrong as it deals only with hypotheses of purely equal predictive power. The predictive power is more important than the simplicity.

Edited by Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.

• The Basics of Physics in Scientific Study
• Kinetic Molecular Theory of Gases
• De Broglie Hypothesis
• An Introduction to Brownian Motion
• The History of Gravity
• History of the Michelson-Morley Experiment
• Newton's Law of Gravity
• Wave Particle Duality and How It Works
• What Is the Boltzmann Brains Hypothesis?
• Five Great Problems in Theoretical Physics
• The Basics of String Theory
• Understanding Cosmology and Its Impact
• Albert Einstein: What Is Unified Field Theory?
• What Is the Steady-State Theory in Cosmology?
• An Idealized Model in Physics
• What Is Model-Dependent Realism?

Hypothesis vs. Theory: A Simple Guide to Tell Them Apart

By: Author ESLBUZZ

Posted on Last updated: July 27, 2023

Sharing is caring!

Hypothesis and theory are no stranger to those who conduct studies and work in science. These two terms are often used interchangeably by non-researchers, but they have distinct meanings in the scientific community. Understanding the difference between a hypothesis and a theory is essential for anyone interested in scientific research or critical thinking.

In this article, we will explore the differences between hypothesis and theory and provide examples to help you understand how they are used in scientific research. We will also discuss the importance of these terms in the scientific method and how they contribute to our understanding of the natural world. Whether you are a student, a researcher, or simply someone interested in science, this article will provide valuable insights into the world of scientific research.

To help illustrate the differences between hypothesis and theory, we will provide a comparison table that summarizes the key differences between these two terms and examples of how scientists use hypotheses and theories to explain natural phenomena and make predictions about future events. By the end of this article, you will have a clear understanding of the differences between hypothesis and theory and how they are used in scientific research.

Hypothesis vs. Theory

Hypothesis vs. Theory: Definitions

Understanding hypothesis.

A hypothesis is an educated guess or assumption that is made before conducting research. It is a tentative explanation for a phenomenon or observation that is based on limited evidence or prior knowledge. In other words, a hypothesis is a statement that proposes a relationship between two or more variables, which can be tested through further investigation.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have certain characteristics that set them apart from other types of statements. These characteristics include:

• Testable: A hypothesis must be testable through empirical research. This means that it must be possible to collect data that can either support or refute the hypothesis.
• Specific: A hypothesis must be specific in its predictions. It should clearly state what is expected to happen and under what conditions.
• Falsifiable: A hypothesis must be falsifiable, which means that it must be possible to disprove the hypothesis if it is not supported by the evidence.
• Parsimonious: A hypothesis should be simple and straightforward. It should not include unnecessary assumptions or variables.

Examples of Hypothesis

Here are some examples of hypotheses:

• If a plant is exposed to sunlight, then it will grow faster than a plant that is not exposed to sunlight.
• If a person consumes more calories than they burn, then they will gain weight.
• If students are given more time to study for an exam, then they will perform better on the exam.

In summary, a hypothesis is an educated guess or assumption that is made before conducting research. It is testable, specific, falsifiable, and parsimonious. Examples of hypotheses include statements that propose a relationship between two or more variables, which can be tested through further investigation.

Understanding Theory

Definition of Theory

In scientific terms, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on empirical evidence. It is a collection of ideas that have been tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. A theory is a framework that explains how and why things work in a certain way. It is a set of principles that can be used to make predictions about future events.

Characteristics of Theory

A theory has several characteristics that distinguish it from other scientific concepts such as hypotheses or laws. Some of the key characteristics of a theory are:

• A theory is based on empirical evidence and is supported by multiple lines of evidence.
• A theory is constantly evolving and can be modified or refined as new evidence emerges.
• A theory is generally accepted as true by the scientific community and is widely used to make predictions and guide research.
• A theory is not a guess or a hunch, but a well-substantiated explanation that has been rigorously tested.

Examples of Theory

There are many examples of well-established theories in science. Here are a few examples:

In summary, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on empirical evidence. It is a framework that explains how and why things work in a certain way and is constantly evolving as new evidence emerges. Theories are widely accepted as true by the scientific community and are used to make predictions and guide research.

Hypothesis vs. Theory: The Distinctions

As a writer, it is important to understand the differences between a hypothesis and a theory. These two scientific terms are often used interchangeably, but they have drastically different meanings in the world of science. In this section, we will explore the process of formulation, level of proof, and usage in the scientific community.

Process of Formulation

A hypothesis is an educated guess or assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. Hypotheses are often based on observations or previous research and can be either proven or disproven through experimentation.

On the other hand, a theory is a well-established principle that is formed to explain the things already shown in data. Theories are based on a large body of evidence and have been extensively tested and proven through experimentation. The formulation of a theory requires a lot of research, experimentation, and analysis.

Level of Proof

The level of proof required for a hypothesis and a theory is vastly different. A hypothesis requires a certain level of proof to be considered valid, but it can still be disproven through experimentation. In contrast, a theory has been extensively tested and proven through experimentation, and therefore requires a much higher level of proof to be disproven.

Usage in Scientific Community

In the scientific community, hypotheses and theories play different roles. Hypotheses are used to generate predictions and testable explanations for phenomena, while theories are used to explain and predict a wide range of phenomena. Hypotheses are usually the starting point for research, while theories are the end result of extensive research and experimentation.

To summarize, a hypothesis is an educated guess or assumption made before any research has been done, while a theory is a well-established principle that is formed to explain the things already shown in data. Hypotheses require a certain level of proof to be considered valid, while theories require a much higher level of proof. In the scientific community, hypotheses are used to generate predictions and testable explanations for phenomena, while theories are used to explain and predict a wide range of phenomena.

Hypothesis vs. Theory: Common Misconceptions

When it comes to scientific research, there are several misconceptions about the differences between hypothesis and theory. In this section, we’ll explore some of the most common misconceptions and clarify the differences between these two scientific terms.

Misconception #1: Hypotheses are less important than theories

One common misconception is that hypotheses are less important than theories. This is not true. A hypothesis is the foundation of scientific research, as it is a proposed explanation for an observation or phenomenon. Without a hypothesis, there can be no scientific investigation.

Misconception #2: Hypotheses are guesses

Another common misconception is that hypotheses are guesses. While a hypothesis is an educated guess, it is not a random or arbitrary guess. A hypothesis is based on prior knowledge, observations, and data. It is a proposed explanation that can be tested through experimentation.

Misconception #3: Theories are proven facts

Many people believe that theories are proven facts. This is not true. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation for a set of observations or phenomena. It is based on a large body of evidence and has been repeatedly tested and confirmed through experimentation. However, theories are not absolute truths and are subject to revision or rejection based on new evidence.

Misconception #4: Hypotheses become theories

Some people believe that hypotheses become theories once they are proven. This is not true. A hypothesis can be supported or rejected by experimental evidence, but it does not become a theory. A theory is a broader explanation that encompasses many hypotheses and has been extensively tested and confirmed.

Misconception #5: Theories are more certain than hypotheses

Another common misconception is that theories are more certain than hypotheses. While theories are based on a large body of evidence and have been extensively tested, they are not absolute truths. Theories are subject to revision or rejection based on new evidence, just like hypotheses.

In summary, hypotheses and theories are both important components of scientific research. Hypotheses are proposed explanations that can be tested through experimentation, while theories are well-substantiated explanations that have been extensively tested and confirmed. While there are many misconceptions about the differences between hypotheses vs. theory, understanding these differences is crucial for conducting scientific research.

In conclusion, while the terms “hypothesis” and “theory” are often used interchangeably, they have distinct differences in the scientific method. A hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done, formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. On the other hand, a theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data.

One way to differentiate between a hypothesis and a theory is to consider the level of evidence supporting each. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon, but it is not yet supported by sufficient evidence. In contrast, a theory is a well-established explanation for a phenomenon that has been supported by a large body of evidence.

Another way to differentiate between a hypothesis and a theory is to consider their role in the scientific method. A hypothesis is an initial step in the scientific method, where a researcher formulates a testable prediction about a phenomenon. A theory, on the other hand, is the end result of the scientific method, where a researcher has tested and confirmed a hypothesis over time.

It is important to note that a hypothesis can eventually become a theory if it is repeatedly tested and supported by evidence. However, a theory can never become a hypothesis, as it is already a well-established explanation for a phenomenon.

In summary, understanding the differences between hypothesis and theory is crucial for conducting and interpreting scientific research. By using these terms correctly, researchers can communicate their ideas clearly and accurately, contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can you distinguish between hypothesis and theory?

A hypothesis is an educated guess or a proposed explanation for an observation or phenomenon. It is a tentative explanation that can be tested through experiments and observations. On the other hand, a theory is a well-established explanation that has been supported by a large body of evidence. The main difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that a hypothesis is a proposed explanation that needs to be tested, while a theory is a well-supported explanation that has been tested and confirmed by multiple lines of evidence.

What is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in biology?

In biology, a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a biological phenomenon that can be tested through experiments and observations. For example, a biologist might propose a hypothesis to explain why a particular species of bird has a particular beak shape. A theory in biology, on the other hand, is a well-established explanation that has been supported by a large body of evidence. For example, the theory of evolution is a well-established explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

What is an example of a theory statement?

A theory statement is a statement that summarizes a well-established explanation for a phenomenon. For example, the theory of relativity is a statement that summarizes Einstein’s well-established explanation for the behavior of objects in space and time.

How are hypotheses and theories similar and different?

Both hypotheses and theories are proposed explanations for phenomena. However, while hypotheses are tentative and need to be tested, theories are well-established and have been supported by a large body of evidence. In addition, hypotheses are often specific to a particular observation or phenomenon, while theories are more general and can explain a wide range of phenomena.

What are some examples of the differences between a hypothesis and a theory?

An example of a hypothesis might be that a particular drug will cure a particular disease. An example of a theory might be the theory of plate tectonics, which explains the movement of the Earth’s crust. The main difference between these two examples is that the first is a tentative explanation that needs to be tested, while the second is a well-established explanation that has been supported by a large body of evidence.

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in biology?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What is an example of a theory statement?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

A theory statement is a statement that summarizes a well-established explanation for a phenomenon. For example, the theory of relativity is a statement that summarizes Einstein's well-established explanation for the behavior of objects in space and time.

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How are hypotheses and theories similar and different?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Which of these statements best distinguishes between hypotheses and theories?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

The best way to distinguish between hypotheses and theories is to remember that hypotheses are tentative explanations that need to be tested, while theories are well-established explanations that have been supported by a large body of evidence.

"}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What are some examples of the differences between a hypothesis and a theory?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"

An example of a hypothesis might be that a particular drug will cure a particular disease. An example of a theory might be the theory of plate tectonics, which explains the movement of the Earth's crust. The main difference between these two examples is that the first is a tentative explanation that needs to be tested, while the second is a well-established explanation that has been supported by a large body of evidence.

• Recent Posts

• Ed Words: Expand Your Vocabulary and Improve Your Writing! - April 15, 2024
• List of Ethnicities and Their Cultures from Around the World - April 2, 2024
• Mastering English Writing: Essential Transitional Words for Body Paragraphs - March 25, 2024

Related posts:

• Commonly Confused Words: 50+ Commonly Misused Words in English
• Differences between Look, See and Watch
• Writing Mistakes: Commonly Misused Words in English
• MUCH vs MANY: Difference between Many vs Much (with Useful Examples)

Hypothesis vs. Theory: Understanding the Differences

“Hypothesis” and “theory” are two terms often used in science, but they have different meanings. Understanding the distinction between these two words can help us make sense of scientific explanations. In this article, we will explore the differences between “hypothesis” and “theory” in a way that is easy to understand. By the end, you’ll have a clearer grasp of these concepts and be able to use them confidently in scientific discussions.

