What is hypothesis?

Answer: A hypothesis (from Greek ) consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a sci

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific
hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.[1] A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[2] A different meaning of the term hypothesis is used in formal logic, to denote the antecedent of a proposition; thus in the proposition "If P, then Q", P denotes the hypothesis (or antecedent); Q can be called a consequent. P is the assumption in a (possibly counterfactual) What If question. The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis", or "being assumed to exist as an immediate consequence of a hypothesis", can refer to any of these meanings of the term "hypothesis".

Uses
In its ancient usage, hypothesis referred to a summary of the plot of a classical drama. The English word hypothesis comes from the Ancient Greek , (hupothesis) meaning "to put under" or "to suppose".[2] In Plato's Meno (86e87b), Socrates dissects virtue with a method used by mathematicians,[3] that of "investigating from a hypothesis."[4] In this sense, 'hypothesis' refers to a clever idea or to a convenient mathematical approach that simplifies cumbersome calculations.[5] Cardinal Bellarmine gave a famous example of this usage in the warning issued to Galileo in the early 17th century: that he must not treat the motion of the Earth as a reality, but merely as a hypothesis.[6]

In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself. Normally, scientific hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model.[7] Sometimes, but not always, one can also formulate them as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon under examination has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic. Any useful hypothesis will enable predictions by reasoning (including deductive reasoning). It might predict the outcome of an experiment in a laboratory setting or the observation of a phenomenon in nature. The prediction may also invoke statistics and only talk about probabilities. Karl Popper, following others, has argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that one cannot regard a proposition or theory as scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. Other philosophers of science have rejected the criterion of falsifiability or supplemented it with other criteria, such as verifiability (e.g., verificationism) or coherence (e.g., confirmation holism). A scientific method involves experiment, to test the ability of some hypothesis to adequately answer the question under investigation. In contrast, unfettered observation is not as likely to raise unexplained issues or open questions in science, as would the formulation of a crucial experiment to test the hypothesis. A thought experiment might also be used to test the hypothesis as well. In framing a hypothesis, the investigator must not currently know the outcome of a test or that it remains reasonably under continuing investigation. Only in such cases does the experiment, test or study potentially increase the probability of showing the truth of a hypothesis. If the researcher already knows the outcome, it counts as a "consequence" and the researcher should have already considered this while formulating the hypothesis. If one cannot assess the predictions by observation or by experience, the hypothesis classes as not yet useful, and must wait for others who might come afterward to make possible the needed observations. For example, a new technology or theory might make the necessary experiments feasible.

[edit] Scientific hypothesis

People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis, often called an "educated guess"[8][9] because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem. According to Schick and Vaughn,[10] researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:

Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above) Parsimony (as in the application of "Occam's razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities) Scope the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena

Fruitfulness the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future Conservatism the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems.

[edit] Working hypothesis

Main article: Working hypothesis A 'working hypothesis' is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research[11] in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails.[12] Like all hypotheses, a working hypothesis is constructed as a statement of expectations, which can be linked to the exploratory research purpose in empirical investigation and are often used as a conceptual framework in qualitative research.[13][14] In recent years, philosophers of science have tried to integrate the various approaches to evaluating hypotheses, and the scientific method in general, to form a more complete system that integrates the individual concerns of each approach. Notably, Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend, Karl Popper's colleague and student, respectively, have produced novel attempts at such a synthesis.

