research vs study vs investigation

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to visit this site you agree to our use of cookies.

•      Language Editing     For Manuscripts    For Response Letter new    For LaTeX    For Annual Review and Tenure    For Books new
•      Scientific Editing     For Manuscripts    For Response Letter new
•      Grant Editing 
•      Translation 
• Publication Support  Journal Recommendation  Manuscript Formatting  Figure Formatting  Data Analysis new  Plagiarism Check  Conference Poster  Plain Language Summary
• Scientific Illustration  Journal Cover Design  Graphical Abstract  Infographic  Custom Illustration
• Scientific Videos  Video Abstract  Explainer Video  Scientific Animation
• Ethics and Confidentiality
• Editorial Certificate
• Testimonials
• Design Gallery
• Institutional Provider
• Publisher Portal
• Brand Localization
• Journal Selector Tool
• Journal Selector Tool (Academic)
• Peer Review Status Check new
• Learning Nexus

Research vs. study

The confusion about these words is that they can both be either nouns or verbs. If you ask someone, "Does 'studies' mean the same as 'researches'?" you may hear "Yes," but it is only true if they are used as verbs. As nouns, they have subtly different meanings.

"This team has done a lot of good research. I just read their latest study, which they wrote about calcium in germinating soybeans. It described several interesting experiments."

research 1. to perform a systematic investigation

1. "What kind of scientist is he? He's a botanist. He researches plants."

study 1. to perform a systematic investigation; 2. to actively learn or memorize academic material

1. "What kind of scientist is he? He's a botanist. He studies plants."

2. "Mindy studies every day. That is why she gets such excellent grades. She wants to go to college to study math."

Some authors say "research" when they mean "study." "Research," as a verb, means "to perform a study or studies," but "research" as a noun refers to the sum of many studies. "Chemical research" means the sum of all chemical studies. If you find yourself writing "a research" or "in this research," change it to "a study" or "in this study."

research The act of performing research. Also, the results of research. Note that "research" is a mass noun. It is already plural in meaning but grammatically singular. If you want to indicate more than one type, say "bodies of research" or "pieces of research," not "researches."

"Dr. Lee was a prolific scientist. She performed a great deal of research over her long career."

study A single research project or paper.

"Dr. Lee was a prolific scientist. She performed a great many studies over her long career."

The noun "study" refers to a single paper or project. You can replace "paper" with "study" in almost all cases (but not always the other way around), to the point where you can say "I wrote a study." The noun "research" means more like a whole body of research including many individual studies: The research of a field. The lifetime achievements of a scientist or research team.

Quick Links

• Language Editing Service
• Expert Scientific Editing Service
• Professional Translation Service
• Formatting Service
• Figure Preparation Service

Intentional Space Tag

Contact us  

Your name *

Your email *

Your message *

Please fill in all fields and provide a valid email.

© 2010-2024  ACCDON LLC 400 5 th Ave, Suite 530, Waltham, MA 02451, USA Privacy • Terms of Service

© 2010-2024 United States: ACCDON LLC Tel: 1-781-202-9968 Email: [email protected]

Address: 400 5 th Ave, Suite 530, Waltham, Massachusetts 02451, United States

Studies vs. Study

What's the difference.

Studies and Study are two related terms that have slightly different meanings. Studies, in the plural form, refers to a range of academic disciplines or subjects that a person is engaged in. It implies a broader scope and encompasses various fields of knowledge. On the other hand, Study, in the singular form, refers to the act of learning or acquiring knowledge in a specific subject or area. It is more focused and implies a concentrated effort to gain expertise or understanding in a particular field. While Studies refers to the overall academic pursuits, Study refers to the specific act of engaging with a subject in a systematic and dedicated manner.

Further Detail

Introduction.

When it comes to education and learning, the terms "studies" and "study" are often used interchangeably. However, they have distinct attributes that set them apart. In this article, we will explore the differences and similarities between studies and study, shedding light on their unique characteristics and how they contribute to the learning process.

Definition and Scope

Firstly, let's define the terms. "Studies" typically refers to a broader concept, encompassing a range of academic disciplines or fields of research. It involves the systematic investigation and analysis of a particular subject matter, often leading to the production of scholarly works, such as research papers, articles, or books. On the other hand, "study" refers to the individual act of learning or examining a specific topic or subject. It involves personal engagement, concentration, and effort to acquire knowledge or skills in a particular area.

Approach and Methodology

When it comes to the approach and methodology, studies and study differ significantly. In studies, researchers follow a structured and systematic approach, employing various research methods, such as experiments, surveys, interviews, or observations, to gather data and analyze it objectively. The findings are then interpreted and presented in a comprehensive manner, often following a specific format or framework. On the other hand, study is a more individualized process, where learners adopt their own methods and techniques to acquire knowledge. It may involve reading books, attending lectures, conducting personal experiments, or engaging in discussions with peers.

Scope and Depth of Knowledge

Studies tend to have a broader scope and depth of knowledge compared to individual study. Since studies involve extensive research and analysis, they often cover a wide range of topics within a particular field. Researchers delve deep into the subject matter, exploring various aspects, theories, and perspectives. This comprehensive approach allows for a more holistic understanding of the topic. On the other hand, individual study is more focused and limited in scope. Learners typically concentrate on a specific area or topic of interest, acquiring in-depth knowledge and expertise in that particular subject. While it may lack the breadth of studies, individual study allows for a deeper understanding and specialization.

Collaboration and Interaction

Collaboration and interaction play a crucial role in both studies and study, albeit in different ways. In studies, researchers often collaborate with peers, experts, or research teams to conduct experiments, share ideas, and validate findings. This collaborative approach fosters a diverse range of perspectives and promotes collective knowledge creation. On the other hand, individual study may involve limited collaboration, primarily through discussions with classmates or seeking guidance from mentors. However, it also encourages self-reflection and independent thinking, allowing learners to develop their own ideas and interpretations.

Time and Commitment

Another significant difference between studies and study lies in the time and commitment required. Studies, being a more formal and structured process, often demand a considerable amount of time and dedication. Researchers may spend months or even years conducting experiments, analyzing data, and writing reports. The rigorous nature of studies necessitates a long-term commitment to the research process. On the other hand, individual study offers more flexibility in terms of time and commitment. Learners can allocate their study time based on their availability and personal preferences. While it still requires dedication, individual study allows for a more adaptable and personalized learning experience.

Application and Impact

Both studies and study have significant applications and impacts in the academic and professional realms. Studies contribute to the advancement of knowledge within a particular field, providing a foundation for further research and development. The findings and insights gained from studies often have practical applications, influencing policies, practices, and decision-making processes. On the other hand, individual study allows learners to acquire specific skills and knowledge that can be directly applied in their personal or professional lives. It empowers individuals to pursue their interests, develop expertise, and enhance their career prospects.