Hypothesis vs. Theory

• A  hypothesis  is a preliminary assumption to be tested.
• A  theory  is a well-supported explanation for a broad range of phenomena.

Hypothesis vs. Theory: The Definition

What does hypothesis mean.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon or a scientific question that can be tested through experimentation or observation. It is an essential part of the scientific method, which involves formulating a hypothesis, conducting experiments to test it, and analyzing the results to draw conclusions.

In scientific research, a hypothesis serves as a tentative solution to a problem or a preliminary explanation for an observed phenomenon. It is based on existing knowledge and is formulated to be tested and potentially refuted through empirical evidence. A well-constructed hypothesis is specific, testable, and falsifiable, meaning that it can be proven false through experimentation or observation.

• Example of a hypothesis : “If a person consumes more vitamin C, then their immune system will be stronger and they will have a lower likelihood of catching a cold.”

What Does Theory Mean?

A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on a body of evidence, observations, and experimentation. In the scientific context, a theory is more than just a guess or a hypothesis; it is a comprehensive framework that has been rigorously tested and supported by a substantial amount of empirical data.

Scientific theories are developed through the scientific method, which involves formulating hypotheses, conducting experiments, and analyzing the results. As evidence accumulates and supports a particular explanation, it may be elevated to the status of a theory. Importantly, scientific theories are not static or unchangeable; they are subject to modification or even rejection in light of new evidence or more comprehensive explanations.

• Example of a theory: The theory of evolution, which explains how species change over time through the process of natural selection.

Hypothesis vs. Theory: Usage

You employ  hypotheses  during the early stages of research to develop experiments. For instance, you might hypothesize that a plant given more sunlight will grow faster.

A  theory , like the Theory of Evolution, summarizes a group of tested hypotheses and facts to explain a complex set of patterns and behaviors.

For a better understanding of the differences between the two terms, let’s take a look at the table below:

Tips to Remember the Differences

• Think of a  hypothesis  as a  “hunch”  to be tested.
• View a  theory  as a  “tapestry”  of well-tested ideas.
• Use the phrase  “hypothesis for testing”  and  “theory for explaining”  to keep them distinct in your mind.

Hypothesis vs. Theory: Examples

Example sentences using hypothesis.

• She formulated a  hypothesis  to explain the observed pattern in the data.
• The researchers tested their  hypothesis  through a series of carefully controlled experiments.
• The  hypothesis  proposed by the scientist led to a new understanding of the chemical reaction.
• It is essential to develop a clear and testable  hypothesis  before conducting the research.
• The  hypothesis  was supported by the experimental results, providing valuable insights into the phenomenon.

Example Sentences Using Theory

• Einstein ‘s  theory of relativity has fundamentally altered our understanding of space and time.
• Darwin’s theory of natural selection provides a framework for understanding the evolution of species.
• The germ theory of disease is fundamental in developing medical hygiene practices.
• The  Big Bang theory is widely accepted as the leading explanation for the origin of the universe.
• The  kinetic molecular theory  explains the behavior of gases, including their volume and temperature relationships.

Related Confused Words

Hypothesis vs thesis.

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction that is proposed before conducting a research study, while a thesis is a statement or theory put forward to be maintained or proved. In essence, a hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences, while a thesis is a proposition that is maintained by argument.

Both play distinct roles in the scientific and academic realms, with hypotheses guiding research and theses forming the central point of an argument or discussion.

Theory vs. Law

The primary difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law lies in their scope and function. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on a body of evidence and has undergone rigorous testing and validation. In contrast, a scientific law describes a concise statement or mathematical equation that summarizes a wide variety of observations and experiments, often expressing a fundamental principle of nature.

While a theory provides an overarching framework for understanding a phenomenon, a law describes a specific, observable relationship. Both theory and law are vital components of scientific understanding, with theories offering explanations and laws providing concise descriptions of natural phenomena.

• Ethics vs. Morals
• Latest Posts

• Skillset or Skill Set: Which is Correct? - March 9, 2024
• Vender or Vendor: What Is the Difference? - February 5, 2024
• Take Effect vs. Take Affect: Unraveling the Confusion - February 3, 2024

Theories, Hypotheses, and Laws: Definitions, examples, and their roles in science

by Anthony Carpi, Ph.D., Anne E. Egger, Ph.D.

Listen to this reading

Did you know that the idea of evolution had been part of Western thought for more than 2,000 years before Charles Darwin was born? Like many theories, the theory of evolution was the result of the work of many different scientists working in different disciplines over a period of time.

A scientific theory is an explanation inferred from multiple lines of evidence for some broad aspect of the natural world and is logical, testable, and predictive.

As new evidence comes to light, or new interpretations of existing data are proposed, theories may be revised and even change; however, they are not tenuous or speculative.

A scientific hypothesis is an inferred explanation of an observation or research finding; while more exploratory in nature than a theory, it is based on existing scientific knowledge.

A scientific law is an expression of a mathematical or descriptive relationship observed in nature.

Imagine yourself shopping in a grocery store with a good friend who happens to be a chemist. Struggling to choose between the many different types of tomatoes in front of you, you pick one up, turn to your friend, and ask her if she thinks the tomato is organic . Your friend simply chuckles and replies, "Of course it's organic!" without even looking at how the fruit was grown. Why the amused reaction? Your friend is highlighting a simple difference in vocabulary. To a chemist, the term organic refers to any compound in which hydrogen is bonded to carbon. Tomatoes (like all plants) are abundant in organic compounds – thus your friend's laughter. In modern agriculture, however, organic has come to mean food items grown or raised without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other additives.

So who is correct? You both are. Both uses of the word are correct, though they mean different things in different contexts. There are, of course, lots of words that have more than one meaning (like bat , for example), but multiple meanings can be especially confusing when two meanings convey very different ideas and are specific to one field of study.

• Scientific theories

The term theory also has two meanings, and this double meaning often leads to confusion. In common language, the term theory generally refers to speculation or a hunch or guess. You might have a theory about why your favorite sports team isn't playing well, or who ate the last cookie from the cookie jar. But these theories do not fit the scientific use of the term. In science, a theory is a well-substantiated and comprehensive set of ideas that explains a phenomenon in nature. A scientific theory is based on large amounts of data and observations that have been collected over time. Scientific theories can be tested and refined by additional research , and they allow scientists to make predictions. Though you may be correct in your hunch, your cookie jar conjecture doesn't fit this more rigorous definition.

All scientific disciplines have well-established, fundamental theories . For example, atomic theory describes the nature of matter and is supported by multiple lines of evidence from the way substances behave and react in the world around us (see our series on Atomic Theory ). Plate tectonic theory describes the large scale movement of the outer layer of the Earth and is supported by evidence from studies about earthquakes , magnetic properties of the rocks that make up the seafloor , and the distribution of volcanoes on Earth (see our series on Plate Tectonic Theory ). The theory of evolution by natural selection , which describes the mechanism by which inherited traits that affect survivability or reproductive success can cause changes in living organisms over generations , is supported by extensive studies of DNA , fossils , and other types of scientific evidence (see our Charles Darwin series for more information). Each of these major theories guides and informs modern research in those fields, integrating a broad, comprehensive set of ideas.

So how are these fundamental theories developed, and why are they considered so well supported? Let's take a closer look at some of the data and research supporting the theory of natural selection to better see how a theory develops.

Comprehension Checkpoint

• The development of a scientific theory: Evolution and natural selection

The theory of evolution by natural selection is sometimes maligned as Charles Darwin 's speculation on the origin of modern life forms. However, evolutionary theory is not speculation. While Darwin is rightly credited with first articulating the theory of natural selection, his ideas built on more than a century of scientific research that came before him, and are supported by over a century and a half of research since.

• The Fixity Notion: Linnaeus

Figure 1: Cover of the 1760 edition of Systema Naturae .

Research about the origins and diversity of life proliferated in the 18th and 19th centuries. Carolus Linnaeus , a Swedish botanist and the father of modern taxonomy (see our module Taxonomy I for more information), was a devout Christian who believed in the concept of Fixity of Species , an idea based on the biblical story of creation. The Fixity of Species concept said that each species is based on an ideal form that has not changed over time. In the early stages of his career, Linnaeus traveled extensively and collected data on the structural similarities and differences between different species of plants. Noting that some very different plants had similar structures, he began to piece together his landmark work, Systema Naturae, in 1735 (Figure 1). In Systema , Linnaeus classified organisms into related groups based on similarities in their physical features. He developed a hierarchical classification system , even drawing relationships between seemingly disparate species (for example, humans, orangutans, and chimpanzees) based on the physical similarities that he observed between these organisms. Linnaeus did not explicitly discuss change in organisms or propose a reason for his hierarchy, but by grouping organisms based on physical characteristics, he suggested that species are related, unintentionally challenging the Fixity notion that each species is created in a unique, ideal form.

• The age of Earth: Leclerc and Hutton

Also in the early 1700s, Georges-Louis Leclerc, a French naturalist, and James Hutton , a Scottish geologist, began to develop new ideas about the age of the Earth. At the time, many people thought of the Earth as 6,000 years old, based on a strict interpretation of the events detailed in the Christian Old Testament by the influential Scottish Archbishop Ussher. By observing other planets and comets in the solar system , Leclerc hypothesized that Earth began as a hot, fiery ball of molten rock, mostly consisting of iron. Using the cooling rate of iron, Leclerc calculated that Earth must therefore be at least 70,000 years old in order to have reached its present temperature.

Hutton approached the same topic from a different perspective, gathering observations of the relationships between different rock formations and the rates of modern geological processes near his home in Scotland. He recognized that the relatively slow processes of erosion and sedimentation could not create all of the exposed rock layers in only a few thousand years (see our module The Rock Cycle ). Based on his extensive collection of data (just one of his many publications ran to 2,138 pages), Hutton suggested that the Earth was far older than human history – hundreds of millions of years old.

While we now know that both Leclerc and Hutton significantly underestimated the age of the Earth (by about 4 billion years), their work shattered long-held beliefs and opened a window into research on how life can change over these very long timescales.

• Fossil studies lead to the development of a theory of evolution: Cuvier

Figure 2: Illustration of an Indian elephant jaw and a mammoth jaw from Cuvier's 1796 paper.

With the age of Earth now extended by Leclerc and Hutton, more researchers began to turn their attention to studying past life. Fossils are the main way to study past life forms, and several key studies on fossils helped in the development of a theory of evolution . In 1795, Georges Cuvier began to work at the National Museum in Paris as a naturalist and anatomist. Through his work, Cuvier became interested in fossils found near Paris, which some claimed were the remains of the elephants that Hannibal rode over the Alps when he invaded Rome in 218 BCE . In studying both the fossils and living species , Cuvier documented different patterns in the dental structure and number of teeth between the fossils and modern elephants (Figure 2) (Horner, 1843). Based on these data , Cuvier hypothesized that the fossil remains were not left by Hannibal, but were from a distinct species of animal that once roamed through Europe and had gone extinct thousands of years earlier: the mammoth. The concept of species extinction had been discussed by a few individuals before Cuvier, but it was in direct opposition to the Fixity of Species concept – if every organism were based on a perfectly adapted, ideal form, how could any cease to exist? That would suggest it was no longer ideal.