[edit] Hypotheses, concepts and measurement

Concepts in Hempel's D-N model play a key role in the development and testing of hypotheses. Most formal hypotheses connect concepts by specifying the expected relationships between propositions. When a set of hypotheses are grouped together they become a type of conceptual framework. When a conceptual framework is complex and incorporates causality or explanation it is generally referred to as a theory. According to noted philosopher of science Carl Gustav Hempel "An adequate empirical interpretation turns a theoretical system into a testable theory: The hypothesis whose constituent terms have been interpreted become capable of test by reference to observable phenomena. Frequently the interpreted hypothesis will be derivative hypotheses of the theory; but their confirmation or disconfirmation by empirical data will then immediately strengthen or weaken also the primitive hypotheses from which they were derived."[15] Hempel provides a useful metaphor that describes the relationship between a conceptual framework and the framework as it is observed and perhaps tested (interpreted framework). "The whole system floats, as it were, above the plane of observation and is anchored to it by rules of interpretation. These might be viewed as strings which are not part of the network but link certain points of the latter with specific places in the plane of observation. By virtue of those interpretative connections, the network can function as a scientific theory"[16] Hypotheses with concepts anchored in the plane of observation are ready to be tested. In "actual scientific practice the process of framing a theoretical structure and of interpreting it are not always sharply separated, since the intended interpretation usually guides the construction of the theoretician."[17] It is, however, "possible and indeed desirable, for the purposes of logical clarification, to separate the two steps conceptually."[17]

[edit] Statistical hypothesis testing

Main article: Statistical hypothesis testing When a possible correlation or similar relation between phenomena is investigated, such as, for example, whether a proposed remedy is effective in treating a disease, that is, at least to some extent and for some patients, the hypothesis that a relation exists cannot be examined the same way one might examine a proposed new law of nature: in such an investigation a few cases in which the tested remedy shows no effect do not falsify the hypothesis. Instead, statistical tests are used to determine how likely it is that the overall effect would be observed if no real relation as hypothesized exists. If that likelihood is sufficiently small (e.g., less than 1%), the existence of a relation may be assumed. Otherwise, any observed effect may as well be due to pure chance. In statistical hypothesis testing two hypotheses are compared, which are called the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that states that there is no relation between the phenomena whose relation is under investigation, or at least not of the form given by the alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis, as the name suggests, is the alternative to the null hypothesis: it states that there is some kind of relation. The alternative hypothesis may take several forms, depending on the nature of the hypothesized relation; in particular, it can be two-sided (for example: there is some effect, in a yet unknown direction) or one-sided (the direction of the hypothesized relation, positive or negative, is fixed in advance). Conventional significance levels for testing the hypotheses are .10, .05, and .01. Whether the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted, all must be determined in advance, before the observations are collected or inspected. If these criteria are determined later, when the data to be tested is already known, the test is invalid.[18] It is important to mention that the above procedure is actually dependent on the number of the participants (units or sample size) that is included in the study. For instance, the sample size may be too small to reject a null hypothesis and, therefore, is recommended to specify the sample size from the beginning. It is advisable to define a small, medium and large effect size for each of a number of the important statistical tests which are used to test the hypotheses..

Hypothesis is a 1978 album by the Greek artist Vangelis. In May 1971

Vangelis had played several sessions in London's Marquee Studios, joined for some of them by violinist Michel Ripoche, bass guitarist Brian Odgers (called Odger on the sleeve) and drummer Tony Oxley, the rhythm section of the famous Extrapolation recording released by John McLaughlin. Two albums' worth of material had resulted from these sessions, but were unfinished and never intended for release. Nevertheless, in 1978 two albums duly appeared in shops, on the Affinity label (a subsidiary of Charly Records) Hypothesis and The Dragon. Vangelis subsequently took the label to court to have both LPs taken off the market. Hypothesis has critically been considered to be unsuccessful as an album.

Musically, the album can be considered to be Vangelis' most idiosyncratic and unusual release, as it takes the form of an extended experiment in experimental Jazz, or Jazz fusion. An alternative release of Hypothesis was titled Visions of the Future. In Germany Hypothesis and The Dragon were issued together as a double album titled Portrait. The cover artwork for Hypothesis is by Angus McKie, and is merely a "borrowed" illustration he drew for a series of novels by SF author Brian Stableford, featuring the spacecraft Hooded Swan, mentioned in the books. 2222222222
Definition: A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. For example, a study designed to look at the relationship between sleep deprivation and test performance might have a hypothesis that states, "This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that sleep deprived people will perform worse on a test than individuals who are not sleep deprived." Unless you are creating a study that is exploratory in nature, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen during the course of your experiment or research. Remember, a hypothesis does not have to be right. While the hypothesis predicts what the researchers expect to see, the goal of research is to determine whether this guess is right or wrong. When conducting an experiment, researchers might explore a number of different factors to determine which ones might contribute to the ultimate outcome. In many cases, researchers may find that the results of an experiment do not support the original hypothesis. When writing up these results, the researchers might suggest other options that should be explored in future studies.