In conclusion, while studies and study are related to the process of learning, they have distinct attributes that set them apart. Studies involve a systematic and structured approach, encompassing a broader scope of knowledge and requiring collaboration. On the other hand, study is an individualized process, allowing for deeper specialization and personalization. Both approaches have their own merits and contribute to the overall learning experience. Whether one chooses to engage in studies or individual study, the pursuit of knowledge remains a lifelong journey of growth and development.

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

Qualitative vs Quantitative Research Methods & Data Analysis

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

The main difference between quantitative and qualitative research is the type of data they collect and analyze.

Quantitative data is information about quantities, and therefore numbers, and qualitative data is descriptive, and regards phenomenon which can be observed but not measured, such as language.

• Quantitative research collects numerical data and analyzes it using statistical methods. The aim is to produce objective, empirical data that can be measured and expressed numerically. Quantitative research is often used to test hypotheses, identify patterns, and make predictions.
• Qualitative research gathers non-numerical data (words, images, sounds) to explore subjective experiences and attitudes, often via observation and interviews. It aims to produce detailed descriptions and uncover new insights about the studied phenomenon.

On This Page:

What Is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative research is the process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting non-numerical data, such as language. Qualitative research can be used to understand how an individual subjectively perceives and gives meaning to their social reality.

Qualitative data is non-numerical data, such as text, video, photographs, or audio recordings. This type of data can be collected using diary accounts or in-depth interviews and analyzed using grounded theory or thematic analysis.

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p. 2)

Interest in qualitative data came about as the result of the dissatisfaction of some psychologists (e.g., Carl Rogers) with the scientific study of psychologists such as behaviorists (e.g., Skinner ).

Since psychologists study people, the traditional approach to science is not seen as an appropriate way of carrying out research since it fails to capture the totality of human experience and the essence of being human.  Exploring participants’ experiences is known as a phenomenological approach (re: Humanism ).

Qualitative research is primarily concerned with meaning, subjectivity, and lived experience. The goal is to understand the quality and texture of people’s experiences, how they make sense of them, and the implications for their lives.

Qualitative research aims to understand the social reality of individuals, groups, and cultures as nearly as possible as participants feel or live it. Thus, people and groups are studied in their natural setting.

Some examples of qualitative research questions are provided, such as what an experience feels like, how people talk about something, how they make sense of an experience, and how events unfold for people.

Research following a qualitative approach is exploratory and seeks to explain ‘how’ and ‘why’ a particular phenomenon, or behavior, operates as it does in a particular context. It can be used to generate hypotheses and theories from the data.

Qualitative Methods

There are different types of qualitative research methods, including diary accounts, in-depth interviews , documents, focus groups , case study research , and ethnography .

The results of qualitative methods provide a deep understanding of how people perceive their social realities and in consequence, how they act within the social world.

The researcher has several methods for collecting empirical materials, ranging from the interview to direct observation, to the analysis of artifacts, documents, and cultural records, to the use of visual materials or personal experience. Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p. 14)

Here are some examples of qualitative data:

Interview transcripts : Verbatim records of what participants said during an interview or focus group. They allow researchers to identify common themes and patterns, and draw conclusions based on the data. Interview transcripts can also be useful in providing direct quotes and examples to support research findings.

Observations : The researcher typically takes detailed notes on what they observe, including any contextual information, nonverbal cues, or other relevant details. The resulting observational data can be analyzed to gain insights into social phenomena, such as human behavior, social interactions, and cultural practices.

Unstructured interviews : generate qualitative data through the use of open questions.  This allows the respondent to talk in some depth, choosing their own words.  This helps the researcher develop a real sense of a person’s understanding of a situation.

Diaries or journals : Written accounts of personal experiences or reflections.

Notice that qualitative data could be much more than just words or text. Photographs, videos, sound recordings, and so on, can be considered qualitative data. Visual data can be used to understand behaviors, environments, and social interactions.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Qualitative research is endlessly creative and interpretive. The researcher does not just leave the field with mountains of empirical data and then easily write up his or her findings.

Qualitative interpretations are constructed, and various techniques can be used to make sense of the data, such as content analysis, grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), or discourse analysis .

For example, thematic analysis is a qualitative approach that involves identifying implicit or explicit ideas within the data. Themes will often emerge once the data has been coded .

Key Features

• Events can be understood adequately only if they are seen in context. Therefore, a qualitative researcher immerses her/himself in the field, in natural surroundings. The contexts of inquiry are not contrived; they are natural. Nothing is predefined or taken for granted.
• Qualitative researchers want those who are studied to speak for themselves, to provide their perspectives in words and other actions. Therefore, qualitative research is an interactive process in which the persons studied teach the researcher about their lives.
• The qualitative researcher is an integral part of the data; without the active participation of the researcher, no data exists.
• The study’s design evolves during the research and can be adjusted or changed as it progresses. For the qualitative researcher, there is no single reality. It is subjective and exists only in reference to the observer.
• The theory is data-driven and emerges as part of the research process, evolving from the data as they are collected.

Limitations of Qualitative Research

• Because of the time and costs involved, qualitative designs do not generally draw samples from large-scale data sets.
• The problem of adequate validity or reliability is a major criticism. Because of the subjective nature of qualitative data and its origin in single contexts, it is difficult to apply conventional standards of reliability and validity. For example, because of the central role played by the researcher in the generation of data, it is not possible to replicate qualitative studies.
• Also, contexts, situations, events, conditions, and interactions cannot be replicated to any extent, nor can generalizations be made to a wider context than the one studied with confidence.
• The time required for data collection, analysis, and interpretation is lengthy. Analysis of qualitative data is difficult, and expert knowledge of an area is necessary to interpret qualitative data. Great care must be taken when doing so, for example, looking for mental illness symptoms.

Advantages of Qualitative Research

• Because of close researcher involvement, the researcher gains an insider’s view of the field. This allows the researcher to find issues that are often missed (such as subtleties and complexities) by the scientific, more positivistic inquiries.
• Qualitative descriptions can be important in suggesting possible relationships, causes, effects, and dynamic processes.
• Qualitative analysis allows for ambiguities/contradictions in the data, which reflect social reality (Denscombe, 2010).
• Qualitative research uses a descriptive, narrative style; this research might be of particular benefit to the practitioner as she or he could turn to qualitative reports to examine forms of knowledge that might otherwise be unavailable, thereby gaining new insight.

What Is Quantitative Research?

Quantitative research involves the process of objectively collecting and analyzing numerical data to describe, predict, or control variables of interest.

The goals of quantitative research are to test causal relationships between variables , make predictions, and generalize results to wider populations.

Quantitative researchers aim to establish general laws of behavior and phenomenon across different settings/contexts. Research is used to test a theory and ultimately support or reject it.

Quantitative Methods

Experiments typically yield quantitative data, as they are concerned with measuring things.  However, other research methods, such as controlled observations and questionnaires , can produce both quantitative information.

For example, a rating scale or closed questions on a questionnaire would generate quantitative data as these produce either numerical data or data that can be put into categories (e.g., “yes,” “no” answers).

Experimental methods limit how research participants react to and express appropriate social behavior.