While his work provided critical evidence of extinction , a key component of evolution , Cuvier was highly critical of the idea that species could change over time. As a result of his extensive studies of animal anatomy, Cuvier had developed a holistic view of organisms , stating that the

number, direction, and shape of the bones that compose each part of an animal's body are always in a necessary relation to all the other parts, in such a way that ... one can infer the whole from any one of them ...

In other words, Cuvier viewed each part of an organism as a unique, essential component of the whole organism. If one part were to change, he believed, the organism could not survive. His skepticism about the ability of organisms to change led him to criticize the whole idea of evolution , and his prominence in France as a scientist played a large role in discouraging the acceptance of the idea in the scientific community.

• Studies of invertebrates support a theory of change in species: Lamarck

Jean Baptiste Lamarck, a contemporary of Cuvier's at the National Museum in Paris, studied invertebrates like insects and worms. As Lamarck worked through the museum's large collection of invertebrates, he was impressed by the number and variety of organisms . He became convinced that organisms could, in fact, change through time, stating that

... time and favorable conditions are the two principal means which nature has employed in giving existence to all her productions. We know that for her time has no limit, and that consequently she always has it at her disposal.

This was a radical departure from both the fixity concept and Cuvier's ideas, and it built on the long timescale that geologists had recently established. Lamarck proposed that changes that occurred during an organism 's lifetime could be passed on to their offspring, suggesting, for example, that a body builder's muscles would be inherited by their children.

As it turned out, the mechanism by which Lamarck proposed that organisms change over time was wrong, and he is now often referred to disparagingly for his "inheritance of acquired characteristics" idea. Yet despite the fact that some of his ideas were discredited, Lamarck established a support for evolutionary theory that others would build on and improve.

• Rock layers as evidence for evolution: Smith

In the early 1800s, a British geologist and canal surveyor named William Smith added another component to the accumulating evidence for evolution . Smith observed that rock layers exposed in different parts of England bore similarities to one another: These layers (or strata) were arranged in a predictable order, and each layer contained distinct groups of fossils . From this series of observations , he developed a hypothesis that specific groups of animals followed one another in a definite sequence through Earth's history, and this sequence could be seen in the rock layers. Smith's hypothesis was based on his knowledge of geological principles , including the Law of Superposition.

The Law of Superposition states that sediments are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest sediments deposited first, or at the bottom, and newer layers deposited on top. The concept was first expressed by the Persian scientist Avicenna in the 11th century, but was popularized by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno in the 17th century. Note that the law does not state how sediments are deposited; it simply describes the relationship between the ages of deposited sediments.

Figure 3: Engraving from William Smith's 1815 monograph on identifying strata by fossils.

Smith backed up his hypothesis with extensive drawings of fossils uncovered during his research (Figure 3), thus allowing other scientists to confirm or dispute his findings. His hypothesis has, in fact, been confirmed by many other scientists and has come to be referred to as the Law of Faunal Succession. His work was critical to the formation of evolutionary theory as it not only confirmed Cuvier's work that organisms have gone extinct , but it also showed that the appearance of life does not date to the birth of the planet. Instead, the fossil record preserves a timeline of the appearance and disappearance of different organisms in the past, and in doing so offers evidence for change in organisms over time.

• The theory of evolution by natural selection: Darwin and Wallace

It was into this world that Charles Darwin entered: Linnaeus had developed a taxonomy of organisms based on their physical relationships, Leclerc and Hutton demonstrated that there was sufficient time in Earth's history for organisms to change, Cuvier showed that species of organisms have gone extinct , Lamarck proposed that organisms change over time, and Smith established a timeline of the appearance and disappearance of different organisms in the geological record .

Figure 4: Title page of the 1859 Murray edition of the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin collected data during his work as a naturalist on the HMS Beagle starting in 1831. He took extensive notes on the geology of the places he visited; he made a major find of fossils of extinct animals in Patagonia and identified an extinct giant ground sloth named Megatherium . He experienced an earthquake in Chile that stranded beds of living mussels above water, where they would be preserved for years to come.

Perhaps most famously, he conducted extensive studies of animals on the Galápagos Islands, noting subtle differences in species of mockingbird, tortoise, and finch that were isolated on different islands with different environmental conditions. These subtle differences made the animals highly adapted to their environments .

This broad spectrum of data led Darwin to propose an idea about how organisms change "by means of natural selection" (Figure 4). But this idea was not based only on his work, it was also based on the accumulation of evidence and ideas of many others before him. Because his proposal encompassed and explained many different lines of evidence and previous work, they formed the basis of a new and robust scientific theory regarding change in organisms – the theory of evolution by natural selection .

Darwin's ideas were grounded in evidence and data so compelling that if he had not conceived them, someone else would have. In fact, someone else did. Between 1858 and 1859, Alfred Russel Wallace , a British naturalist, wrote a series of letters to Darwin that independently proposed natural selection as the means for evolutionary change. The letters were presented to the Linnean Society of London, a prominent scientific society at the time (see our module on Scientific Institutions and Societies ). This long chain of research highlights that theories are not just the work of one individual. At the same time, however, it often takes the insight and creativity of individuals to put together all of the pieces and propose a new theory . Both Darwin and Wallace were experienced naturalists who were familiar with the work of others. While all of the work leading up to 1830 contributed to the theory of evolution , Darwin's and Wallace's theory changed the way that future research was focused by presenting a comprehensive, well-substantiated set of ideas, thus becoming a fundamental theory of biological research.

• Expanding, testing, and refining scientific theories
• Genetics and evolution: Mendel and Dobzhansky

Since Darwin and Wallace first published their ideas, extensive research has tested and expanded the theory of evolution by natural selection . Darwin had no concept of genes or DNA or the mechanism by which characteristics were inherited within a species . A contemporary of Darwin's, the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel , first presented his own landmark study, Experiments in Plant Hybridization, in 1865 in which he provided the basic patterns of genetic inheritance , describing which characteristics (and evolutionary changes) can be passed on in organisms (see our Genetics I module for more information). Still, it wasn't until much later that a "gene" was defined as the heritable unit.

In 1937, the Ukrainian born geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky published Genetics and the Origin of Species , a seminal work in which he described genes themselves and demonstrated that it is through mutations in genes that change occurs. The work defined evolution as "a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool" ( Dobzhansky, 1982 ). These studies and others in the field of genetics have added to Darwin's work, expanding the scope of the theory .

• Evolution under a microscope: Lenski

More recently, Dr. Richard Lenski, a scientist at Michigan State University, isolated a single Escherichia coli bacterium in 1989 as the first step of the longest running experimental test of evolutionary theory to date – a true test meant to replicate evolution and natural selection in the lab.

After the single microbe had multiplied, Lenski isolated the offspring into 12 different strains , each in their own glucose-supplied culture, predicting that the genetic make-up of each strain would change over time to become more adapted to their specific culture as predicted by evolutionary theory . These 12 lines have been nurtured for over 40,000 bacterial generations (luckily bacterial generations are much shorter than human generations) and exposed to different selective pressures such as heat , cold, antibiotics, and infection with other microorganisms. Lenski and colleagues have studied dozens of aspects of evolutionary theory with these genetically isolated populations . In 1999, they published a paper that demonstrated that random genetic mutations were common within the populations and highly diverse across different individual bacteria . However, "pivotal" mutations that are associated with beneficial changes in the group are shared by all descendants in a population and are much rarer than random mutations, as predicted by the theory of evolution by natural selection (Papadopoulos et al., 1999).

• Punctuated equilibrium: Gould and Eldredge

While established scientific theories like evolution have a wealth of research and evidence supporting them, this does not mean that they cannot be refined as new information or new perspectives on existing data become available. For example, in 1972, biologist Stephen Jay Gould and paleontologist Niles Eldredge took a fresh look at the existing data regarding the timing by which evolutionary change takes place. Gould and Eldredge did not set out to challenge the theory of evolution; rather they used it as a guiding principle and asked more specific questions to add detail and nuance to the theory. This is true of all theories in science: they provide a framework for additional research. At the time, many biologists viewed evolution as occurring gradually, causing small incremental changes in organisms at a relatively steady rate. The idea is referred to as phyletic gradualism , and is rooted in the geological concept of uniformitarianism . After reexamining the available data, Gould and Eldredge came to a different explanation, suggesting that evolution consists of long periods of stability that are punctuated by occasional instances of dramatic change – a process they called punctuated equilibrium .

Like Darwin before them, their proposal is rooted in evidence and research on evolutionary change, and has been supported by multiple lines of evidence. In fact, punctuated equilibrium is now considered its own theory in evolutionary biology. Punctuated equilibrium is not as broad of a theory as natural selection . In science, some theories are broad and overarching of many concepts, such as the theory of evolution by natural selection; others focus on concepts at a smaller, or more targeted, scale such as punctuated equilibrium. And punctuated equilibrium does not challenge or weaken the concept of natural selection; rather, it represents a change in our understanding of the timing by which change occurs in organisms , and a theory within a theory. The theory of evolution by natural selection now includes both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium to describe the rate at which change proceeds.

• Hypotheses and laws: Other scientific concepts

One of the challenges in understanding scientific terms like theory is that there is not a precise definition even within the scientific community. Some scientists debate over whether certain proposals merit designation as a hypothesis or theory , and others mistakenly use the terms interchangeably. But there are differences in these terms. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. Hypotheses , just like theories , are based on observations from research . For example, LeClerc did not hypothesize that Earth had cooled from a molten ball of iron as a random guess; rather, he developed this hypothesis based on his observations of information from meteorites.

A scientist often proposes a hypothesis before research confirms it as a way of predicting the outcome of study to help better define the parameters of the research. LeClerc's hypothesis allowed him to use known parameters (the cooling rate of iron) to do additional work. A key component of a formal scientific hypothesis is that it is testable and falsifiable. For example, when Richard Lenski first isolated his 12 strains of bacteria , he likely hypothesized that random mutations would cause differences to appear within a period of time in the different strains of bacteria. But when a hypothesis is generated in science, a scientist will also make an alternative hypothesis , an explanation that explains a study if the data do not support the original hypothesis. If the different strains of bacteria in Lenski's work did not diverge over the indicated period of time, perhaps the rate of mutation was slower than first thought.

So you might ask, if theories are so well supported, do they eventually become laws? The answer is no – not because they aren't well-supported, but because theories and laws are two very different things. Laws describe phenomena, often mathematically. Theories, however, explain phenomena. For example, in 1687 Isaac Newton proposed a Theory of Gravitation, describing gravity as a force of attraction between two objects. As part of this theory, Newton developed a Law of Universal Gravitation that explains how this force operates. This law states that the force of gravity between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between those objects. Newton 's Law does not explain why this is true, but it describes how gravity functions (see our Gravity: Newtonian Relationships module for more detail). In 1916, Albert Einstein developed his theory of general relativity to explain the mechanism by which gravity has its effect. Einstein's work challenges Newton's theory, and has been found after extensive testing and research to more accurately describe the phenomenon of gravity. While Einstein's work has replaced Newton's as the dominant explanation of gravity in modern science, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is still used as it reasonably (and more simply) describes the force of gravity under many conditions. Similarly, the Law of Faunal Succession developed by William Smith does not explain why organisms follow each other in distinct, predictable ways in the rock layers, but it accurately describes the phenomenon.