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

When trying to come up with a good hypothesis for your own psychology research or experiments, ask yourself the following questions:

Is your hypothesis based on your research of a topic? Can your hypothesis be tested? Does you hypothesis include independent and dependent variables?

Before you come up with a specific hypothesis, spend some time doing background research on your topic. Once you have completed a literature review, start thinking of potential questions you still have. Pay attention to the discussion section in the journal articles you read. Many authors will suggest questions that still need to be explored.

Parameters of a Good Hypothesis

In order to be a good hypothesis that can be tested or studied, a hypothesis:

Needs to be logical Must use precise language Should be testable with research or experimentation

A hypothesis is usually written in a form where it proposes that if something is done, then something else will occur.

Testing Hypothesis vs. Tested Hypothesis

An hypothesis can be testing a concept or it can be developed as a result of study:

A testing hypothesis is one that can be tested, meaning you can measure both what is being done (variables) and the outcome. A tested hypothesis is tested with research, such as in a research study in social science.

Here are some examples of both testing hypotheses and hypotheses tested with research:

Testing Hypotheses

If the water faucet is opened, then the amount of water flowing will increase. If fenders are placed on a bicycle, then the user will stay dry when going through puddles. If a prisoner learns a work skill while in jail, then he is less likely to commit a crime when he is released. If I raise the temperature of a cup of water, then the amount of sugar that can be dissolved in it will be increased. If the size of the molecules is related to the rate of diffusion as they pass through a membrane, then smaller molecules will flow through at a higher rate. If there is a relation between the wave length of light and the photosynthesis rate, then light of different colors will cause the plant to make different amounts of oxygen. If temperature is related to the rate of metabolism in animals, then raising the ambient temperature will cause an increase in animal metabolism.

Tested Hypotheses

More students get sick during the final week of testing that at other times. One solar panel can replace one C battery. There is a positive correlation between the availability of hours for work and the productivity of employees. Worker satisfaction increases worker productivity. Amount of sun exposure will increase the growth of a tomato plant. Childhood obesity is tied to the amount of sugary drinks injested daily. A dog can be trained to alert a human if the telephone is ringing.

Basics About Hypotheses

6

The two types of hypotheses are scientific and working.

A scientific hypothesis is based on experiments and observations from the past that cannot be explained with current theories. A working hypothesis is one that is widely accepted and becomes the basis of further experimentation.

Goal of a Hypothesis
Regardless of the type of hypothesis, the goal of a hypothesis is to help explain the focus and direction of the experiment or research. As such, a hypothesis will:

State the purpose of the research Identify what variables are used

3 Research question
Interest in a particular topic usually begins the research process, but it is the familiarity with the subject that helps define an appropriate research question for a study.1 Questions then arise out of a perceived knowledge deficit within a subject area or field of study.2 Indeed, Haynes suggests that it is important to know where the boundary between current knowledge and ignorance lies.1 The challenge in developing an appropriate research question is in determining which clinical uncertainties could or should be studied and also rationalizing the need for their investigation. Increasing ones knowledge about the subject of interest can be accomplished in many ways. Appropriate methods include systematically searching the literature, in-depth interviews and focus groups with patients (and proxies) and interviews with experts in the field. In addition, awareness of current trends and technological advances can assist with the development of research questions.2 It is imperative to understand what has been studied about a topic to date in order to further the knowledge that has been previously gathered on a topic. Indeed, some granting institutions (e.g., Canadian Institute for Health Research) encourage applicants to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence if a recent review does not already exist and preferably a pilot or feasibility study before applying for a grant for a full trial. In-depth knowledge about a subject may generate a number of questions. It then becomes necessary to ask whether these questions can be answered through one study or if more than one study needed.1 Additional research questions can be developed, but several basic principles should be taken into consideration.1 All questions, primary and secondary, should be developed at the beginning and planning stages of a study. Any additional questions should never compromise the primary question because it is the primary research question that forms the basis of the hypothesis and study objectives. It must be kept in mind that within the scope of one study, the presence of a number of research questions will affect and potentially increase the complexity of both the study design and subsequent statistical analyses, not to mention the actual feasibility of answering every question.1 A sensible strategy is to establish a single primary research question around which to focus the study plan.3 In a study, the primary research

