correlational hypothesis vs experimental hypothesis

• Privacy Policy

Home » Correlational Research Vs Experimental Research

Correlational Research Vs Experimental Research

Table of Contents

Correlational research and experimental research are two different research approaches used in social sciences and other fields of research.

Correlational Research

Correlational Research is a research approach that examines the relationship between two or more variables. It involves measuring the degree of association or correlation between the variables without manipulating them. The goal of correlational research is to identify whether there is a relationship between the variables and the strength of that relationship. Correlational research is typically conducted through surveys, observational studies, or secondary data analysis.

Experimental Research

Experimental Research , on the other hand, is a research approach that involves the manipulation of one or more variables to observe the effect on another variable. The goal of experimental research is to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the variables. Experimental research is typically conducted in a controlled environment and involves random assignment of participants to different groups to ensure that the groups are equivalent. The data is collected through measurements and observations, and statistical analysis is used to test the hypotheses.

Difference Between Correlational Research and Experimental Research

Here’s a comparison table that highlights the differences between correlational research and experimental research:

Also see Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Reliability Vs Validity

Basic Vs Applied Research

Market Research Vs Marketing Research

Primary Vs Secondary Research

Research Question Vs Hypothesis

Generative Vs Evaluative Research

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Correlational Research | Guide, Design & Examples

Correlational Research | Guide, Design & Examples

Published on 5 May 2022 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on 5 December 2022.

A correlational research design investigates relationships between variables without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them.

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the relationship between two (or more) variables. The direction of a correlation can be either positive or negative.

Table of contents

Correlational vs experimental research, when to use correlational research, how to collect correlational data, how to analyse correlational data, correlation and causation, frequently asked questions about correlational research.

Correlational and experimental research both use quantitative methods to investigate relationships between variables. But there are important differences in how data is collected and the types of conclusions you can draw.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Correlational research is ideal for gathering data quickly from natural settings. That helps you generalise your findings to real-life situations in an externally valid way.

There are a few situations where correlational research is an appropriate choice.

To investigate non-causal relationships

You want to find out if there is an association between two variables, but you don’t expect to find a causal relationship between them.

Correlational research can provide insights into complex real-world relationships, helping researchers develop theories and make predictions.

To explore causal relationships between variables

You think there is a causal relationship between two variables, but it is impractical, unethical, or too costly to conduct experimental research that manipulates one of the variables.

Correlational research can provide initial indications or additional support for theories about causal relationships.

To test new measurement tools

You have developed a new instrument for measuring your variable, and you need to test its reliability or validity .

Correlational research can be used to assess whether a tool consistently or accurately captures the concept it aims to measure.

There are many different methods you can use in correlational research. In the social and behavioural sciences, the most common data collection methods for this type of research include surveys, observations, and secondary data.

It’s important to carefully choose and plan your methods to ensure the reliability and validity of your results. You should carefully select a representative sample so that your data reflects the population you’re interested in without bias .

In survey research , you can use questionnaires to measure your variables of interest. You can conduct surveys online, by post, by phone, or in person.

Surveys are a quick, flexible way to collect standardised data from many participants, but it’s important to ensure that your questions are worded in an unbiased way and capture relevant insights.

Naturalistic observation

Naturalistic observation is a type of field research where you gather data about a behaviour or phenomenon in its natural environment.

This method often involves recording, counting, describing, and categorising actions and events. Naturalistic observation can include both qualitative and quantitative elements, but to assess correlation, you collect data that can be analysed quantitatively (e.g., frequencies, durations, scales, and amounts).

Naturalistic observation lets you easily generalise your results to real-world contexts, and you can study experiences that aren’t replicable in lab settings. But data analysis can be time-consuming and unpredictable, and researcher bias may skew the interpretations.

Secondary data

Instead of collecting original data, you can also use data that has already been collected for a different purpose, such as official records, polls, or previous studies.

Using secondary data is inexpensive and fast, because data collection is complete. However, the data may be unreliable, incomplete, or not entirely relevant, and you have no control over the reliability or validity of the data collection procedures.

After collecting data, you can statistically analyse the relationship between variables using correlation or regression analyses, or both. You can also visualise the relationships between variables with a scatterplot.