Findings are, therefore, likely to be context-bound and simply a reflection of the assumptions that the researcher brings to the investigation.

There are numerous examples of quantitative data in psychological research, including mental health. Here are a few examples:

Another example is the Experience in Close Relationships Scale (ECR), a self-report questionnaire widely used to assess adult attachment styles .

The ECR provides quantitative data that can be used to assess attachment styles and predict relationship outcomes.

Neuroimaging data : Neuroimaging techniques, such as MRI and fMRI, provide quantitative data on brain structure and function.

This data can be analyzed to identify brain regions involved in specific mental processes or disorders.

For example, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) is a clinician-administered questionnaire widely used to assess the severity of depressive symptoms in individuals.

The BDI consists of 21 questions, each scored on a scale of 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms. 

Quantitative Data Analysis

Statistics help us turn quantitative data into useful information to help with decision-making. We can use statistics to summarize our data, describing patterns, relationships, and connections. Statistics can be descriptive or inferential.

Descriptive statistics help us to summarize our data. In contrast, inferential statistics are used to identify statistically significant differences between groups of data (such as intervention and control groups in a randomized control study).

• Quantitative researchers try to control extraneous variables by conducting their studies in the lab.
• The research aims for objectivity (i.e., without bias) and is separated from the data.
• The design of the study is determined before it begins.
• For the quantitative researcher, the reality is objective, exists separately from the researcher, and can be seen by anyone.
• Research is used to test a theory and ultimately support or reject it.

Limitations of Quantitative Research

• Context: Quantitative experiments do not take place in natural settings. In addition, they do not allow participants to explain their choices or the meaning of the questions they may have for those participants (Carr, 1994).
• Researcher expertise: Poor knowledge of the application of statistical analysis may negatively affect analysis and subsequent interpretation (Black, 1999).
• Variability of data quantity: Large sample sizes are needed for more accurate analysis. Small-scale quantitative studies may be less reliable because of the low quantity of data (Denscombe, 2010). This also affects the ability to generalize study findings to wider populations.
• Confirmation bias: The researcher might miss observing phenomena because of focus on theory or hypothesis testing rather than on the theory of hypothesis generation.

Advantages of Quantitative Research

• Scientific objectivity: Quantitative data can be interpreted with statistical analysis, and since statistics are based on the principles of mathematics, the quantitative approach is viewed as scientifically objective and rational (Carr, 1994; Denscombe, 2010).
• Useful for testing and validating already constructed theories.
• Rapid analysis: Sophisticated software removes much of the need for prolonged data analysis, especially with large volumes of data involved (Antonius, 2003).
• Replication: Quantitative data is based on measured values and can be checked by others because numerical data is less open to ambiguities of interpretation.
• Hypotheses can also be tested because of statistical analysis (Antonius, 2003).

Antonius, R. (2003). Interpreting quantitative data with SPSS . Sage.

Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics . Sage.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology . Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3, 77–101.

Carr, L. T. (1994). The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research : what method for nursing? Journal of advanced nursing, 20(4) , 716-721.

Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research. McGraw Hill.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln. Y. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications Inc.

Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing research, 17(4) , 364.

Minichiello, V. (1990). In-Depth Interviewing: Researching People. Longman Cheshire.

Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage

Further Information

• Mixed methods research
• Designing qualitative research
• Methods of data collection and analysis
• Introduction to quantitative and qualitative research
• Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
• Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data
• Qualitative data analysis: the framework approach
• Using the framework method for the analysis of
• Qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research
• Content Analysis
• Grounded Theory
• Thematic Analysis

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is an Observational Study? | Guide & Examples

What Is an Observational Study? | Guide & Examples

Published on March 31, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

An observational study is used to answer a research question based purely on what the researcher observes. There is no interference or manipulation of the research subjects, and no control and treatment groups .

These studies are often qualitative in nature and can be used for both exploratory and explanatory research purposes. While quantitative observational studies exist, they are less common.

Observational studies are generally used in hard science, medical, and social science fields. This is often due to ethical or practical concerns that prevent the researcher from conducting a traditional experiment . However, the lack of control and treatment groups means that forming inferences is difficult, and there is a risk of confounding variables and observer bias impacting your analysis.

Table of contents

Types of observation, types of observational studies, observational study example, advantages and disadvantages of observational studies, observational study vs. experiment, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions.

There are many types of observation, and it can be challenging to tell the difference between them. Here are some of the most common types to help you choose the best one for your observational study.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

There are three main types of observational studies: cohort studies, case–control studies, and cross-sectional studies .

Cohort studies

Cohort studies are more longitudinal in nature, as they follow a group of participants over a period of time. Members of the cohort are selected because of a shared characteristic, such as smoking, and they are often observed over a period of years.

Case–control studies

Case–control studies bring together two groups, a case study group and a control group . The case study group has a particular attribute while the control group does not. The two groups are then compared, to see if the case group exhibits a particular characteristic more than the control group.

For example, if you compared smokers (the case study group) with non-smokers (the control group), you could observe whether the smokers had more instances of lung disease than the non-smokers.

Cross-sectional studies

Cross-sectional studies analyze a population of study at a specific point in time.

This often involves narrowing previously collected data to one point in time to test the prevalence of a theory—for example, analyzing how many people were diagnosed with lung disease in March of a given year. It can also be a one-time observation, such as spending one day in the lung disease wing of a hospital.

Observational studies are usually quite straightforward to design and conduct. Sometimes all you need is a notebook and pen! As you design your study, you can follow these steps.

Step 1: Identify your research topic and objectives

The first step is to determine what you’re interested in observing and why. Observational studies are a great fit if you are unable to do an experiment for practical or ethical reasons , or if your research topic hinges on natural behaviors.

Step 2: Choose your observation type and technique

In terms of technique, there are a few things to consider:

• Are you determining what you want to observe beforehand, or going in open-minded?
• Is there another research method that would make sense in tandem with an observational study?
• If yes, make sure you conduct a covert observation.
• If not, think about whether observing from afar or actively participating in your observation is a better fit.
• How can you preempt confounding variables that could impact your analysis?
• You could observe the children playing at the playground in a naturalistic observation.
• You could spend a month at a day care in your town conducting participant observation, immersing yourself in the day-to-day life of the children.
• You could conduct covert observation behind a wall or glass, where the children can’t see you.

Overall, it is crucial to stay organized. Devise a shorthand for your notes, or perhaps design templates that you can fill in. Since these observations occur in real time, you won’t get a second chance with the same data.

Step 3: Set up your observational study

Before conducting your observations, there are a few things to attend to:

• Plan ahead: If you’re interested in day cares, you’ll need to call a few in your area to plan a visit. They may not all allow observation, or consent from parents may be needed, so give yourself enough time to set everything up.
• Determine your note-taking method: Observational studies often rely on note-taking because other methods, like video or audio recording, run the risk of changing participant behavior.
• Get informed consent from your participants (or their parents) if you want to record:  Ultimately, even though it may make your analysis easier, the challenges posed by recording participants often make pen-and-paper a better choice.