question should be clearly stated at the end of the introduction of the grant proposal, and it usually specifies the population to be studied, the intervention to be implemented and other circumstantial factors.4 Hulley and colleagues2 have suggested the use of the FINER criteria in the development of a good research question (Box 1). The FINER criteria highlight useful points that may increase the chances of developing a successful research project. A good research question should specify the population of interest, be of interest to the scientific community and potentially to the public, have clinical relevance and further current knowledge in the field (and of course be compliant with the standards of ethical boards and national research standards).
Box 1

FINER criteria for a good research question

F Feasible

Adequate number of subjects Adequate technical expertise Affordable in time and money Manageable in scope Getting the answer intrigues investigator, peers and community Confirms, refutes or extends previous findings Amenable to a study that institutional review board will approve To scientific knowledge To clinical and health policy To future research

I Interesting N Novel E Ethical R Relevant

Adapted with permission from Wolters Kluwer Health.2 Whereas the FINER criteria outline the important aspects of the question in general, a useful format to use in the development of a specific research question is the PICO format consider the population (P) of interest, the intervention (I) being studied, the comparison (C) group (or to what is the intervention being compared) and the outcome of interest (O).3,5,6 Often timing (T) is added to PICO (Box 2) that is, Over what time frame will the study take place?1 The PICOT approach helps generate a question that aids in constructing the framework of the study and subsequently in protocol development by alluding to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and identifying the groups of patients to be included. Knowing the specific population of interest, intervention (and comparator) and outcome of interest may also help the researcher identify an appropriate outcome measurement tool.7 The more defined the population of interest, and thus the more stringent the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the greater the effect on the interpretation and subsequent applicability and generalizability of the research findings.1,2 A restricted study

population (and exclusion criteria) may limit bias and increase the internal validity of the study; however, this approach will limit external validity of the study and, thus, the generalizability of the findings to the practical clinical setting. Conversely, a broadly defined study population and inclusion criteria may be representative of practical clinical practice but may increase bias and reduce the internal validity of the study.
Box 2

PICOT criteria1
P Population (patients) I Intervention (for intervention studies only) C Comparison group

What specific patient population are you interested in? What is your investigational intervention?

What is the main alternative to compare with the intervention? What do you intend to accomplish, measure, improve or affect? What is the appropriate follow-up time to assess outcome

O Outcome of interest

T Time

A poorly devised research question may affect the choice of study design, potentially lead to futile situations and, thus, hamper the chance of determining anything of clinical significance, which will then affect the potential for publication. Without devoting appropriate resources to developing the research question, the quality of the study and subsequent results may be compromised. During the initial stages of any research study, it is therefore imperative to formulate a research question that is both clinically relevant and answerable.
Go to:

Research hypothesis
The primary research question should be driven by the hypothesis rather than the data.1,2 That is, the research question and hypothesis should be developed before the start of the study. This sounds intuitive; however, if we take, for example, a database of information, it is potentially possible to perform multiple statistical comparisons of groups within the database to find a statistically significant association. This could then lead one to work backward from the data and develop the question. This is counterintuitive to the process because the question is asked specifically to then find the answer, thus collecting data along the way (i.e., in a prospective manner). Multiple statistical testing of associations from data previously collected could