Different types of correlation coefficients and regression analyses are appropriate for your data based on their levels of measurement and distributions .

Correlation analysis

Using a correlation analysis, you can summarise the relationship between variables into a correlation coefficient : a single number that describes the strength and direction of the relationship between variables. With this number, you’ll quantify the degree of the relationship between variables.

The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, also known as Pearson’s r , is commonly used for assessing a linear relationship between two quantitative variables.

Correlation coefficients are usually found for two variables at a time, but you can use a multiple correlation coefficient for three or more variables.

Regression analysis

With a regression analysis , you can predict how much a change in one variable will be associated with a change in the other variable. The result is a regression equation that describes the line on a graph of your variables.

You can use this equation to predict the value of one variable based on the given value(s) of the other variable(s). It’s best to perform a regression analysis after testing for a correlation between your variables.

It’s important to remember that correlation does not imply causation . Just because you find a correlation between two things doesn’t mean you can conclude one of them causes the other, for a few reasons.

Directionality problem

If two variables are correlated, it could be because one of them is a cause and the other is an effect. But the correlational research design doesn’t allow you to infer which is which. To err on the side of caution, researchers don’t conclude causality from correlational studies.

Third variable problem

A confounding variable is a third variable that influences other variables to make them seem causally related even though they are not. Instead, there are separate causal links between the confounder and each variable.

In correlational research, there’s limited or no researcher control over extraneous variables . Even if you statistically control for some potential confounders, there may still be other hidden variables that disguise the relationship between your study variables.

Although a correlational study can’t demonstrate causation on its own, it can help you develop a causal hypothesis that’s tested in controlled experiments.

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the association between two or more variables.

• A positive correlation means that both variables change in the same direction.
• A negative correlation means that the variables change in opposite directions.
• A zero correlation means there’s no relationship between the variables.

A correlational research design investigates relationships between two variables (or more) without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them. It’s a non-experimental type of quantitative research .

Controlled experiments establish causality, whereas correlational studies only show associations between variables.

• In an experimental design , you manipulate an independent variable and measure its effect on a dependent variable. Other variables are controlled so they can’t impact the results.
• In a correlational design , you measure variables without manipulating any of them. You can test whether your variables change together, but you can’t be sure that one variable caused a change in another.

In general, correlational research is high in external validity while experimental research is high in internal validity .

A correlation is usually tested for two variables at a time, but you can test correlations between three or more variables.

A correlation coefficient is a single number that describes the strength and direction of the relationship between your variables.

Different types of correlation coefficients might be appropriate for your data based on their levels of measurement and distributions . The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r ) is commonly used to assess a linear relationship between two quantitative variables.

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 Reference Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2022, December 05). Correlational Research | Guide, Design & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 19 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/correlational-research-design/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, quasi-experimental design | definition, types & examples, qualitative vs quantitative research | examples & methods.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7.2 Correlational Research

Learning objectives.

• Define correlational research and give several examples.
• Explain why a researcher might choose to conduct correlational research rather than experimental research or another type of nonexperimental research.

What Is Correlational Research?

Correlational research is a type of nonexperimental research in which the researcher measures two variables and assesses the statistical relationship (i.e., the correlation) between them with little or no effort to control extraneous variables. There are essentially two reasons that researchers interested in statistical relationships between variables would choose to conduct a correlational study rather than an experiment. The first is that they do not believe that the statistical relationship is a causal one. For example, a researcher might evaluate the validity of a brief extraversion test by administering it to a large group of participants along with a longer extraversion test that has already been shown to be valid. This researcher might then check to see whether participants’ scores on the brief test are strongly correlated with their scores on the longer one. Neither test score is thought to cause the other, so there is no independent variable to manipulate. In fact, the terms independent variable and dependent variable do not apply to this kind of research.