Step 4: Conduct your observation

After you’ve chosen a type of observation, decided on your technique, and chosen a time and place, it’s time to conduct your observation.

Here, you can split them into case and control groups. The children with siblings have a characteristic you are interested in (siblings), while the children in the control group do not.

When conducting observational studies, be very careful of confounding or “lurking” variables. In the example above, you observed children as they were dropped off, gauging whether or not they were upset. However, there are a variety of other factors that could be at play here (e.g., illness).

Step 5: Analyze your data

After you finish your observation, immediately record your initial thoughts and impressions, as well as follow-up questions or any issues you perceived during the observation. If you audio- or video-recorded your observations, you can transcribe them.

Your analysis can take an inductive  or deductive approach :

• If you conducted your observations in a more open-ended way, an inductive approach allows your data to determine your themes.
• If you had specific hypotheses prior to conducting your observations, a deductive approach analyzes whether your data confirm those themes or ideas you had previously.

Next, you can conduct your thematic or content analysis . Due to the open-ended nature of observational studies, the best fit is likely thematic analysis .

Step 6: Discuss avenues for future research

Observational studies are generally exploratory in nature, and they often aren’t strong enough to yield standalone conclusions due to their very high susceptibility to observer bias and confounding variables. For this reason, observational studies can only show association, not causation .

If you are excited about the preliminary conclusions you’ve drawn and wish to proceed with your topic, you may need to change to a different research method , such as an experiment.

• Observational studies can provide information about difficult-to-analyze topics in a low-cost, efficient manner.
• They allow you to study subjects that cannot be randomized safely, efficiently, or ethically .
• They are often quite straightforward to conduct, since you just observe participant behavior as it happens or utilize preexisting data.
• They’re often invaluable in informing later, larger-scale clinical trials or experimental designs.

Disadvantages

• Observational studies struggle to stand on their own as a reliable research method. There is a high risk of observer bias and undetected confounding variables or omitted variables .
• They lack conclusive results, typically are not externally valid or generalizable, and can usually only form a basis for further research.
• They cannot make statements about the safety or efficacy of the intervention or treatment they study, only observe reactions to it. Therefore, they offer less satisfying results than other methods.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

The key difference between observational studies and experiments is that a properly conducted observational study will never attempt to influence responses, while experimental designs by definition have some sort of treatment condition applied to a portion of participants.

However, there may be times when it’s impossible, dangerous, or impractical to influence the behavior of your participants. This can be the case in medical studies, where it is unethical or cruel to withhold potentially life-saving intervention, or in longitudinal analyses where you don’t have the ability to follow your group over the course of their lifetime.

An observational study may be the right fit for your research if random assignment of participants to control and treatment groups is impossible or highly difficult. However, the issues observational studies raise in terms of validity , confounding variables, and conclusiveness can mean that an experiment is more reliable.

If you’re able to randomize your participants safely and your research question is definitely causal in nature, consider using an experiment.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

An observational study is a great choice for you if your research question is based purely on observations. If there are ethical, logistical, or practical concerns that prevent you from conducting a traditional experiment , an observational study may be a good choice. In an observational study, there is no interference or manipulation of the research subjects, as well as no control or treatment groups .

The key difference between observational studies and experimental designs is that a well-done observational study does not influence the responses of participants, while experiments do have some sort of treatment condition applied to at least some participants by random assignment .

A quasi-experiment is a type of research design that attempts to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. The main difference with a true experiment is that the groups are not randomly assigned.

Exploratory research aims to explore the main aspects of an under-researched problem, while explanatory research aims to explain the causes and consequences of a well-defined problem.

Experimental design means planning a set of procedures to investigate a relationship between variables . To design a controlled experiment, you need:

• A testable hypothesis
• At least one independent variable that can be precisely manipulated
• At least one dependent variable that can be precisely measured

When designing the experiment, you decide:

• How you will manipulate the variable(s)
• How you will control for any potential confounding variables
• How many subjects or samples will be included in the study
• How subjects will be assigned to treatment levels

Experimental design is essential to the internal and external validity of your experiment.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, June 22). What Is an Observational Study? | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/observational-study/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is a research design | types, guide & examples, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, naturalistic observation | definition, guide & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Investigate vs. Research — What's the Difference?

Difference Between Investigate and Research

Table of contents, key differences, comparison chart, primary purpose, common contexts, methodologies, compare with definitions, investigate, common curiosities, can "research" be done on a single topic, is "research" always scientific, can a student "investigate" a topic for a project, if i'm looking into a company's history, am i investigating or researching, does "investigate" always relate to crime, do researchers always reach a conclusion, is an "investigation" always reactive, are all investigations formal, can one "investigate" a rumor, can you "research" a person, do investigations always lead to discoveries, is all research published, is every investigation research, are investigative journalists also researchers, can "research" be subjective, share your discovery.

Author Spotlight

Popular Comparisons

Trending Comparisons

New Comparisons

Trending Terms

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

• Learning English
• Ask a Teacher

[Vocabulary]   investigation vs. study

• Thread starter Jack8rkin
• Start date Apr 21, 2010
• Views : 11,362
• Apr 21, 2010

Hello! Could you please explain me the difference in the meanings of "investigation" and "study" if we speak about a process of research? Are they interchangeable? Thanks  

• Apr 22, 2010

Jack8rkin said: Hello! Could you please explain me the difference in the meanings of "investigation" and "study" if we speak about a process of research? Are they interchangeable? Thanks Click to expand...

Thanks a lot! Your opinion, a native English speaker's opinion, is very precios in such kind of matters. You' ve helped a lot! Thanks again!  

Similar threads

• Oct 6, 2022
• Silverobama
• Oct 7, 2021
• English Idioms and Sayings

• Apr 1, 2020
• Nov 27, 2017
• Editing & Writing Topics

• Jul 10, 2016
• Letter Writing

If you have a question about the English language and would like to ask one of our many English teachers and language experts, please click the button below to let us know:

Share this page

A cross-lingual syntactic investigation of gender bias and stereotyping in GPT-4o: English vs Hindi

• Original Research
• Published: 16 September 2024

Cite this article

• Suvrat Arora   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0008-3747-6922 1 &
• Aditi Srivastava 1  

Beneath the vast capabilities and potentials of AI systems lie some crucial predicaments. Though Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have proven to be transformative, the ingrained gender biases and stereotypes in such models are a societal concern. The propagation of such biases is detrimental to men, women and all gender-diverse groups alike. Addressing these issues is imperative for ensuring equity and inclusivity. Thus, there is a need to identify and analyze such biases in LLMs and drift these models towards Responsible AI. In this research, we endeavor to investigate gender biases and occupation-based stereotyping in ChatGPT (GPT-4o), focusing on a comparative analysis between English and Hindi language responses. The dataset curated for this analysis comprises ChatGPT’s responses to selected gender-neutral prompts. The gender-determining syntactic structure of languages is employed as a metric for bias determination. In the English language, pronouns are the gender-determining part of speech, whereas, in Hindi, verb conjugations determine the gender of the subject. This formed the foundation of the gender bias identification in this study. We observe that ChatGPT tends to incline towards yielding male nouns in both languages. The biases have a higher degree of being male-skewed in English than in Hindi. In addition, the investigation further confirms that ChatGPT harbours occupation-based stereotypes. These biases and stereotypes do not necessarily depict the present disparities in society, indicating that ChatGPT reflects the biases of its training data. Conclusively, this research serves as a foundation for the identification of AI-generated biases and, subsequently, their annihilation.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Automatic gender detection: a methodological procedure and recommendations to computationally infer the gender from names with ChatGPT and gender APIs

Representations of Gender and Agency in the Harry Potter Series

Are We Nearing Singularity? A Study of Language Capabilities of ChatGPT

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Data availability

The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so due to the sensitive nature of the research, supporting data are not available.