Theories, hypotheses , and laws drive scientific progress

Theories, hypotheses , and laws are not simply important components of science, they drive scientific progress. For example, evolutionary biology now stands as a distinct field of science that focuses on the origins and descent of species . Geologists now rely on plate tectonics as a conceptual model and guiding theory when they are studying processes at work in Earth's crust . And physicists refer to atomic theory when they are predicting the existence of subatomic particles yet to be discovered. This does not mean that science is "finished," or that all of the important theories have been discovered already. Like evolution , progress in science happens both gradually and in short, dramatic bursts. Both types of progress are critical for creating a robust knowledge base with data as the foundation and scientific theories giving structure to that knowledge.

Table of Contents

• Theories, hypotheses, and laws drive scientific progress

Activate glossary term highlighting to easily identify key terms within the module. Once highlighted, you can click on these terms to view their definitions.

Activate NGSS annotations to easily identify NGSS standards within the module. Once highlighted, you can click on them to view these standards.

• Organizations
• Planning & Activities
• Product & Services
• Structure & Systems
• Career & Education
• Entertainment
• Fashion & Beauty
• Political Institutions
• SmartPhones
• Protocols & Formats
• Communication
• Web Applications
• Household Equipments
• Career and Certifications
• Diet & Fitness
• Mathematics & Statistics
• Processed Foods
• Vegetables & Fruits

Difference between Hypothesis and Theory

• Categorized under Science | Difference between Hypothesis and Theory

The term hypothesis is used to refer to an explanation of things that occur. In some cases, it may refer to a simple guess. In other instances it may be a well-developed set of propositions that are crafted to explain the detailed workings of some occurrence or occurrences. One definition states specifically that it is the antecedent to a conditional proposition.

The hypothesis is formed and tested within the scientific process . One may develop the hypothesis while observation is occurring, but that may also be considered premature. The act of observation (outside of experimentation) may actually present opportunity to disprove a hypothesis. The hypothesis though is necessarily well defined and inclusive of details. This allows for accurate testing. It also in many cases distinguishes it from a theory.

The term theory is one of a rather scientific nature, but of a less limited nature. Some uses can refer to explanations of occurrences; some do include usage as referencing a simple guess. There is more though. Theory is used to refer to a branch of study that is focused on the general and conceptual, as compared to the practical and the applied of the same subject. It is significant that a theory is conjectural in nature.

Within the scientific process, the use of a theory is like a working model or understanding of what is occurring. The theory is often developed in the course of observation (in a non-experiment setting). Though, it is further developed by experimenting and the testing of hypotheses, a theory is only a theory. By its existence it maintains its validity. Once a theory is disproved, it is usually dismissed.

An illustration of sorts: If one watches water fall from a table after being spilled, one might develop the theory that water moves toward the floor. Then a hypothesis may be developed that states, water will move toward the flooring regardless of its direction relative to the table. Then testing of the hypothesis might include holding samples of the flooring in numerous directions relatively to the table and then releasing the same amount of water with the same vector on the table. If the water does not move upward from the edge of the table toward the flooring above the table, the hypothesis is incorrect and must be replaced.

Those are the major distinctions of theory and hypothesis and their similarities.

• Recent Posts
• Difference between Hypothesis and Theory - August 20, 2009
• Difference Between Jews and Christians - August 17, 2009
• Difference Between Jealousy and Envy - August 12, 2009

Sharing is caring!

Search DifferenceBetween.net :

• Difference Between Hypothesis and Aim
• Difference Between Null and Alternative Hypothesis
• Difference between Theory and Law
• Difference Between Hypothesis and Prediction
• Difference between Fact and Theory

Cite APA 7 lance, r. (2017, July 18). Difference between Hypothesis and Theory. Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects. http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-hypothesis-and-theory/. MLA 8 lance, raa. "Difference between Hypothesis and Theory." Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects, 18 July, 2017, http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-hypothesis-and-theory/.

• Difference Between Lucifer and Satan | Difference Between | Lucifer vs Satan
• Difference Between Science and Pseudo Science | Difference Between | Science vs Pseudo Science

Leave a Response

Name ( required )

Email ( required )

Please note: comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Written by : lanceraa. and updated on 2017, July 18 Articles on DifferenceBetween.net are general information, and are not intended to substitute for professional advice. The information is "AS IS", "WITH ALL FAULTS". User assumes all risk of use, damage, or injury. You agree that we have no liability for any damages.

Advertisments

More in 'science'.

• Difference Between Rumination and Regurgitation
• Difference Between Pyelectasis and Hydronephrosis 
• Difference Between Cellulitis and Erysipelas
• Difference Between Suicide and Euthanasia
• Difference Between Vitamin D and Vitamin D3

Top Difference Betweens

Get new comparisons in your inbox:, most emailed comparisons, editor's picks.

• Difference Between MAC and IP Address
• Difference Between Platinum and White Gold
• Difference Between Civil and Criminal Law
• Difference Between GRE and GMAT
• Difference Between Immigrants and Refugees
• Difference Between DNS and DHCP
• Difference Between Computer Engineering and Computer Science
• Difference Between Men and Women
• Difference Between Book value and Market value
• Difference Between Red and White wine
• Difference Between Depreciation and Amortization
• Difference Between Bank and Credit Union
• Difference Between White Eggs and Brown Eggs

• Biotechnology
• Biochemistry
• Microbiology
• Cell Biology
• Cell Signaling
• Diversity in Life Form
• Molecular Biology

Difference Between Hypothesis And Theory

Understanding the difference between a hypothesis and a theory is important in scientific research. A hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation for a phenomenon, based on limited evidence and requiring further investigation. While, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world, supported by strong evidence and repeated testing. This distinction highlights the progression from initial inquiry to established scientific understanding.

Differentiate between Hypothesis and Theory

Table of Content

What is a Hypothesis?

Examples of hypothesis, what is theory, examples of theory, difference between hypothesis and theory, similarities between hypothesis and theory, conclusion: difference between hypothesis and theory.

A hypothesis is a scientific ‘what if ‘ statement. It is your guess or prediction about something you’re curious about. It is the starting point of the scientific investigation, it is a way to make an informed guess that you can test through experiments and observations. In other words, hypothesis is the first step in unraveling the mysteries of the world.

• Biology: Hypothesis: If I water this plant every day it will grow taller than the plant I water only once a week – this hypothesis explores the cause and effect relationship between watering and frequency and plant growth .
• Physics: Hypothesis: Increase the temperature of a gas cause it to expand – this hypothesis explores the behavior of gases under changing temperature conditions
• Psychology: Hypothesis: Increased access to education will decrease crime rate in community – This Hypothesis explores to understand the potential of human emotions

A theory is not a wild guess, it is a robust and thoroughly tested idea that explains a particular phenomenon. Theory is a combination of evidence, data and experiments. It contains good standard in scientific understanding and is well established.

• Biology: Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection : This Theory is proposed by Charles Darwin that explains how species change over time through the process of natural selection, here individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce.
• Physics: Theory of General Relativity: Albert Einstein’s Theory explains that gravity works by explaining relationship between space, time and presence of mass which leads to bending of light by massive objects.
• Psychology: Cognitive Development Theory: Jean Piaget’s Theory explains stages of cognitive development in children, emphasizing how they acquire knowledge, problem solving, thinking skills etc.

The difference between Hypothesis and Theory is as follows:

Similarities between Hypothesis and Theory are given below:

• Scientific Basis: Both are fundamental components of the scientific method.
• Explanation of Phenomena: Aim to explain natural phenomena and provide understanding of the natural world.
• Subject to Testing: Can be tested through experiments and observations.
• Require Evidence: Both rely on evidence to be validated or supported.
• Falsifiable: Both must be falsifiable, meaning they can be disproven by evidence.
• Predictive Power: Make predictions that can be tested by further research.
• Foundation for Research: Both serve as foundations for scientific research and experimentation.
• Dynamic Nature: Can be refined or revised based on new evidence and findings.
• Communication Tools: Used to communicate scientific ideas and findings to the broader community.
• Guidance for Studies: Both provide direction for future studies and experiments.

In conclusion, while both hypotheses and theories are important to scientific inquiry, they differ significantly in their roles and stages. A hypothesis is an initial, testable proposition, while a theory is a well-substantiated explanation based on extensive evidence. Understanding these differences is essential for grasping the scientific method and the progression from questioning to comprehensive understanding.

Also Read: Hypothesis How to Write a Research Hypothesis- Step-By-Step Guide With Examples

FAQs on Difference Between Hypothesis And Theory

What is the main difference between a hypothesis and a theory in science.

A hypothesis is a guess based on limited evidence and theory is a well substantiated and comprehensive explanation that has extensive testing and research.

How do Hypotheses and Theories evolve in Science?

Hypotheses can evolve into theories when they are supported by a substantial evidence through repeated experiments and observations.

Can a Hypothesis become a Theory?

Yes, a hypothesis can develop into a theory when it contains significant evidence and is widely accepted within the scientific community. The process involves testing and validation.

Are Hypotheses less Important than Theories in Science?

No, both hypotheses and theories play crucial roles in scientific research. Hypotheses initiate investigations and guide experiments, theories provide a deep understanding of natural phenomena based on accumulated knowledge.

What Happens if a Hypothesis is not Supported by Evidence?

If a hypothesis is not supported by evidence from experiments or observations then it is either revised or rejected. This process of testing and modifying hypotheses is essential for scientific progress and accuracy.

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• School Biology
• School Learning
• Biology-Difference-Between
• How to Delete Discord Servers: Step by Step Guide
• Google increases YouTube Premium price in India: Check our the latest plans
• California Lawmakers Pass Bill to Limit AI Replicas
• Best 10 IPTV Service Providers in Germany
• Content Improvement League 2024: From Good To A Great Article

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Similarities Between Hypothesis and Theory

January 4, 2018 , Dr. Howard Fields , Leave a comment

What Is a Hypothesis?

Hypothesis stems from the Greek word which means “to put under” or “to suppose”, and that’s exactly what hypothesizing is – supposing something that would have as a consequence a phenomenon that has been detected but is unexplained. There are many hypotheses for each of the numerous open problems in different areas of science, however, for a hypothesis to become a scientific hypothesis, there must exist some way of testing it, either through observation or experiment. This filters out the either unnecessary or otherwise overcomplicated hypotheses, usually connected to the negative connotation of the “What if” phrase. In science, hypotheses are proposed when there are observations or experiment results that aren’t fully and exactly explained by already existing theories, indicating another cause for the observed phenomenon.

Hypothesis also has its meaning in formal logic. For example, in statements of the form “If A, then B”, A would be the hypothesis. Here, however, I’ll only focus on the scientific hypothesis.

What Is a Theory?

A theory is a generalized principle of how something works or happens, based on rational thinking. The most common type of theory is the scientific theory, which is often confused and used interchangeably with the term “scientific hypothesis”, but they’re actually two distinct terms. A scientific theory is a confirmed and exact explanation of nature, made by following the scientific method . This means that the theory is verifiable and the method used to construct it reproducible. Scientific theories are very rigorous, and provide the most reliable form of scientific knowledge. They are completely different from what the usual connotation of the term “theory” is – a speculative or unproven statement. For that purpose, the term hypothesis, discussed above, is much more adequate. A scientific theory, on the other hand, has been empirically proven, and there were no cases of someone being able to disprove it.