The other reason that researchers would choose to use a correlational study rather than an experiment is that the statistical relationship of interest is thought to be causal, but the researcher cannot manipulate the independent variable because it is impossible, impractical, or unethical. For example, Allen Kanner and his colleagues thought that the number of “daily hassles” (e.g., rude salespeople, heavy traffic) that people experience affects the number of physical and psychological symptoms they have (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981). But because they could not manipulate the number of daily hassles their participants experienced, they had to settle for measuring the number of daily hassles—along with the number of symptoms—using self-report questionnaires. Although the strong positive relationship they found between these two variables is consistent with their idea that hassles cause symptoms, it is also consistent with the idea that symptoms cause hassles or that some third variable (e.g., neuroticism) causes both.

A common misconception among beginning researchers is that correlational research must involve two quantitative variables, such as scores on two extraversion tests or the number of hassles and number of symptoms people have experienced. However, the defining feature of correlational research is that the two variables are measured—neither one is manipulated—and this is true regardless of whether the variables are quantitative or categorical. Imagine, for example, that a researcher administers the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale to 50 American college students and 50 Japanese college students. Although this “feels” like a between-subjects experiment, it is a correlational study because the researcher did not manipulate the students’ nationalities. The same is true of the study by Cacioppo and Petty comparing college faculty and factory workers in terms of their need for cognition. It is a correlational study because the researchers did not manipulate the participants’ occupations.

Figure 7.2 “Results of a Hypothetical Study on Whether People Who Make Daily To-Do Lists Experience Less Stress Than People Who Do Not Make Such Lists” shows data from a hypothetical study on the relationship between whether people make a daily list of things to do (a “to-do list”) and stress. Notice that it is unclear whether this is an experiment or a correlational study because it is unclear whether the independent variable was manipulated. If the researcher randomly assigned some participants to make daily to-do lists and others not to, then it is an experiment. If the researcher simply asked participants whether they made daily to-do lists, then it is a correlational study. The distinction is important because if the study was an experiment, then it could be concluded that making the daily to-do lists reduced participants’ stress. But if it was a correlational study, it could only be concluded that these variables are statistically related. Perhaps being stressed has a negative effect on people’s ability to plan ahead (the directionality problem). Or perhaps people who are more conscientious are more likely to make to-do lists and less likely to be stressed (the third-variable problem). The crucial point is that what defines a study as experimental or correlational is not the variables being studied, nor whether the variables are quantitative or categorical, nor the type of graph or statistics used to analyze the data. It is how the study is conducted.

Figure 7.2 Results of a Hypothetical Study on Whether People Who Make Daily To-Do Lists Experience Less Stress Than People Who Do Not Make Such Lists

Data Collection in Correlational Research

Again, the defining feature of correlational research is that neither variable is manipulated. It does not matter how or where the variables are measured. A researcher could have participants come to a laboratory to complete a computerized backward digit span task and a computerized risky decision-making task and then assess the relationship between participants’ scores on the two tasks. Or a researcher could go to a shopping mall to ask people about their attitudes toward the environment and their shopping habits and then assess the relationship between these two variables. Both of these studies would be correlational because no independent variable is manipulated. However, because some approaches to data collection are strongly associated with correlational research, it makes sense to discuss them here. The two we will focus on are naturalistic observation and archival data. A third, survey research, is discussed in its own chapter.

Naturalistic Observation

Naturalistic observation is an approach to data collection that involves observing people’s behavior in the environment in which it typically occurs. Thus naturalistic observation is a type of field research (as opposed to a type of laboratory research). It could involve observing shoppers in a grocery store, children on a school playground, or psychiatric inpatients in their wards. Researchers engaged in naturalistic observation usually make their observations as unobtrusively as possible so that participants are often not aware that they are being studied. Ethically, this is considered to be acceptable if the participants remain anonymous and the behavior occurs in a public setting where people would not normally have an expectation of privacy. Grocery shoppers putting items into their shopping carts, for example, are engaged in public behavior that is easily observable by store employees and other shoppers. For this reason, most researchers would consider it ethically acceptable to observe them for a study. On the other hand, one of the arguments against the ethicality of the naturalistic observation of “bathroom behavior” discussed earlier in the book is that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in a public restroom and that this expectation was violated.

Researchers Robert Levine and Ara Norenzayan used naturalistic observation to study differences in the “pace of life” across countries (Levine & Norenzayan, 1999). One of their measures involved observing pedestrians in a large city to see how long it took them to walk 60 feet. They found that people in some countries walked reliably faster than people in other countries. For example, people in the United States and Japan covered 60 feet in about 12 seconds on average, while people in Brazil and Romania took close to 17 seconds.