potentially lead to spuriously positive findings of association through chance alone.2 Therefore, a good hypothesis must be based on a good research question at the start of a trial and, indeed, drive data collection for the study. The research or clinical hypothesis is developed from the research question and then the main elements of the study sampling strategy, intervention (if applicable), comparison and outcome variables are summarized in a form that establishes the basis for testing, statistical and ultimately clinical significance.3 For example, in a research study comparing computer-assisted acetabular component insertion versus freehand acetabular component placement in patients in need of total hip arthroplasty, the experimental group would be computer-assisted insertion and the control/conventional group would be free-hand placement. The investigative team would first state a research hypothesis. This could be expressed as a single outcome (e.g., computer-assisted acetabular component placement leads to improved functional outcome) or potentially as a complex/composite outcome; that is, more than one outcome (e.g., computer-assisted acetabular component placement leads to both improved radiographic cup placement and improved functional outcome). However, when formally testing statistical significance, the hypothesis should be stated as a null hypothesis.2 The purpose of hypothesis testing is to make an inference about the population of interest on the basis of a random sample taken from that population. The null hypothesis for the preceding research hypothesis then would be that there is no difference in mean functional outcome between the computer-assisted insertion and free-hand placement techniques. After forming the null hypothesis, the researchers would form an alternate hypothesis stating the nature of the difference, if it should appear. The alternate hypothesis would be that there is a difference in mean functional outcome between these techniques. At the end of the study, the null hypothesis is then tested statistically. If the findings of the study are not statistically significant (i.e., there is no difference in functional outcome between the groups in a statistical sense), we cannot reject the null hypothesis, whereas if the findings were significant, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis (i.e., there is a difference in mean functional outcome between the study groups), errors in testing notwithstanding. In other words, hypothesis testing confirms or refutes the statement that the observed findings did not occur by chance alone but rather occurred because there was a true difference in outcomes between these surgical procedures. The concept of statistical hypothesis testing is complex, and the details are beyond the scope of this article. Another important concept inherent in hypothesis testing is whether the hypotheses will be 1sided or 2-sided. A 2-sided hypothesis states that there is a difference between the experimental group and the control group, but it does not specify in advance the expected direction of the difference. For example, we asked whether there is there an improvement in outcomes with computer-assisted surgery or whether the outcomes worse with computer-assisted surgery. We presented a 2-sided test in the above example because we did not specify the direction of the difference. A 1-sided hypothesis states a specific direction (e.g., there is an improvement in outcomes with computer-assisted surgery). A 2-sided hypothesis should be used unless there is a good justification for using a 1-sided hypothesis. As Bland and Atlman 8 stated, One-sided hypothesis testing should never be used as a device to make a conventionally nonsignificant difference significant.

10

The research hypothesis should be stated at the beginning of the study to guide the objectives for research. Whereas the investigators may state the hypothesis as being 1-sided (there is an improvement with treatment), the study and investigators must adhere to the concept of clinical equipoise. According to this principle, a clinical (or surgical) trial is ethical only if the expert community is uncertain about the relative therapeutic merits of the experimental and control groups being evaluated.9 It means there must exist an honest and professional disagreement among expert clinicians about the preferred treatment.9 Designing a research hypothesis is supported by a good research question and will influence the type of research design for the study. Acting on the principles of appropriate hypothesis development, the study can then confidently proceed to the development of the research objective.
Go to:

Research objective
The primary objective should be coupled with the hypothesis of the study. Study objectives define the specific aims of the study and should be clearly stated in the introduction of the research protocol.7 From our previous example and using the investigative hypothesis that there is a difference in functional outcomes between computer-assisted acetabular component placement and free-hand placement, the primary objective can be stated as follows: this study will compare the functional outcomes of computer-assisted acetabular component insertion versus free-hand placement in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Note that the study objective is an active statement about how the study is going to answer the specific research question. Objectives can (and often do) state exactly which outcome measures are going to be used within their statements. They are important because they not only help guide the development of the protocol and design of study but also play a role in sample size calculations and determining the power of the study.7 These concepts will be discussed in other articles in this series. From the surgeons point of view, it is important for the study objectives to be focused on outcomes that are important to patients and clinically relevant. For example, the most methodologically sound randomized controlled trial comparing 2 techniques of distal radial fixation would have little or no clinical impact if the primary objective was to determine the effect of treatment A as compared to treatment B on intraoperative fluoroscopy time. However, if the objective was to determine the effect of treatment A as compared to treatment B on patient functional outcome at 1 year, this would have a much more significant impact on clinical decision-making. Second, more meaningful surgeonpatient discussions could ensue, incorporating patient values and preferences with the results from this study.6,7 It is the precise objective and what the investigator is trying to measure that is of clinical relevance in the practical setting. The following is an example from the literature about the relation between the research question, hypothesis and study objectives:

11

Study: Warden SJ, Metcalf BR, Kiss ZS, et al. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound for chronic patellar tendinopathy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Rheumatology 2008;47:46771. Research question: How does low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) compare with a placebo device in managing the symptoms of skeletally mature patients with patellar tendinopathy? Research hypothesis: Pain levels are reduced in patients who receive daily active-LIPUS (treatment) for 12 weeks compared with individuals who receive inactive-LIPUS (placebo). Objective: To investigate the clinical efficacy of LIPUS in the management of patellar tendinopathy symptoms.
Go to:

Conclusion
The development of the research question is the most important aspect of a research project. A research project can fail if the objectives and hypothesis are poorly focused and underdeveloped. Useful tips for surgical researchers are provided in Box 3. Designing and developing an appropriate and relevant research question, hypothesis and objectives can be a difficult task. The critical appraisal of the research question used in a study is vital to the application of the findings to clinical practice. Focusing resources, time and dedication to these 3 very important tasks will help to guide a successful research project, influence interpretation of the results and affect future publication efforts.

What are the different types of hypothesis?

Best Answer 1. Types of hypothesesa. Inductive is a generalization based on specific observations. b. Deductive is derived from theory and provides evidence that supports, expands, or contradicts the theory. c. Nondirectional - states that relation or difference between variables exists. d. Directional - states the expected direction of the relation or difference. e. Null - states that there is no significant relation or difference between variables.

Null Hypothesis

This is the conventional approach to making a prediction. It involves a statement that says there is no relationship between two groups that the researcher compares on a certain variable. The hypothesis may also state that there is no significant difference when different groups are compared with respect to a

12

particular variable. For example, "There is no difference in the academic performance of high school students who participate in extracurricular activities and those who do not participate in such activities" is a null hypothesis. In many cases, the purpose of the null hypothesis is to allow the experimental results to contradict the hypothesis and prove the point that there is a definite relationship.

Nondirectional Hypothesis

Certain hypothesis statements convey a relationship between the variables that the researcher compares, but do not specify the exact nature of this relationship. This form of hypothesis is used in studies where there is no sufficient past research on which to base a prediction. Continuing with the same example, a nondirectional hypothesis would read, "The academic performance of high school students is related to their participation in extracurricular activities." Sponsored Links
o

UHV-Manipulators
xyz-translators, linear shifts, wooble sticks, cryostats and more

www.metallicflex.com

Directional Hypothesis

This type of hypothesis suggests the outcome the investigator expects at the end of the study. Scientific journal articles generally use this form of hypothesis. The investigator bases this hypothesis on the trends apparent from previous research on this topic. Considering the previous example, a researcher may state the hypothesis as, "High school students who participate in extracurricular activities have a lower GPA than those who do not participate in such activities." Such hypotheses provide a definite direction to the prediction.

Causal Hypothesis

Some studies involve a measurement of the degree of influence of one variable on another. In such cases, the researcher states the hypothesis in terms of the effect of variations in a particular factor on another factor. This causal hypothesis is said to be bivariate because it specifies two aspects -- the cause and the effect. For the example mentioned, the causal hypothesis will state, "High school students who participate in extracurricular activities spend less time studying which leads to a low GPA." When verifying such hypotheses, the researcher needs to use statistical techniques to demonstrate the presence of a relationship between the cause and effect. Such hypotheses also need the researcher to rule out the possibility that the effect is a result of a cause other than what the study has examined.

13

1. Types of hypothesesa. Inductive is a generalization based on specific observations. B. Deductive is derived from theory and provides evidence that supports, expands, or contradicts the theory. C. Non-directional - states that relation or difference between variables exists (e.g., 10th graders who get multimedia instructions do better than those who receive regular instruction only). D. Directional - states the expected direction of the relation or difference. (e.g., 10th graders do better in mathematics using interactive multimedia than the once that don't.) e. Null - states that there is no significant relation or difference between variables. (e.g., 10th graders bio students do as good using classical teaching as using multimedia).

14