As I have mentioned before, these two terms are often used interchangeably, as if they were synonyms, when they really aren’t. There are some noticeable similarities, though. A hypothesis is practically an unproven theory. Any hypothesis can become a theory after it has been proven through empirical evidence (either observation or some sort of experiment). This means that, in most cases, both a theory and hypothesis try to do the same thing – explain a phenomenon. Another similarity is that both are testable – the hypothesis just hasn’t been tested and approved yet, in order to become a theory. A final similarity would be that both a hypothesis and a theory represent a crucial form of scientific knowledge – there are many hypotheses in, for example, mathematics, that are widely accepted to be almost certainly true, but still haven’t been proven due to their nature or the lack of adequate technology (for example, the famous Riemann hypothesis).

Both a hypothesis and a theory represent important forms of scientific knowledge, used to describe the cause for the observed and measured consequences. A hypothesis can become a theory once it has been tested and proven to be verifiable and relevant to reality. However, a theory and a hypothesis are two different things, and by no means can they be used as synonyms. They can be distinguished based on one factor – whether they were proven or not. Apart from that, every other aspect of a hypothesis and a theory is the same.

Author: Dr. Howard Fields

Dr. Howard is a Clinical Psychologist and a Professional Writer and he has been partnering with patients to create positive change in their lives for over fifteen years. Dr. Howard integrates complementary methodologies and techniques to offer a highly personalized approach tailored to each patient.

Recommended For You

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Recent Posts

Similarities Between Panic Attack and Heart Palpitations

June 5, 2024 , Vivian Goldsmith , No Comment

Similarities Between T Cells and B Cells

June 1, 2024 , Vivian Goldsmith , Comment Closed

Similarities Between Cohesion and Adhesion

May 22, 2024 , Vivian Goldsmith , No Comment

May 8, 2024 , Sylvia Reynold , Comment Closed

Similarities Between Fats and Oils

April 17, 2024 , Vivian Goldsmith , Comment Closed

Follow Us :

Advertisement

• Home office

I’ve Become Absolutely Obsessed With Ralph Nader’s Pens. Join Me on My Continuing Investigation.

By Annemarie Conte

Annemarie Conte is an editor who writes the Ask Wirecutter column and trending-product reviews. She’d love to make you a friendship bracelet.

Ralph Nader has a problem.

He’s been using Paper Mate Flair Felt Tip Pens for more than 30 years, and he’s noticed they’ve been drying out more quickly than they used to.

He reached out to Wirecutter for help. And we responded by sending Nader some of the pens we’ve tested and recommend he try instead.

You can read about that effort here . (TLDR: He didn’t like them. He stood by his beloved, if imperfect, Paper Mate pens.)

But because we’re an obsessive bunch here at Wirecutter, the nagging feeling that Nader’s pens were drying out faster than they once did was hanging over our heads. We needed to know why.

We have theories. So do our readers. So does Nader himself. And so, we investigated. Let’s dive in.

Theory 1: Paper Mate Flair pens are not, in fact, drying out more quickly

This is Paper Mate’s preferred theory.

Nader has been using Paper Mate Flair pens consistently since the late 1980s (and we even found a photo from the early ’70s in which he appears to be taking notes with one). He has repeatedly maintained that the pens are now drying out more quickly than before.

He’s not alone. Commenters on our original article, on the website MetaFilter , and on social media corroborated this.

“He’s right! I’m a teacher, and if I grade all my student exams, the Flair is toast!” said Wirecutter reader Mike Alberti in an Instagram DM to me. “You know when you test out a pen and are happy with the ink flow, color, the feel of how it moves across the paper? It becomes the opposite of that.”

Paper Mate insists the pens are still great.

“The Paper Mate team has not made any changes to Flair’s ink formula or design,” a representative from Paper Mate told us in April, prior to the publication of our original article . “The brand is consistently monitoring product performance, and there have not been any changes in production that would indicate a material decline in the pen’s writing performance.”

The company rep did not indicate what timeline they were referring to in their statement, and they did not respond to our multiple requests to speak with an executive or product designer from Paper Mate for additional insight.

Theory 2: The pen design has changed

The Flair pen first came on the market in 1966.

Paper Mate started as an independent company and was then owned by Gillette for decades until Newell Brands (then called Newell Rubbermaid) purchased Paper Mate in 2000 .

In the nearly 60 years the Flair pen has existed, the barrel and cap have gone through at least one redesign, likely around 2010.

At some point, Flair’s manufacturing moved from the United States to Mexico. We suspect it was around 2004, as indicated on the oldest packaging we could find that made that claim.

Max Wastler, a Flair fan and Wirecutter reader who has been collecting old Flair pens from eBay, outlined the evidence that the pens have changed.

“The earlier versions of the pen had a ribbed barrel, which provided a better grip for the smooth plastic cap, exactly as Mr. Nader recalled. Furthermore, the company has moved from using white plastic to clear plastic around the felt, which makes the tip’s bleed or dryness less visible,” he wrote in the comments section of the original article.

To further our investigation, we studied both vintage and modern Flair pens.

• Wastler sent me a set of older Flair pens, and we also purchased new-in-box vintage Flairs from eBay with copyright dates of 1966 (a first edition!), 1983, and 1989.
• Nader had previously sent us 55 dead Flair pens that he felt had dried out too quickly, all of which were the redesigned models. The boxes of the pens he sent were copyrighted in 2010 and 2018.
• We also purchased a box of brand-new (2023) Flair pens at an office supply store to compare them against everything else.

As seen clearly in the photos, the pens went from a ribbed barrel to a smooth barrel, and the nib has gone from white plastic to clear plastic.

The nib design may be the issue. A comment on The Well-Appointed Desk blog from 2016 caught our eye:

“When PaperMate introduced the plastic or white point guard they destroyed the best qualities of a once illustrious sketching felt pen. The original larger all felt tip (without the point guard) allowed for more expressive lines. … The ink load and intensity of this new design again pales in comparison to the original flair felt pens. From the get go they seem dried out.”

Another commenter said, “The original Flair had a bare fiber tip; some time in the late 70s or early 80s they added a white plastic partial sheath to ‘protect’ the tip, but which actually caused ‘mushrooming’ and shortened the life of the pen.”

We contacted Paper Mate reps directly, as well as more than a dozen people associated with Paper Mate via LinkedIn, and we did not receive any response to corroborate this.

So, obviously, we had the pens scanned.

Melanie Pinola, senior staff writer and author of our pen guide , pointed me to a company called Lumafield that sells industrial CT scanners to companies to help them run quality assurance on its products or help its engineers refine product designs. Melanie first discovered Lumafield when it had creatively used its technology to investigate how much toner was really inside so-called full printer cartridges. (The answer: not much.)

We sent Lumafield the 1966, 1983, 1989, and 2003 Paper Mate Flair pens we bought, and the company went to work. For good measure, Lumafield ordered a second 1966 pen from eBay to see if the results would be consistent.

Lumafield confirmed the pen design has changed. Particularly intriguing is that the 1983 version appears to be made from a different type of plastic than the others. “The [1983] pen was pretty significantly reformulated in terms of plastic at this point and then went back to a similar type of plastic by the late 80s,” said Jon Bruner, Lumafield’s head of marketing.

In addition, he noted that the 2023 version is likely made of recycled plastic. There have also been changes of the pen cap and closure throughout the years.

Theory 3: The ink has changed

I reached out to Brian Goulet, the CEO and co-founder of The Goulet Pen Company , a well-regarded website that reviews and sells fountain pens and accessories. Since Flair pens use water-based ink , the same as fountain pens, Goulet felt it was similar enough that he could comment on the issue.

“Ink gets very complex [and] there’s actually quite a bit of variety and hardcore chemistry that goes on, and can vary a lot from one pen type to another,” Goulet told me in an 1,800-word email.

There are three types of pen ink, he explained: water-based, used in gel, rollerball, and fountain pens; alcohol- or solvent-based, used in felt-tip pens like Sharpies that have that distinctive odor; and oil-based, used in ballpoint pens.

“Within each of these ink bases, there are a LOT of different formulations and characteristics that a pen company can use. Most of these are highly proprietary trade secrets,” Goulet said.

It’s possible that even if Paper Mate hasn’t reformulated its ink, it’s still changed, said Goulet. Individual ink colors are made up of multiple raw dye components. “Sometimes variations in the dye components themselves can shift the color or property of an ink even if the exact same supplier and formulation is used by the ink maker,” he said.

Interestingly, Nader noted that the purple pens always lasted longer than the other colors, which likely nods to the formulation that makes the ink purple.

“Just as there are trade secrets with pen/ink makers, there are trade secrets with THEIR suppliers and they may not disclose if there are changes made over time,” Goulet said. “That said, Paper Mate is a large company and may have more control over their own ink formula.”

Goulet wasn’t kidding when he mentioned “trade secrets.” I contacted two ink chemists, the editor of an ink trade journal (who has expertise in inks, just not water-based pen inks), PR teams at competitive felt-tip pen companies, and many more potential insiders and experts.

Only the team from Faber-Castell’s headquarters in Germany were willing to talk.

I spoke with Gerhard Lugert, PhD, the director of development, and Helmut Zeilinger, the senior technical product manager, both of whom have worked for Faber-Castell for decades. They confirmed that economic fluctuations and raw material availability can play a factor in how ink formulation is adjusted over time.

Theory 4: Paper Mate is putting less ink in the pens

Paper Mate might not be filling the pens as fully as they had before, a theory floated by Melanie, Wirecutter’s pen expert.

Melanie said she wouldn’t be surprised if most new pens—not just the Flair pens—are not full of ink; similar to opening a bag of potato chips and finding it half full.

“Just as with printer ink cartridges, we can’t tell just by looking how much ink is in a pen unless the pen has a clear barrel or you’re using a refillable pen,” Melanie said.

Newell Brands, Paper Mate’s parent company, is not immune to cost-saving measures and corporate restructuring . In a world of shrinkflation, not filling the pens as fully as before isn’t out of the realm of possibility.

While we understand that comparing vintage with modern samples doesn’t account for the product design changes and any evaporation that has occurred in the literal decades since the pens we bought off Ebay have been sitting in their packages, we needed to satisfy our curiosity.

Michael Hession, Wirecutter’s director of photography, weighed each pen on a Timemore Black Mirror Pro coffee scale to determine if there was a significant difference among them. The 2023 pen weighed in at 7.3 grams while the 1989 pen was a heftier 7.9 grams.

The experts at Lumafield confirmed we can’t prove this theory. “It’s difficult to ascertain the amount of ink that’s present in the pens due to a few factors: age, the sponge material drying out over time, type of ink used, being transported by airplane, etc,” said Eric Petralia, Lumafield’s PR and social media specialist.

The Faber-Castell execs also gave this theory a nod as possible, but we had to set it aside as a highly possible but difficult to prove hypothesis.

Theory 5: Today’s newsprint soaks up too much ink

This was one of the most common theories and one that was brought up by Nader’s camp, as well as multiple Wirecutter readers.

Nader uses his Paper Mate Flair pens for all types of writing, but he is particularly focused on marking up The New York Times and sending out the clippings. Hence, if newsprint has changed, it could be affecting the longevity of the ink in the Flair pens that Nader is using.

Nader is half right.

“Newsprint has changed,” confirmed Mike Connors, the managing director of The New York Times College Point production plant.