Because naturalistic observation takes place in the complex and even chaotic “real world,” there are two closely related issues that researchers must deal with before collecting data. The first is sampling. When, where, and under what conditions will the observations be made, and who exactly will be observed? Levine and Norenzayan described their sampling process as follows:

Male and female walking speed over a distance of 60 feet was measured in at least two locations in main downtown areas in each city. Measurements were taken during main business hours on clear summer days. All locations were flat, unobstructed, had broad sidewalks, and were sufficiently uncrowded to allow pedestrians to move at potentially maximum speeds. To control for the effects of socializing, only pedestrians walking alone were used. Children, individuals with obvious physical handicaps, and window-shoppers were not timed. Thirty-five men and 35 women were timed in most cities. (p. 186)

Precise specification of the sampling process in this way makes data collection manageable for the observers, and it also provides some control over important extraneous variables. For example, by making their observations on clear summer days in all countries, Levine and Norenzayan controlled for effects of the weather on people’s walking speeds.

The second issue is measurement. What specific behaviors will be observed? In Levine and Norenzayan’s study, measurement was relatively straightforward. They simply measured out a 60-foot distance along a city sidewalk and then used a stopwatch to time participants as they walked over that distance. Often, however, the behaviors of interest are not so obvious or objective. For example, researchers Robert Kraut and Robert Johnston wanted to study bowlers’ reactions to their shots, both when they were facing the pins and then when they turned toward their companions (Kraut & Johnston, 1979). But what “reactions” should they observe? Based on previous research and their own pilot testing, Kraut and Johnston created a list of reactions that included “closed smile,” “open smile,” “laugh,” “neutral face,” “look down,” “look away,” and “face cover” (covering one’s face with one’s hands). The observers committed this list to memory and then practiced by coding the reactions of bowlers who had been videotaped. During the actual study, the observers spoke into an audio recorder, describing the reactions they observed. Among the most interesting results of this study was that bowlers rarely smiled while they still faced the pins. They were much more likely to smile after they turned toward their companions, suggesting that smiling is not purely an expression of happiness but also a form of social communication.

Naturalistic observation has revealed that bowlers tend to smile when they turn away from the pins and toward their companions, suggesting that smiling is not purely an expression of happiness but also a form of social communication.

sieneke toering – bowling big lebowski style – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

When the observations require a judgment on the part of the observers—as in Kraut and Johnston’s study—this process is often described as coding . Coding generally requires clearly defining a set of target behaviors. The observers then categorize participants individually in terms of which behavior they have engaged in and the number of times they engaged in each behavior. The observers might even record the duration of each behavior. The target behaviors must be defined in such a way that different observers code them in the same way. This is the issue of interrater reliability. Researchers are expected to demonstrate the interrater reliability of their coding procedure by having multiple raters code the same behaviors independently and then showing that the different observers are in close agreement. Kraut and Johnston, for example, video recorded a subset of their participants’ reactions and had two observers independently code them. The two observers showed that they agreed on the reactions that were exhibited 97% of the time, indicating good interrater reliability.

Archival Data

Another approach to correlational research is the use of archival data , which are data that have already been collected for some other purpose. An example is a study by Brett Pelham and his colleagues on “implicit egotism”—the tendency for people to prefer people, places, and things that are similar to themselves (Pelham, Carvallo, & Jones, 2005). In one study, they examined Social Security records to show that women with the names Virginia, Georgia, Louise, and Florence were especially likely to have moved to the states of Virginia, Georgia, Louisiana, and Florida, respectively.