Abubakar, A., Farooqi, M., James, Z.: Persistent anti-muslim bias in large language models. In: proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society (virtual event, USA) (AIES ’21). Association for computing machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 298–306 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462624

May, C., Wang, A., Bordia, S., Bowman, S.R., Rudinger, R.: On measuring social biases in sentence encoders. In: proceedings of the 2019 conference of the north American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, volume 1 (long and short papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp. 622–628 (2019). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1063

Armstrong, A.B.: Who’s afraid of ChatGPT? Exam. ChatGPT’s Implic. Legal Writ. (2023). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4336929

Article   Google Scholar  

Shrivastava, M., Bhattacharyya, P.: Hindi POS Tagger using naive stemming: harnessing morphological information without extensive linguistic knowledge. https://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~pb/papers/icon08-hindi-pos-tagger.pdf (2010)

Arnold, J.E., Eisenband, J.G., Brown-Schmidt, S., Trueswell, J.C.: The rapid use of gender information: evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00073-1

Brundage, M., Avin,S., Clark, J., Toner, H., Eckersley, P., Garfinkel, B., Dafoe, A., Scharre, P., Zeitzoff, T., Filar, B., Anderson, H., Roff, H., Allen, G.C., Steinhardt, J., Flynn, C., Ó hÉigeartaigh, S., Beard, S., Belfield, H., Farquhar, S., Lyle, C., Crootof, R., Evans, O., Page, M., Bryson, J., Yampolskiy, R., Amodei, D.: The malicious use of artificial intelligence: forecasting, prevention, and mitigation. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1802.07228 (2018)

Bostrom, N.: Superintelligence. Oxford University Press, London (2014)

Google Scholar  

Barocas, S., Selbst, A.D.: Big data’s disparate impact. Calif. Law Rev. (2016). https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BG31

Joshi, N., Darbari, H., Mathur, I.: HMM based POS tagger for Hindi. Computer science & information technology. https://airccj.org/CSCP/vol3/csit3639.pdf (2015)

Bender, E.M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., Shmitchell, S.: On the dangers of stochastic parrots: can language models be too big?. In: FAccT ’21: proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency(FAccT ’21). Association for computing machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922 (2021)

Gadde,P., Yeleti, M.V.: Improving statistical POS tagging using linguistic feature for Hindi and Telugu. ICON-2008: international conference on natural language processing. https://researchweb.iiit.ac.in/~mehervijay.yeleti/papers/icon08-pos.pdf (2008)

Blanco-Gonzalez, A., Cabezon, A., Seco-Gonzalez, A., Conde-Torres, D., Antelo-Riveiro, P., Pineiro, A., Garcia-Fandino, R.: The role of AI in drug discovery: challenges, opportunities, and strategies. Pharmaceuticals 16 (6), 891 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/ph16060891

Kennison, S.M., Trofe, J.L.: Comprehending pronouns: a role for word-specific gender stereotype information. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 32 , 355–378 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023599719948

Mouton, D.G.: Reflections on verb agreement in Hindi and related languages. Linguistics 22 (6), 857–864 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1984.22.6.857

Blomkvist, M., Qiu, Y., Zhao, Y.: Automation and stock prices: the case of ChatGPT. SSRN Electron. J. (2023). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4395339

Prates, M.O.R., Avelar, P.H.C., Lamb,l.: Assessing gender bias in machine translation—a case study with google translate. Neural computing and applications, pp. 33. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1809.02208 (2018)

Bozkurt, A., Xiao, J., Lambert, S., Pazurek, A., Crompton, H., Koseoglu, S., Farrow, R., Bond, M., Nerantzi, C., Honeychurch, S., et al.: Speculative futures on ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence (AI): a collective sreflection from the educational landscape. Asian J. Distance Educ. 18 (1), 53–130 (2023). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7636568

Urchs, S., Thurner, V., Aßenmacher, M., Heumann, C., Thiemichen, S.: How prevalent is gender bias in ChatGPT?-exploring German and English ChatGPT responses. Biased data in conversational agents. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.03031 (2023)

Su, H., Cheng, C.C., Farn, H., Kumar, S.H., Sahay, S., Chen, S.T., Lee, H.Y.: Learning from red teaming: gender bias provocation and mitigation in large language models. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.11079 (2023)

Ghosh, S., Caliskan, A.: ChatGPT perpetuates gender bias in machine translation and ignores non-gendered pronouns: findings across bengali and five other low-resource languages. AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society (AIES ’23). https://dl.acm.org/doi/ https://doi.org/10.1145/3600211.3604672 (2023)

Kumawat, D., Jain, V.: POS tagging approaches: a comparison. Int. J. Comput. Appl. (2015). https://doi.org/10.5120/20752-3148

Gross, N.: What ChatGPT tells us about gender: a cautionary tale about performativity and gender biases in AI. AI. Soc. Sci. 12 , 435 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12080435

Choi, J.H., Hickman, K.E., Monahan, A., Schwarcz, D.B.: Chatgpt goes to law school. J. Legal Educ. (2023). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4335905

Kotek,H., Dockum, R., Sun, D.Q.: Gender bias and stereotypes in large language models. CI '23: proceedings of the ACM collective intelligence conference. https://doi.org/10.1145/3582269.3615599 (2023)

Xie, Q., Han, W., Lai, Y., Peng, M., Huang, J.: The wall street neophyte: a zero-shot analysis of ChatGPT over multimodal stock movement prediction challenges. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.05351 (2023)

Hashimoto, T.B., Srivastava, M., Namkoong, H., Liang, P.: Fairness without demographics in repeated loss minimization. ICML 2018. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1806.08010 (2018)

Jeblick, K., Schachtner, B., Dexl, J., Mittermeier, A., Stüber, A.T., Topalis, J., Weber, T., Wesp, P., Sabel, B., Ricke, J., Ingrisch, M.: ChatGPT makes medicine easy to swallow: an exploratory case study on simplified radiology reports. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.14882 (2022)