This is not a gotcha moment.

Paper has what’s called a basis weight. Due to rising costs, The New York Times switched from 30-pound basis weight to 27 pounds for most of the sections about a decade ago.

As paper stock gets lighter, it actually absorbs less ink, not more. The printers have to adjust the strength of the ink they use to avoid what they call show-through. If Page 1 has too much ink, for example, it appears smudged or creates shadows on the other side.

“When we lighten our newsprint, you have to have the gentle balance of the ink having that fidelity. You want people to be able to read it,” Connors said.

If anything, then, today’s newsprint soaks up less ink than it once did.

Theory 6: Nader’s grip strength has changed with age

Based on Nader’s age (90), armchair experts have suggested that Nader may not be capping his Flair as tightly as he had in the past, or pressing as hard on the paper.

This would be quite common, and quite understandable. The natural course of aging means that older adults are likely to lose grip strength, and it starts happening around age 55, said occupational therapist Karen Jacobs .

And what that means for ink usage could truly go either way.

“An individual with reduced grip strength might have a lighter touch and might lay down less ink if they are using a pen where ink flow is pressure dependent. If the individual is struggling to maintain their grip on the writing instrument, they might apply more pressure and lay down more ink,” said Jacobs via email.

You can see an example of Nader’s current penmanship and force on the photo of his pen testing sheet below.

However, Nader’s camp denies any change here. “He has for all his life used the typewriter to write and still does,” his assistant, Shine-Erkh Picon, said. “So, he has pretty strong muscles in his fingers and does not have any problems with grip strength.”

Nader has complained multiple times that the pens don’t cap properly. “In the last four or five years, when you take the cover off the felt pen and lock it in at the other end, the new ones fall off more quickly than the old ones. They don’t lock in firmly, so you’re writing away and the thing flips off onto the floor,” he said in a phone interview last year.

It seems likely that either Nader or the pen itself aren’t closing as tightly, exposing the tip to more air and causing it to dry out faster.

In our testing for this article, the caps on the newer models still attached securely to both ends. We heard a satisfying click, and the cap held firmly to the back of the pen when in use, even when the pen was being waved around wildly.

Theory 7: The recycled plastic that newer pens are made from could soften over time

Lumafield’s scans and analysis confirmed that, though design changes have been made throughout the years, the new pen caps still seem designed to be secure.

However, Lumafield did posit a theory that the recycled plastic in the current pen design could soften over time. Paper Mate doesn’t indicate on its website that it uses recycled plastic in the Paper Mate Flair pens, but scans of the 2023 pen show a telltale speckling that indicates recycled plastic.

Recycling plastic tends to reduce its quality and lose strength over time . In theory, that means a brand-new pen cap might fit securely but eventually become looser. And a loose cap leads to ink evaporation, as corroborated by the experts at Faber-Castell.

Lumafield has a fair bit of experience in this area, as manufacturers use its CT scanning technology to ensure the design of their product is on point. If they had complaints of a leaky shampoo bottle, for example, “Those companies can CT scan their leaky bottles and see why they might be leaking—because there’s a thread engagement issue, or because there’s an injection molding problem, that causes it to be weak at a particular corner,” said Bruner, head of marketing at Lumafield.

Switching to a percentage of recycled plastic in the pen may change or reduce some aspect of the performance of the product, so a company has to consider those trade-offs. It’s possible that reduced longevity is one of those trade-offs.

“The reason the old unsustainable plastics were being used in the first place is because they were ideal in some sense for the application. They’re strong, or they’re durable, or they’re easy to work with,” said Bruner.

We have a large time gap between the 1989 and 2023 pens we scanned. Lumafield only noticed this formula change in the 2023 version, so depending if and when Paper Mate switched to recycled plastic, there could have been a shift in pen performance over that time, though we do think this might be a stretch (pun intended).

Theory 8: Nader’s environment is too dry

What if Nader’s environment has become drier? Then his pens could be drying out due to the lack of humidity. This theory felt like a long shot, but it did pique our curiosity.

First, we reached out to two archivist organizations. Neither wanted to touch this theory.

“We are not able to comment on this. It is outside of our area of expertise, as it is about the performance of the ink in the pen and not the ink on a historic document,” said a representative from the National Archives and Records Administration.

Goulet, however, had something to say. While he says he has been unable to find scientific studies on the rates of evaporation of water-based ink in relation to relative humidity in the air, he has had “practical experience and 15 years of customers buying water based ink from Goulet Pens.”

“Pens using water-based ink dry out noticeably quicker in arid environments with a low relative humidity than in more humid environments. Even remaining in one location, the relative humidity can swing quite a bit just with changing weather, particularly when there are periods of drought or rain,” Goulet said.

The executives from Faber-Castell confirmed this. The temperature where the pen is stored and the air-tightness of the pen’s design are both key factors because the water-based ink can evaporate, reducing the pen’s shelf life.

“A normal fiber tip pen with water-based ink and good air tightness (in the construction of the barrel and the cap fits very good), normally has a shelf life of, say, three years. Normally, you get this result [when the] temperature is 68 to 77 Fahrenheit degrees. If you store it at, let’s say, 86 Fahrenheit, you will get only, let’s say, two years. Because it’s water,” said Lugert, who noted that Faber-Castell does lab testing on its pens to determine longevity in a number of conditions.

Picon, Nader’s assistant, confirmed that Nader remains in the Washington, DC, area and his location hasn’t changed (he hasn’t retired to Vegas).

I then contacted John Keefe, The New York Times weather data editor, to see if the DC Metro Area has become drier since 2009 (the year we believe the pen design changed).

He crunched some numbers.

First he downloaded the hourly humidity data from College Park, Maryland, and then averaged the hours in every month since January 2009. He then ran a regression to check for trends in the line graph and, well, in his words: “It’s dang near horizontal.”

In consultation with New York Times meteorologist Judson Jones, Keefe tried that math with the dew point, and the results told the same story.

“There is an ever-so-slight downward trend, but my gut says that’s not nearly enough to affect a pen, especially given the day-to-day (and month-to-month) variability,” said Keefe.

So it’s not the external environment that’s become drier. Could Nader’s office environment be the issue? I asked senior staff writer Tim Heffernan, who has deep knowledge of air-quality issues.

“Honestly I am skeptical,” he said. “Central heat and AC has been around forever, and both very considerably dry the indoor air relative to the outside air. if anything, i’d guess Nader’s home would be generally more humid now than it once was, because HVAC engineers have gotten more cognizant of the importance of moderate humidity to human comfort and health, and modern HVAC systems can (though not all do) keep it in the comfort zone while also keeping a building cool/warm enough.”

But still, as nothing around him has changed demonstrably, we can officially put this theory to rest.

Theory 9: Nader is using old new pens

The spent pens Nader sent us arrived in older-style boxes, one with a copyright from 2010 and one from 2018. Both boxes say the pens were made in Mexico.

Wirecutter fact checker Leslie Nemo suggested that Nader bought pens in bulk years ago, and they’ve started drying up before he had a chance to use them.

Nader says he’s been noticing the issue for awhile and had made attempts to get attention to it through Paper Mate and others, before approaching Wirecutter with the problem.

His assistant confirmed that they buy the pens in fairly small quantities for the amount of writing Nader is doing. “We buy three boxes of the pens that contain 12 pens each. I buy one box of each - blue, black, and red. So, not in large quantities where it is stored for a long time before Ralph requests for more,” Picon said via email.

In fact, when Michael, our photo director, opened the original 1966 pen packaging and did a writing comparison with the brand-new 2023 pens, the older pen actually had a deeper, richer tone. If it’s been sitting around for almost six decades and still maintains its vibrancy, we can safely toss out this theory.

Theory 10: Nader is storing his pens vertically, not horizontally

This theory actually arose during my interview with the experts at Faber-Castell. They said that felt-tipped pens with pigmented inks should be kept horizontal when not in use. That’s because the ink storage reservoir in the pens is fibrous, akin to a cigarette filter, so if stored vertically, ink and sediment pools due to the earth’s gravitational pull, according to Lugert.

“Sedimentation is an issue,” he said. “You can store it for some hours or some days tip down, and in this case it’s [working fine] again. But if you store for a longer time tip down and you try to [write with it, the sediment] is blocking. There’s no way really to bring this back.”

This theory only applies for pigmented inks.

We studied the photo of Nader at his desk and didn’t see a pencil cup or means for storing pens vertically within camera range.

Additionally, Nader’s assistant confirmed that all of Nader’s pens are stored horizontally in his desk drawer. The boxes of his backup pens are stored horizontally as well, making this theory fully debunked.

The mystery continues

Until we have someone with knowledge of Paper Mate’s inner workings, we won’t truly have an answer here. (We have set up a tip line at 212-556-1314. You can leave a voicemail there if you have any knowledge on this topic you would like to share.)

Regardless, we feel confident in confirming that the pens are drying out more quickly than before, and that it is likely multiple factors of quality degradation rather than just one. The redesign of the Flair pen’s nib and cap and any change in ink formulation could be the most likely culprits. It’s not all in Nader’s head. And yet, questions persist.

Nader’s assistant also recently reminded me that he’s concerned his pencil erasers aren’t holding up the way they once were. What do you think, my fellow conspiracy theorists, should we not put down our magnifying glasses quite yet?

This article was edited by Ben Frumin. 

Meet your guide

Annemarie Conte

Deputy Editor

Annemarie Conte is a deputy editor at Wirecutter. She has written and edited for multiple local and national magazines throughout her career. You can follow her on Instagram .

• Open access
• Published: 02 September 2024

A case-controlled trial evaluating the summative performance of the 3-D skills Model

• C. Robertson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3570-182X 1 , 2 ,
• Z. Noonan 1 &
• J. G. Boyle 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  954 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Near-peer teaching is a popular pedagogical teaching tool however many existing models fail to demonstrate benefits in summative OSCE performance. The 3-step deconstructed (3-D)skills near-peer model was recently piloted in undergraduate medicine showing short term improvement in formative OSCE performance utilising social constructivist educational principles. This study aims to assess if 3-D skills model teaching affects summative OSCE grades.

Seventy-nine third year medical students attended a formative OSCE event at the University of Glasgow receiving an additional 3-minutes per station of either 3-D skills teaching or time-equivalent unguided practice. Students’ summative OSCE results were compared against the year cohort to establish whether there was any difference in time delayed summative OSCE performance.

3-D skills and unguided practice cohorts had comparable demographical data and baseline formative OSCE performance. Both the 3-D skill cohort and unguided practice cohort achieved significantly higher median station pass rates at summative OSCEs than the rest of the year. This correlated to one additional station pass in the 3-D skills cohort, which would increase median grade banding from B to A. The improvement in the unguided practice cohort did not achieve educational significance.

Incorporating the 3-D skills model into a formative OSCE is associated with significantly improved performance at summative OSCEs. This expands on the conflicting literature for formative OSCE sessions which have shown mixed translation to summative performance and suggests merit in institutional investment to improve clinical examination skills.