As with naturalistic observation, measurement can be more or less straightforward when working with archival data. For example, counting the number of people named Virginia who live in various states based on Social Security records is relatively straightforward. But consider a study by Christopher Peterson and his colleagues on the relationship between optimism and health using data that had been collected many years before for a study on adult development (Peterson, Seligman, & Vaillant, 1988). In the 1940s, healthy male college students had completed an open-ended questionnaire about difficult wartime experiences. In the late 1980s, Peterson and his colleagues reviewed the men’s questionnaire responses to obtain a measure of explanatory style—their habitual ways of explaining bad events that happen to them. More pessimistic people tend to blame themselves and expect long-term negative consequences that affect many aspects of their lives, while more optimistic people tend to blame outside forces and expect limited negative consequences. To obtain a measure of explanatory style for each participant, the researchers used a procedure in which all negative events mentioned in the questionnaire responses, and any causal explanations for them, were identified and written on index cards. These were given to a separate group of raters who rated each explanation in terms of three separate dimensions of optimism-pessimism. These ratings were then averaged to produce an explanatory style score for each participant. The researchers then assessed the statistical relationship between the men’s explanatory style as college students and archival measures of their health at approximately 60 years of age. The primary result was that the more optimistic the men were as college students, the healthier they were as older men. Pearson’s r was +.25.

This is an example of content analysis —a family of systematic approaches to measurement using complex archival data. Just as naturalistic observation requires specifying the behaviors of interest and then noting them as they occur, content analysis requires specifying keywords, phrases, or ideas and then finding all occurrences of them in the data. These occurrences can then be counted, timed (e.g., the amount of time devoted to entertainment topics on the nightly news show), or analyzed in a variety of other ways.

Key Takeaways

• Correlational research involves measuring two variables and assessing the relationship between them, with no manipulation of an independent variable.
• Correlational research is not defined by where or how the data are collected. However, some approaches to data collection are strongly associated with correlational research. These include naturalistic observation (in which researchers observe people’s behavior in the context in which it normally occurs) and the use of archival data that were already collected for some other purpose.

Discussion: For each of the following, decide whether it is most likely that the study described is experimental or correlational and explain why.

• An educational researcher compares the academic performance of students from the “rich” side of town with that of students from the “poor” side of town.
• A cognitive psychologist compares the ability of people to recall words that they were instructed to “read” with their ability to recall words that they were instructed to “imagine.”
• A manager studies the correlation between new employees’ college grade point averages and their first-year performance reports.
• An automotive engineer installs different stick shifts in a new car prototype, each time asking several people to rate how comfortable the stick shift feels.
• A food scientist studies the relationship between the temperature inside people’s refrigerators and the amount of bacteria on their food.
• A social psychologist tells some research participants that they need to hurry over to the next building to complete a study. She tells others that they can take their time. Then she observes whether they stop to help a research assistant who is pretending to be hurt.

Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4 , 1–39.

Kraut, R. E., & Johnston, R. E. (1979). Social and emotional messages of smiling: An ethological approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 , 1539–1553.

Levine, R. V., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30 , 178–205.

Pelham, B. W., Carvallo, M., & Jones, J. T. (2005). Implicit egotism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14 , 106–110.

Peterson, C., Seligman, M. E. P., & Vaillant, G. E. (1988). Pessimistic explanatory style is a risk factor for physical illness: A thirty-five year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 , 23–27.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

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.

On This Page:

A research hypothesis, in its plural form “hypotheses,” is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method .

Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding

Some key points about hypotheses:

• A hypothesis expresses an expected pattern or relationship. It connects the variables under investigation.
• It is stated in clear, precise terms before any data collection or analysis occurs. This makes the hypothesis testable.
• A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It should be possible, even if unlikely in practice, to collect data that disconfirms rather than supports the hypothesis.
• Hypotheses guide research. Scientists design studies to explicitly evaluate hypotheses about how nature works.
• For a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable against empirical evidence. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.
• Hypotheses are informed by background knowledge and observation, but go beyond what is already known to propose an explanation of how or why something occurs.

Predictions typically arise from a thorough knowledge of the research literature, curiosity about real-world problems or implications, and integrating this to advance theory. They build on existing literature while providing new insight.

Types of Research Hypotheses

Alternative hypothesis.

The research hypothesis is often called the alternative or experimental hypothesis in experimental research.

It typically suggests a potential relationship between two key variables: the independent variable, which the researcher manipulates, and the dependent variable, which is measured based on those changes.

The alternative hypothesis states a relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable affects the other).

A hypothesis is a testable statement or prediction about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a key component of the scientific method. Some key points about hypotheses:

• Important hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested empirically. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.