Jia, S., Meng, T., Zhao, J., Chang, K.W.: Mitigating gender bias amplification in distribution by posterior regularization. In: proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. Association for computational linguistics, Online, pp. 2936–2942. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.264 (2020)

Kirk, H., Jun, Y., Iqbal, H., Benussi, E., Volpin, F., Dreyer, F.A., Shtedritski, A., Asano, Y.M.: Bias out-of-the-box: an empirical analysis of intersectional occupational biases in popular generative language models. NeurIPS 2021. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2102.04130 (2021)

Leino, K., Black, E., Fredrikson, M., Sen, S., Datta, A.: Feature-wise bias amplification. ICLR 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1812.08999 (2019)

Megahed, F.M., Chen, Y.J., Ferris, J.A., Knoth, S., Jones-Farmer, L.A.: How generative AI models such as ChatGPT can be (mis)used in SPC practice, education, and research? an exploratory study. Qual. Eng. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/08982112.2023.2206479

Nov, O., Singh, N., Mann, D.M.: Putting ChatGPT’s medical advice to the (turing) test: survey study. JMIR Med. Educ. 9 (2023), e46939 (2023). https://doi.org/10.2196/46939

Ousidhoum, N., Zhao, X., Fang, T., Song, Y., Yeung, D.Y.: Probing toxic content in large pre-trained language models. In: proceedings of the 59th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics and the 11th international joint conference on natural language processing (volume 1: long papers). Association for computational linguistics, Online, pp. 4262–4274. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.329 (2021)

Perlman, A.M.: The implications of openAI’s assistant for legal services and society. Suffolk university law school research paper no. 22–14. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4294197 (2022)

Sallam, M.: The utility of ChatGPT as an example of large language models in healthcare education, research and practice: systematic review on the future perspectives and potential limitations. Healthcare 11 (6), 20 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060887

Sun, T., Gaut, A., Tang, S., Huang, Y., ElSherief, M., Zhao, J., Mirza, D., Belding, E., Chang, K.W., Wang, W.Y.: Mitigating gender bias in natural language processing: literature review. In: proceedings of the 57th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. Association for computational linguistics, Florence, Italy, pp.1630–1640. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1159 (2019)

Venkit, P.N., Gautam, S., Panchanadikar, R., Huang, T.H.K., Wilson, S.: Nationality bias in text generation. 17th conference of the european chapter of the association for computational linguistics (EACL2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.02463 (2023)

Venkit, P.N., Srinath, M., Wilson,S.: A study of implicit bias in pretrained language models against people with disabilities. In: proceedings of the 29th international conference on computational linguistics. International committee on computational linguistics, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, pp. 1324–1332. https://aclanthology.org/2022.coling-1.113 (2022)

Zhao, J., Wang, T., Yatskar, M., Ordonez, V., Chang, K.W.: Men also like shopping: reducing gender bias amplification using corpus-level constraints. EMNLP 2017. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1707.09457

Zhao, J., Zhou, Y., Li, Z., Wang, W., Chang, K.W.: Learning gender-neutral word embeddings. EMNLP 2018. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1809.01496 (2018)

Zhuo, T.Y., Huang, Y., Chen, C., Xing,Z.: Exploring AI ethics of ChatGPT: A diagnostic analysis. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.12867 (2023)

Binns, R., Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., Shadbolt, N.: ‘It’s reducing a human being to a percentage’: perceptions of justice in algorithmic decisions.In: proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.10408 (2018)

Zhang, B.H., Lemoine, B., Mitchell, M.: Mitigating unwanted biases with adversarial learning. In: proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.07593 (2018)

Hardt, M., Price, E., Srebro, N.: Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (NIPS 2016) . https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02413 (2016)

Raji, I. D., Buolamwini, J.: Actionable auditing: investigating the impact of publicly naming biased performance results of commercial AI products. In: proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society. https://dl.acm.org/doi/ https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314244 2019

Holstein, K., Wortman Vaughan, J., Daumé III, H., Dudik, M., Wallach, H.: Improving fairness in machine learning systems: what do industry practitioners need?. In: proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.05239 (2019)

U.S. Department of Labor: Women’s bureau. Occupations. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/occupations . Accessed 9 Jun 2024

Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India: Women and men in India 2022. https://mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/women-men22/WomenMen2022.pdf . Accessed 9 Jun 2024

Directorate General of Employment, Government of India: Female labour utilization in India, April 2023. https://dge.gov.in/dge/sites/default/files/2023-05/Female_Labour_Utilization_in_India_April_2023_final__1_-pages-1-2-merged__1_.pdf . Accessed 9 Jun 2024

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., Shmitchell, S. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: can language models be too big?. In: proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pp. 610–623. https://dl.acm.org/doi/ https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922 (2021)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Computer Science and Engineering Department, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala, Punjab, India

Suvrat Arora & Aditi Srivastava

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Suvrat Arora or Aditi Srivastava .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

All the authors of this study express no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Arora, S., Srivastava, A. A cross-lingual syntactic investigation of gender bias and stereotyping in GPT-4o: English vs Hindi. AI Ethics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00565-9

Download citation

Received : 02 February 2024

Accepted : 22 August 2024

Published : 16 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00565-9

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

• Gender bias
• POS-tagging
• Large language models
• Stereotypes
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Dtsch Arztebl Int
• v.106(15); 2009 Apr

Types of Study in Medical Research

Bernd röhrig.

1 MDK Rheinland-Pfalz, Referat Rehabilitation/Biometrie, Alzey

Jean-Baptist du Prel

2 Zentrum für Präventive Pädiatrie, Zentrum für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin, Mainz

Daniel Wachtlin

3 Interdisziplinäres Zentrum Klinische Studien (IZKS), Fachbereich Medizin der Universität Mainz

Maria Blettner

4 Institut für Medizinische Biometrie, Epidemiologie und Informatik (IMBEI), Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz

The choice of study type is an important aspect of the design of medical studies. The study design and consequent study type are major determinants of a study’s scientific quality and clinical value.

This article describes the structured classification of studies into two types, primary and secondary, as well as a further subclassification of studies of primary type. This is done on the basis of a selective literature search concerning study types in medical research, in addition to the authors’ own experience.

Three main areas of medical research can be distinguished by study type: basic (experimental), clinical, and epidemiological research. Furthermore, clinical and epidemiological studies can be further subclassified as either interventional or noninterventional.

Conclusions

The study type that can best answer the particular research question at hand must be determined not only on a purely scientific basis, but also in view of the available financial resources, staffing, and practical feasibility (organization, medical prerequisites, number of patients, etc.).

The quality, reliability and possibility of publishing a study are decisively influenced by the selection of a proper study design. The study type is a component of the study design (see the article "Study Design in Medical Research") and must be specified before the study starts. The study type is determined by the question to be answered and decides how useful a scientific study is and how well it can be interpreted. If the wrong study type has been selected, this cannot be rectified once the study has started.