Peer Review reports

Near-Peer Teaching (NPT) as an educational tool utilises constructivist principles that can prompt goal orientated learning through constructs such as cognitive congruence [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Cognitive congruence in the NPT context is described as student tutors and tutees sharing the same knowledge framework [ 4 ]. Through this shared understanding, it is proposed that near peer tutors identify the learning needs of tutees easier than content experts [ 1 , 3 ]. The concept stems from Vygotsky’s work on scaffolded learning where learning is individually calibrated to a learner’s perceived level to effectively solve problems under guidance [ 5 ]. Although subject to debate, there is evidence that near-peer tutors can be as effective as experienced faculty if learning adjuncts are used, such as feedback templates or marking sheets [ 6 ]. NPT is an attractive complement to undergraduate education with reciprocal benefits received by near-peer tutors and a minimal-cost structure [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 ].

NPT models include formative adaptations of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) [ 6 , 7 ]. OSCEs are widely used to assess clinical assessment skills including examination skills and procedures. These formative adaptations replicate fidelity and have high student satisfaction rates [ 7 , 8 ]. Educationally they follow Knowle’s principles of andragogy, supporting experience in driving adult learning [ 9 , 10 ]. Despite this educational framework, there are conflicting reports of educational attainment with many unable to demonstrate objective performance improvement [ 7 , 8 , 11 , 12 ]. Learning models applied to the mock OSCE, such as serial OSCE testing or integrated feedback, aim to achieve objective performance improvements through self-regulated learning principles [ 7 , 8 , 12 , 13 ]. Based on Zimmerman’s (2000) self-regulated learning model, a formative OSCE offers a means to assess student’s performance levels, through self-observation of their perceived competence, this can drive self-reflection and further learning [ 9 , 14 ]. However, undergraduate medical students may be ineffective self-regulated learners and require structured teaching to guide this practice [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ].

Peyton’s 4-step approach is a well-recognised model for structured psychomotor skill attainment [ 19 ]. In Peyton’s model the tutor demonstrates and deconstructs a skill before assessing comprehension and supporting self-practice to reinforce learning [ 19 ]. Research would suggest the deconstruction and comprehension stages of the approach constitute the greatest learning gain [ 19 ]. Furthermore, whilst an excellent model for initial learning of a psychomotor skill, it requires a significant time investment. This may compromise both Peyton’s models’ practicality in the clinical environment and facility to correct mistakes in existing examination skills. A more focused approach was felt to be advantageous and facilitated our development of the 3-step deconstructed (3-D) skills model(Fig.  1 ) [ 18 ]. Our model integrates the comprehension and self-practice elements of Peyton’s model, structured around a formative OSCE assessment. In our pilot study, we were able to demonstrate comparable student satisfaction and improvements in confidence to other formative OSCE models [ 7 , 8 , 18 ]. We are, however, unsure how the 3-D skills model translates to summative education outcomes, with other models often failing to show such improvement [ 7 , 8 ]. Our hypothesis is the 3-D skills structured learning model improves subsequent self-regulated learning of psychomotor skills [ 14 ]. Our research question was to identify if there was a difference in summative OSCE station pass rates when 3-D skills teaching, or time-equivalent unguided practice, was incorporated into a formative OSCE in comparison to the year cohort.

– the 3-D skills model with approximate timings for each composite part

We designed a case-controlled trial to assess the impact the 3-D skills teaching model has on students’ summative OSCE performance, utilising near-peers as tutors. Students would receive 3-D skills teaching or a time equivalent unguided examination practice after formative OSCE stations, with summative scores compared to the general student population [ 20 ](Fig.  2 ). This allows comparison of attending formative OSCE learning alone to those not attending, and additionally the 3-D skills model to a non-guided comparative control. Our additional comparison enables us to discuss the value of the 3-D skills model in guiding learning over other formative OSCE models such as those utilising unguided examinations only or near-peer led unstructured feedback [ 7 , 11 , 12 , 13 ].

Student teaching was delivered as a voluntary formative OSCE event using the template from our pilot study. The event ran four weeks prior to the University of Glasgow(UoG) year three summative OSCE examinations [ 20 ]. Study approval was granted from the UoG ethics committee. All 278 year three students were invited to participate via campus email and social media with a choice of days and timeslots. Notably these students were on clinical placements during this timeframe. The formative OSCE would be held in the same venue as the upcoming summative OSCE, the clinical skills suite of the University of Glasgow, to maintain fidelity. All work was completed independently from the summative OSCE, and we did not know what stations were likely to appear.

Our pilot study template was adapted in response to student feedback and logistical lessons learned during the event to accommodate an additional examination station as shown in Fig.  2 [ 20 ]. The formative event utilised checklist marking sheets sourced from a bank of previous summative OSCEs, each constituting twenty items arranged in a binary (done/not done) scoring metric with a global assessment category of pass, borderline pass or fail. The marking sheets were domain-based, aligned with summative OSCE marking processes at Glasgow. Our circuit composed of six examination stations: abdominal, cardiovascular, upper limb neurological, knee joint, hip joint and respiratory. For background, students are formally taught the corresponding clinical skills between years 2 and 3 by experienced faculty, often using Peyton’s 4-step approach. Additionally, we replicated the assessment of our pilot study’s short-term attainment of the 3-D skills model with the larger cohort in this study, further details and results can be found in supplementary material 1. Fidelity was monitored by faculty to observe compliance and enforce examination conditions, for example adherence to station timings. At the end of the event, all students were informed of their checklist scores for each station.

– Study timeline

On enrolment to the study, students were allocated to a date, timeslot and either 3-minutes of 3-D skills teaching or 3-minutes of unguided practice groups via a random number generator. Both cohorts were instructed to attend separate rooms where a member of the faculty would take attendance, consent and provide an identical pre-session briefing to students. This brief stated that “each station will comprise a five-minute formative OSCE station and three-minutes of practice to go over any part of the examination. These three-minutes of practice time may or may not be guided by one of the examiners.” There was no crossover between student cohorts, and they were not informed which cohort they were allocated to. The specific difference between the cohorts is the 3-minutes after each OSCE station in whether it is guided (3-D skills) or unguided.

Student tutors in their 4th year or above were recruited to teach at the formative event. These tutors were from the Clinical Assessment Practice (CAP) Glasgow student society which regularly runs formative OSCE events for Glasgow students. These tutors attended a half day training event run by a team of junior doctors, experienced with the 3-D skills model, with the instructional design replicated from our pilot study [ 9 ]. Tutors alternated as simulated patient or tutor for both cohorts and attended separate cohort briefings [ 9 ]. As per the pilot, external markers were recruited from foundation year two and above to formally mark third-year students [ 9 ]. These external markers were not briefed on the differences between cohorts with no event circuit cross-over [ 9 ].

Data collection

To power our study’s summative analysis, we analysed data from the previous year three summative examination results and determined that the median station pass rate was 11/12. Using a 2-point continuous study power calculation we estimated that we would need a total sample size of 58 students (29 per study arm) with 1:1 enrolment, achieving an alpha value of 0.05 and power of 0.8 to detect a difference of 1 in summative station pass rates. Our rationale was OSCE grade banding is linked to overall number of stations passed, therefore an additional station pass is likely to affect grading and thus correlate to educational significance. We sourced summative results from both cohorts and year 3 students who did not attend the event.

We used the IBM SPSS Statistics Software (version 27) to process our data. Our data set suggested that the summative stations passed exhibited a left skewed distribution. We listed the sample size, range, median and mean rank score for summative descriptive statistics. To compare the 3 populations, 3-D skills, unguided practice, and general population, we used the Kruskal-Wallis-test with a p  < 0.05 correlating to statistical significance, and the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences between the groups. Multiple comparisons using the Post-hoc Dunn-Bonferroni test were made to identify statistically significant differences between the 3 populations, a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.017 indicated statistical significance.

Demographical data was obtained from a pre-event questionnaire that was filled in immediately preceding the event (Table  1 ). All other formative assessment results including event satisfaction, confidence levels and checklist scores from 1st -2nd sitting are described in supplementary material 1.

Demographics

In total 96 students expressed interest to attend our formative course (35% of year 3). Two students in the unguided practice cohort did not consent for use of their data. Of the remaining 94 students, 13 were unable to attend at short notice, citing competing educational events. In summary, 46 students completed the 3-D skills teaching and 33 completed the unguided practice. Demographics for the two cohorts and all of the year 3 cohort are shown in Table  1 .

Our demographics approximate to the year 3 averages for gender and age, however, we have a disproportionately high percentage of non-U.K. students included in the study, a demographic feature that was also noted in the pilot [ 9 ].

Summative student results

Each student sat 12 OSCE stations in the summative examination. Descriptive statistics can be found in Table  2 .

The Kruskal-Wallis-test rejected the null hypothesis, confirming a statistically significant difference in the dependent variable (stations passed) between the three groups ( P  < 0.01). The Post-Hoc Dunn’s test using the Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.017 indicated that the mean ranks comparing the 3-D skills cohort to the other year 3 students and the unguided practice cohort to the other year 3 students were significant( P  < 0.01). The mean rank difference of the 3-D skills cohort to the unguided practice cohort did not reach significance ( p  = 0.099).

Grade correlation

Summative examination results correlated an A grade to students achieving 12/12 stations passed, a B grade to students achieving 11/12 and C for those achieving 10/12 passed stations. This suggests the differences between median grade for the 3-D skills cohort (12/12 stations passed) and the rest of year 3 (11/12 stations passed) would be both statistically and educationally significant. However, as the unguided practice cohort and the year 3 students who did not attend achieved the same median pass rate (11/12 stations passed), although statistically significant this result did not reach educational significance.

Students who attended the formative OSCE event had a significantly higher summative grade than those who did not attend, regardless of if they were in the 3-D skills or unguided practice cohort. Whilst reaching statistical significance, the unguided practice cohort achieved the same median grade than students not attending the event, questioning the educational significance. In contrast, the 3-D skills cohort achieved a median higher-grade banding, correlating to an A grade, suggesting educational significance. Nevertheless, both cohorts demonstrate the value of near-peer learning in curricula and achieved impact at subsequent summative OSCE examinations.

With minimal training, near-peer tutors were able to utilise the 3-D skills model as a teaching aid, achieving a positive impact on summative examination performance. This supports previous evidence that near-peer tutors can be as effective as faculty [ 6 , 20 ]. Many Universities now offer support for prospective near-peer tutors and our study provides further validation. Sustainability is evidenced by the large pool of voluntary tutors we recruited through altruistic intent to teach. Our half-day student tutor training session demonstrates a popular formative model, being faculty and resource light, offering summative assessment translation and synergistic tutor benefits. We believe this warrants further investment to promote near-peer education [ 2 , 3 , 8 , 20 ].

Assessing generalisability, we initially recruited 35% of year 3 students to attend the formative OSCE event. Given the ‘out-of-hours’ format with voluntary attendance, we considered this a reasonable response. Whilst effort was taken for the event to be accessible to all, offering a range of dates and timeslots, we may be inadvertently disadvantaging some student cohorts through an out-of-hours model. Although no students approached us for alternative arrangements, we can argue with the now demonstrated improvement at time-delayed summative examinations, we should incorporate the 3-D skills formative assessment into our main curricula to ensure no student is disadvantaged. Gender mix was approximate to the year average, suggesting gender would be unlikely to contribute to the results [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. A notable trend in this study, and our pilot, is a disproportionately high rate of non-U.K. attendees [ 20 ]. We had approximately twice as many non-U.K.students across both cohorts than we would proportionally expect. Studies suggest overseas students perform less well in OSCEs than home/native students, and an awareness of this, coupled with a heightened conscientiousness in this group may be responsible for the higher attendance rates [ 24 , 26 , 27 ]. The nature of this is unclear with language and cultural constructs postulated as discerning factors [ 24 , 26 , 27 ]. With the popularity of NPT, endeavours such as the 3-D skills model may offer an ideal solution to bridge the perceived educational gap and afford overseas students’ equal opportunities for success at summative OSCE assessments as home/native students.