After an earlier publication dealing with aspects of study design, the present article deals with study types in primary and secondary research. The article focuses on study types in primary research. A special article will be devoted to study types in secondary research, such as meta-analyses and reviews. This article covers the classification of individual study types. The conception, implementation, advantages, disadvantages and possibilities of using the different study types are illustrated by examples. The article is based on a selective literature research on study types in medical research, as well as the authors’ own experience.

Classification of study types

In principle, medical research is classified into primary and secondary research. While secondary research summarizes available studies in the form of reviews and meta-analyses, the actual studies are performed in primary research. Three main areas are distinguished: basic medical research, clinical research, and epidemiological research. In individual cases, it may be difficult to classify individual studies to one of these three main categories or to the subcategories. In the interests of clarity and to avoid excessive length, the authors will dispense with discussing special areas of research, such as health services research, quality assurance, or clinical epidemiology. Figure 1 gives an overview of the different study types in medical research.

Classification of different study types

*1 , sometimes known as experimental research; *2 , analogous term: interventional; *3 , analogous term: noninterventional or nonexperimental

This scheme is intended to classify the study types as clearly as possible. In the interests of clarity, we have excluded clinical epidemiology — a subject which borders on both clinical and epidemiological research ( 3 ). The study types in this area can be found under clinical research and epidemiology.

Basic research

Basic medical research (otherwise known as experimental research) includes animal experiments, cell studies, biochemical, genetic and physiological investigations, and studies on the properties of drugs and materials. In almost all experiments, at least one independent variable is varied and the effects on the dependent variable are investigated. The procedure and the experimental design can be precisely specified and implemented ( 1 ). For example, the population, number of groups, case numbers, treatments and dosages can be exactly specified. It is also important that confounding factors should be specifically controlled or reduced. In experiments, specific hypotheses are investigated and causal statements are made. High internal validity (= unambiguity) is achieved by setting up standardized experimental conditions, with low variability in the units of observation (for example, cells, animals or materials). External validity is a more difficult issue. Laboratory conditions cannot always be directly transferred to normal clinical practice and processes in isolated cells or in animals are not equivalent to those in man (= generalizability) ( 2 ).

Basic research also includes the development and improvement of analytical procedures—such as analytical determination of enzymes, markers or genes—, imaging procedures—such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging—, and gene sequencing—such as the link between eye color and specific gene sequences. The development of biometric procedures—such as statistical test procedures, modeling and statistical evaluation strategies—also belongs here.

Clinical studies

Clinical studies include both interventional (or experimental) studies and noninterventional (or observational) studies. A clinical drug study is an interventional clinical study, defined according to §4 Paragraph 23 of the Medicines Act [Arzneimittelgesetz; AMG] as "any study performed on man with the purpose of studying or demonstrating the clinical or pharmacological effects of drugs, to establish side effects, or to investigate absorption, distribution, metabolism or elimination, with the aim of providing clear evidence of the efficacy or safety of the drug."

Interventional studies also include studies on medical devices and studies in which surgical, physical or psychotherapeutic procedures are examined. In contrast to clinical studies, §4 Paragraph 23 of the AMG describes noninterventional studies as follows: "A noninterventional study is a study in the context of which knowledge from the treatment of persons with drugs in accordance with the instructions for use specified in their registration is analyzed using epidemiological methods. The diagnosis, treatment and monitoring are not performed according to a previously specified study protocol, but exclusively according to medical practice."

The aim of an interventional clinical study is to compare treatment procedures within a patient population, which should exhibit as few as possible internal differences, apart from the treatment ( 4 , e1 ). This is to be achieved by appropriate measures, particularly by random allocation of the patients to the groups, thus avoiding bias in the result. Possible therapies include a drug, an operation, the therapeutic use of a medical device such as a stent, or physiotherapy, acupuncture, psychosocial intervention, rehabilitation measures, training or diet. Vaccine studies also count as interventional studies in Germany and are performed as clinical studies according to the AMG.

Interventional clinical studies are subject to a variety of legal and ethical requirements, including the Medicines Act and the Law on Medical Devices. Studies with medical devices must be registered by the responsible authorities, who must also approve studies with drugs. Drug studies also require a favorable ruling from the responsible ethics committee. A study must be performed in accordance with the binding rules of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) ( 5 , e2 – e4 ). For clinical studies on persons capable of giving consent, it is absolutely essential that the patient should sign a declaration of consent (informed consent) ( e2 ). A control group is included in most clinical studies. This group receives another treatment regimen and/or placebo—a therapy without substantial efficacy. The selection of the control group must not only be ethically defensible, but also be suitable for answering the most important questions in the study ( e5 ).

Clinical studies should ideally include randomization, in which the patients are allocated by chance to the therapy arms. This procedure is performed with random numbers or computer algorithms ( 6 – 8 ). Randomization ensures that the patients will be allocated to the different groups in a balanced manner and that possible confounding factors—such as risk factors, comorbidities and genetic variabilities—will be distributed by chance between the groups (structural equivalence) ( 9 , 10 ). Randomization is intended to maximize homogeneity between the groups and prevent, for example, a specific therapy being reserved for patients with a particularly favorable prognosis (such as young patients in good physical condition) ( 11 ).

Blinding is another suitable method to avoid bias. A distinction is made between single and double blinding. With single blinding, the patient is unaware which treatment he is receiving, while, with double blinding, neither the patient nor the investigator knows which treatment is planned. Blinding the patient and investigator excludes possible subjective (even subconscious) influences on the evaluation of a specific therapy (e.g. drug administration versus placebo). Thus, double blinding ensures that the patient or therapy groups are both handled and observed in the same manner. The highest possible degree of blinding should always be selected. The study statistician should also remain blinded until the details of the evaluation have finally been specified.

A well designed clinical study must also include case number planning. This ensures that the assumed therapeutic effect can be recognized as such, with a previously specified statistical probability (statistical power) ( 4 , 6 , 12 ).

It is important for the performance of a clinical trial that it should be carefully planned and that the exact clinical details and methods should be specified in the study protocol ( 13 ). It is, however, also important that the implementation of the study according to the protocol, as well as data collection, must be monitored. For a first class study, data quality must be ensured by double data entry, programming plausibility tests, and evaluation by a biometrician. International recommendations for the reporting of randomized clinical studies can be found in the CONSORT statement (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, www.consort-statement.org ) ( 14 ). Many journals make this an essential condition for publication.

For all the methodological reasons mentioned above and for ethical reasons, the randomized controlled and blinded clinical trial with case number planning is accepted as the gold standard for testing the efficacy and safety of therapies or drugs ( 4 , e1 , 15 ).

In contrast, noninterventional clinical studies (NIS) are patient-related observational studies, in which patients are given an individually specified therapy. The responsible physician specifies the therapy on the basis of the medical diagnosis and the patient’s wishes. NIS include noninterventional therapeutic studies, prognostic studies, observational drug studies, secondary data analyses, case series and single case analyses ( 13 , 16 ). Similarly to clinical studies, noninterventional therapy studies include comparison between therapies; however, the treatment is exclusively according to the physician’s discretion. The evaluation is often retrospective. Prognostic studies examine the influence of prognostic factors (such as tumor stage, functional state, or body mass index) on the further course of a disease. Diagnostic studies are another class of observational studies, in which either the quality of a diagnostic method is compared to an established method (ideally a gold standard), or an investigator is compared with one or several other investigators (inter-rater comparison) or with himself at different time points (intra-rater comparison) ( e1 ). If an event is very rare (such as a rare disease or an individual course of treatment), a single-case study, or a case series, are possibilities. A case series is a study on a larger patient group with a specific disease. For example, after the discovery of the AIDS virus, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA collected a case series of 1000 patients, in order to study frequent complications of this infection. The lack of a control group is a disadvantage of case series. For this reason, case series are primarily used for descriptive purposes ( 3 ).

Epidemiological studies

The main point of interest in epidemiological studies is to investigate the distribution and historical changes in the frequency of diseases and the causes for these. Analogously to clinical studies, a distinction is made between experimental and observational epidemiological studies ( 16 , 17 ).

Interventional studies are experimental in character and are further subdivided into field studies (sample from an area, such as a large region or a country) and group studies (sample from a specific group, such as a specific social or ethnic group). One example was the investigation of the iodine supplementation of cooking salt to prevent cretinism in a region with iodine deficiency. On the other hand, many interventions are unsuitable for randomized intervention studies, for ethical, social or political reasons, as the exposure may be harmful to the subjects ( 17 ).

Observational epidemiological studies can be further subdivided into cohort studies (follow-up studies), case control studies, cross-sectional studies (prevalence studies), and ecological studies (correlation studies or studies with aggregated data).

In contrast, studies with only descriptive evaluation are restricted to a simple depiction of the frequency (incidence and prevalence) and distribution of a disease within a population. The objective of the description may also be the regular recording of information (monitoring, surveillance). Registry data are also suited for the description of prevalence and incidence; for example, they are used for national health reports in Germany.

In the simplest case, cohort studies involve the observation of two healthy groups of subjects over time. One group is exposed to a specific substance (for example, workers in a chemical factory) and the other is not exposed. It is recorded prospectively (into the future) how often a specific disease (such as lung cancer) occurs in the two groups ( figure 2a ). The incidence for the occurrence of the disease can be determined for both groups. Moreover, the relative risk (quotient of the incidence rates) is a very important statistical parameter which can be calculated in cohort studies. For rare types of exposure, the general population can be used as controls ( e6 ). All evaluations naturally consider the age and gender distributions in the corresponding cohorts. The objective of cohort studies is to record detailed information on the exposure and on confounding factors, such as the duration of employment, the maximum and the cumulated exposure. One well known cohort study is the British Doctors Study, which prospectively examined the effect of smoking on mortality among British doctors over a period of decades ( e7 ). Cohort studies are well suited for detecting causal connections between exposure and the development of disease. On the other hand, cohort studies often demand a great deal of time, organization, and money. So-called historical cohort studies represent a special case. In this case, all data on exposure and effect (illness) are already available at the start of the study and are analyzed retrospectively. For example, studies of this sort are used to investigate occupational forms of cancer. They are usually cheaper ( 16 ).

Graphical depiction of a prospective cohort study (simplest case [2a]) and a retrospective case control study (2b)

In case control studies, cases are compared with controls. Cases are persons who fall ill from the disease in question. Controls are persons who are not ill, but are otherwise comparable to the cases. A retrospective analysis is performed to establish to what extent persons in the case and control groups were exposed ( figure 2b ). Possible exposure factors include smoking, nutrition and pollutant load. Care should be taken that the intensity and duration of the exposure is analyzed as carefully and in as detailed a manner as possible. If it is observed that ill people are more often exposed than healthy people, it may be concluded that there is a link between the illness and the risk factor. In case control studies, the most important statistical parameter is the odds ratio. Case control studies usually require less time and fewer resources than cohort studies ( 16 ). The disadvantage of case control studies is that the incidence rate (rate of new cases) cannot be calculated. There is also a great risk of bias from the selection of the study population ("selection bias") and from faulty recall ("recall bias") (see too the article "Avoiding Bias in Observational Studies"). Table 1 presents an overview of possible types of epidemiological study ( e8 ). Table 2 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of observational studies ( 16 ).

1 = slight; 2 = moderate; 3 = high; N/A, not applicable.

*Individual cases may deviate from this pattern.

Selecting the correct study type is an important aspect of study design (see "Study Design in Medical Research" in volume 11/2009). However, the scientific questions can only be correctly answered if the study is planned and performed at a qualitatively high level ( e9 ). It is very important to consider or even eliminate possible interfering factors (or confounders), as otherwise the result cannot be adequately interpreted. Confounders are characteristics which influence the target parameters. Although this influence is not of primary interest, it can interfere with the connection between the target parameter and the factors that are of interest. The influence of confounders can be minimized or eliminated by standardizing the procedure, stratification ( 18 ), or adjustment ( 19 ).

The decision as to which study type is suitable to answer a specific primary research question must be based not only on scientific considerations, but also on issues related to resources (personnel and finances), hospital capacity, and practicability. Many epidemiological studies can only be implemented if there is access to registry data. The demands for planning, implementation, and statistical evaluation for observational studies should be just as high for observational studies as for experimental studies. There are particularly strict requirements, with legally based regulations (such as the Medicines Act and Good Clinical Practice), for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of clinical studies. A study protocol must be prepared for both interventional and noninterventional studies ( 6 , 13 ). The study protocol must contain information on the conditions, question to be answered (objective), the methods of measurement, the implementation, organization, study population, data management, case number planning, the biometric evaluation, and the clinical relevance of the question to be answered ( 13 ).

Important and justified ethical considerations may restrict studies with optimal scientific and statistical features. A randomized intervention study under strictly controlled conditions of the effect of exposure to harmful factors (such as smoking, radiation, or a fatty diet) is not possible and not permissible for ethical reasons. Observational studies are a possible alternative to interventional studies, even though observational studies are less reliable and less easy to control ( 17 ).

A medical study should always be published in a peer reviewed journal. Depending on the study type, there are recommendations and checklists for presenting the results. For example, these may include a description of the population, the procedure for missing values and confounders, and information on statistical parameters. Recommendations and guidelines are available for clinical studies ( 14 , 20 , e10 , e11 ), for diagnostic studies ( 21 , 22 , e12 ), and for epidemiological studies ( 23 , e13 ). Since 2004, the WHO has demanded that studies should be registered in a public registry, such as www.controlled-trials.com or www.clinicaltrials.gov . This demand is supported by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) ( 24 ), which specifies that the registration of the study before inclusion of the first subject is an essential condition for the publication of the study results ( e14 ).

When specifying the study type and study design for medical studies, it is essential to collaborate with an experienced biometrician. The quality and reliability of the study can be decisively improved if all important details are planned together ( 12 , 25 ).

Acknowledgments

Translated from the original German by Rodney A. Yeates, M.A., Ph.D.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in the sense of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.