Although the comparison of median rank scores between the summative 3-D skills and unguided practice cohort did not reach significance, we can argue this arm was underpowered to detect median differences in cohorts less than 1 station. We observed a significant drop in attending student numbers on the night, affecting the unguided practice cohort disproportionately. This was due to a competing University event, highlighting the challenges and limitations experienced with out-of-hours vocational education. Whilst we did not demonstrate statistical significance between the two cohorts, we can argue the superiority of the 3-D skills approach based on current literature. Research suggests junior medical students may have underdeveloped self-regulated learning skills and thus require mentorship to reach efficacy [ 17 , 18 ]. Through this extension, perhaps subsequent self-regulated learning facilitated by the 3-D skills mentored approach was the driving factor for summative success. Nevertheless, achieving a statistically significant increased summative grade through facilitated OSCE learning, guided-or-unguided, expands on the conflicting literature on medium term impact of near-peer formative OSCE models [ 7 , 8 , 12 ]. Reaching educational significance by increasing students’ grade banding furthers the argument to utilise the 3-D skills model in formative OSCE teaching.

Our hypothesis for the 3-D skills models’ effectiveness focuses on constructivist theory, supporting scaffolded learning with cognitive congruity of near-peer tutors [ 1 , 4 , 5 ]. Utilising the 3-D skills model provides a structure to help near-peer tutors engage effectively with learners utilising their own experiences. Our hypothesis echoes the premiss of Loda et al [ 5 ] in their discussion surrounding the importance of cognitive and social congruence in establishing effective NPT sessions, originating from Schmidt and Moust’s model [ 28 ]. The adaptations to teaching technique and perception of task difficulty is likely instrumental in creating realistic learning outcomes from NPT [ 17 ]. In future work we seek to demonstrate the educational utility of the 3-D skills model on clinical placements. We suggest the 3-D skills model may be effectively paired with formative tools such as the ‘Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise’ offering a means of assessing learners prior to 3-D part 1(Fig.  1 ) [ 29 ].

A limitation in interpreting our results is student baseline performance. We did not have access to any previously captured descriptor metrics, such as written summative performances which may have further described student baseline. We can also argue hermeneutically that higher performing students are likely to attend additional teaching events, suggesting bias. Current research would disprove this notion however, as conscientiousness alone does not appear to influence examination results [ 30 , 31 ]. Furthermore, previous formative OSCE only models have failed to demonstrate statistically significant improvements from baseline student performance in summative assessments [ 7 , 8 ]. Perhaps subsequent self-regulated learning driven by the 3-minutes of guided-or-unguided teaching is responsible for the differences in summative grade.

An additional limitation was the difficulty in performing longitudinal follow up of this cohort due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, this cohort were the first to sit a ‘VOSCE’ in later years, a rapidly implemented novel adaptation to the OSCE program using a virtual interface [ 32 ]. However, only a small proportion of students completed this novel approach, preventing meaningful comparison.

As demonstrated in supplementary material 1, the short-term impact of the 3-D skills model has been replicated with a larger sample size. This model achieves high student satisfaction, improvements in confidence, a mean increase of ~ 15% checklist scores and a significantly higher-grade banding than a time-controlled unguided equivalent.

In future work we aim to incorporate this model into our curriculum, offering all students access to a formative OSCE with additional guided teaching. We also wish to test if the 3-D skills model can be readily applied to other formative assessment tools such as the supervised learning activities completed on clinical placements, e.g., Mini-CEX. If we can demonstrate further expansion on quantitative and qualitative outcomes of the 3-D skills model in clinical education, we may encourage other centres to adapt this model to their own curricula.

We have demonstrated that student engagement with a formative OSCE incorporating guided-or-unguided practice can statistically increase students’ performance at summative OSCEs. The 3-D skills teaching model (guided practice) achieved educational significance by demonstrably improving student median grade banding in subsequent summative OSCE performance, when compared with students receiving unguided OSCE practice. Our data validates the importance of guided teaching to support further self-regulated learning in novice learners. Future work will focus on curriculum integration both in-and-out of clinical placements to demonstrate the adaptability of the 3-D skills model.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the published article [and its supplementary information files].

Abbreviations

D skills model–3–step deconstructed skills model

Clinical Assessment Practice

19–coronavirus disease 2019

Near–Peer Teaching

Objective Structured Clinical Examination

University of Glasgow

Virtual Objective Structured Clinical Examination

Cate O, Durning S. Dimensions and psychology of peer teaching in medical education. Med Teach. 2007;29(6):546–52.

Article   Google Scholar  

Williams B, Reddy P. Does peer-assisted learning improve academic performance? A scoping review. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;42:23–9.

Rashid M, Sobowale O, Gore D. A near-peer teaching program designed, developed and delivered exclusively by recent medical graduates for final year medical students sitting the final objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). BMC Med Educ. 2011;11(11).

Loda T, Erschens R, Loenneker H, et al. Cognitive and social congruence in peer-assisted learning- A scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(9):e0222224.

Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: the development of higher psycho-logical processes. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 1978.

Google Scholar  

Melcher P, Zajonz D, Roth A, Heyde C, Ghanem M. Peer-assisted teaching student tutors as examiners in an orthopaedic surgery OSCE station – pros and cons. GMS Interdiscip Plas Reconstr Surg DGPW. 2016;5:17.

Young I, Montgomery K, Kearns P, Hayward S, Mellanby E. The benefits of a peer-assisted mock OSCE. Clin Teach. 2014;11:214–8.

Irvine S, Williams B, McKenna L. How are we assessing near-peer teaching in undergraduate health professional education? A systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;50:42–50.

Knowles M. The adult learner: a neglected species. Houston: Gulf; 1988.

Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall; 1984.

Alkhateeb N, Al-Dabbagh A, Ibrahim M, Al-Tawil N. Effect of a formative objective structured clinical examination on the clinical performance of undergraduate medical students in a summative examination: a randomized controlled trial. Indian Pediatr. 2019;56:745–8.

Lien H, Hsu S, Chen S, Yeh J. Can teaching hospitals use serial formative OSCEs to improve student performance? BMC Res Notes. 2016;9.

Bernard A, Ceccolini G, Feinn R, Rockfeld J, Rosenberg I, Thomas L, et al. Medical students review of formative OSCE scores, checklists and videos improves with student-faculty debriefing meetings. Med Educ Online. 2017;22:1324718.

Zimmerman BJ. Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In: Boekaerts M, Pintrich PR, Zeidner M, editors. Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic; 2000. pp. 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50031-7 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Walck-Shannon EM, Rowell SF, Frey RF. To what extent do Study habits relate to performance? CBE Life Sci Educ. 2021;20(1):ar6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-05-0091 . PMID: 33444109; PMCID: PMC8108503.

Borracci R, Arribalzaga E. The incidence of overconfidence and underconfidence effects in medical student examinations. J Surg Educ. 2018;75:1223–9.

Lockspeiser TM, Li ST, Burke AE, et al. In pursuit of Meaningful Use of Learning goals in Residency: a qualitative study of paediatric residents. Acad Med. 2016;91(6):839–46.

Zhang J, Liu Y, Shu T, Xiang M, Feng Z. Factors associated with medical students’ self-regulated learning and its relationship with clinical performance: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ 2022;22(128).

Krautter M, Dittrich R, Safi A, Krautter J, Maatouk I, Moeltner A, et al. Peyton’s four-step approach: differential effects of single instructional steps on procedural and memory performance – a clarification study. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015;27:399–406.

Robertson C, Al-Moasseb Z, Noonan Z, Boyle JG. The 3-D skills model: a Randomised Controlled Pilot Study comparing a Novel 1–1 near‐peer teaching model to a formative OSCE with self‐regulated practice. Med Sci Edu. 2021;31(6):1789–801.

Haq I, Higham J, Morris R, Dacre J. Effect of ethnicity and gender on performance in undergraduate medical examinations. Med educ. 2005;39(11):1126–8.

Elgoff-Juras C, Hirtz P, Luc A, Vaillant-Corry A. An objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) for French Dental students: feedback after 2 years. Dent J. 2021;9(11):136.

Garabed LR, Almarzouq A, Hu J, et al. Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) performance among Quebec urology residents: a retrospective study from 2008–2019. Can Urol Assoc J. 2020;14(9):E435–44.

Tatachar A, Wettergreen S, Summers S. Reflective metacognition and objective structured clinical examination performance in introductory pharmacy practice experiences. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2020;12(10):1208–14.

Graf J, Smolka R, Simoes E, et al. Communication skills of medical students during the OSCE: gender-specific differences in a longitudinal trend study. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):75.

Schoonheim-Klein M, Hoogstraten J, Habets L, et al. Language background and OSCE performance: a study of potential bias. Eur J Dent Educ. 2007;11(4):222–9.

Lyons K, Brock T, Malone D, Freihat L, White P. Predictors of Pharmacy Student Performance on Written and Clinical examinations in a flipped Classroom Curriculum. Am J Pharm Educ. 2020;84(12):8038.

Schmift HG, Moust JH. What makes a tutor effective? A structural-equations modelling approach to learning in problem-based curricula. Acad Med. 1995;70(8):708–14.

Liu C. An introduction to workplace-based assessments. Gastroenterol Heptaol Bed Bench. 2012;5(1):24–8.

Martin R, Naziruddin Z. Systematic review of student anxiety and performance during objective structured clinical examinations. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2020;12(12):1491–7.

Schrempft S, Piumatti G, Gerbase MW. Baroffio. Pathways to performance in undergraduate medical students: role of conscientiousness and the perceived educational environment. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2021;26(5):1537–54.

Boyle JG, Colquhoun I, Noonan Z, McDowall S, Walters MR, Leach JP. Viva La VOSCE? BMC Med Ed. 2020;514.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the students at the University of Glasgow, CAP Glasgow student tutors and the foundation doctors who participated in this study. We would also like to thank the staff of the University of Glasgow who allowed us use of their clinical skills suite and their help and support during this study.

No internal or external funding was supplied for this project.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Undergraduate Medical School, The University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland

C. Robertson, Z. Noonan & J. G. Boyle

Anaesthetics Department, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 84 Castle Street, Glasgow, G4 0SF, Scotland

C. Robertson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CR was the primary author responsible for design of the work, acquisition and analysis of data, drafting and revision of the manuscript. ZN and JB assisted in the design of the work, analysis of the data and were heavily involved in the revision of the manuscript. CR, ZN and JB have approved the submitted version and have agreed to be accountable for these contributions.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Robertson .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

obtained from the ethics committee of the University of Glasgow School of Life Sciences, the study reference number is: 200170038.

Consent to participate

all 79 students have signed an informed consent form to authorise the analysis and distribution of this work, care was taken to avoid any publication of any identifiable information. Original materials have been transcribed by the author, removing identifiable information into an electronic database.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Robertson, C., Noonan, Z. & Boyle, J.G. A case-controlled trial evaluating the summative performance of the 3-D skills Model. BMC Med Educ 24 , 954 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05943-9

Download citation

Received : 09 February 2024

Accepted : 22 August 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05943-9

Share this article

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

• Near-peer education
• Undergraduate
• Medical education
• Clinical skills

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]