In summary, a hypothesis is a precise, testable statement of what researchers expect to happen in a study and why. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.

An experimental hypothesis predicts what change(s) will occur in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated.

It states that the results are not due to chance and are significant in supporting the theory being investigated.

The alternative hypothesis can be directional, indicating a specific direction of the effect, or non-directional, suggesting a difference without specifying its nature. It’s what researchers aim to support or demonstrate through their study.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis states no relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable does not affect the other). There will be no changes in the dependent variable due to manipulating the independent variable.

It states results are due to chance and are not significant in supporting the idea being investigated.

The null hypothesis, positing no effect or relationship, is a foundational contrast to the research hypothesis in scientific inquiry. It establishes a baseline for statistical testing, promoting objectivity by initiating research from a neutral stance.

Many statistical methods are tailored to test the null hypothesis, determining the likelihood of observed results if no true effect exists.

This dual-hypothesis approach provides clarity, ensuring that research intentions are explicit, and fosters consistency across scientific studies, enhancing the standardization and interpretability of research outcomes.

Nondirectional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis, also known as a two-tailed hypothesis, predicts that there is a difference or relationship between two variables but does not specify the direction of this relationship.

It merely indicates that a change or effect will occur without predicting which group will have higher or lower values.

For example, “There is a difference in performance between Group A and Group B” is a non-directional hypothesis.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional (one-tailed) hypothesis predicts the nature of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. It predicts in which direction the change will take place. (i.e., greater, smaller, less, more)

It specifies whether one variable is greater, lesser, or different from another, rather than just indicating that there’s a difference without specifying its nature.

For example, “Exercise increases weight loss” is a directional hypothesis.

Falsifiability

The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper , is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory or hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be testable and irrefutable.

Falsifiability emphasizes that scientific claims shouldn’t just be confirmable but should also have the potential to be proven wrong.

It means that there should exist some potential evidence or experiment that could prove the proposition false.

However many confirming instances exist for a theory, it only takes one counter observation to falsify it. For example, the hypothesis that “all swans are white,” can be falsified by observing a black swan.

For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to continually provide evidence to support a research hypothesis.

Can a Hypothesis be Proven?

Hypotheses make probabilistic predictions. They state the expected outcome if a particular relationship exists. However, a study result supporting a hypothesis does not definitively prove it is true.

All studies have limitations. There may be unknown confounding factors or issues that limit the certainty of conclusions. Additional studies may yield different results.

In science, hypotheses can realistically only be supported with some degree of confidence, not proven. The process of science is to incrementally accumulate evidence for and against hypothesized relationships in an ongoing pursuit of better models and explanations that best fit the empirical data. But hypotheses remain open to revision and rejection if that is where the evidence leads.

• Disproving a hypothesis is definitive. Solid disconfirmatory evidence will falsify a hypothesis and require altering or discarding it based on the evidence.
• However, confirming evidence is always open to revision. Other explanations may account for the same results, and additional or contradictory evidence may emerge over time.

We can never 100% prove the alternative hypothesis. Instead, we see if we can disprove, or reject the null hypothesis.

If we reject the null hypothesis, this doesn’t mean that our alternative hypothesis is correct but does support the alternative/experimental hypothesis.

Upon analysis of the results, an alternative hypothesis can be rejected or supported, but it can never be proven to be correct. We must avoid any reference to results proving a theory as this implies 100% certainty, and there is always a chance that evidence may exist which could refute a theory.

How to Write a Hypothesis

• Identify variables . The researcher manipulates the independent variable and the dependent variable is the measured outcome.
• Operationalized the variables being investigated . Operationalization of a hypothesis refers to the process of making the variables physically measurable or testable, e.g. if you are about to study aggression, you might count the number of punches given by participants.
• Decide on a direction for your prediction . If there is evidence in the literature to support a specific effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a directional (one-tailed) hypothesis. If there are limited or ambiguous findings in the literature regarding the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis.
• Make it Testable : Ensure your hypothesis can be tested through experimentation or observation. It should be possible to prove it false (principle of falsifiability).
• Clear & concise language . A strong hypothesis is concise (typically one to two sentences long), and formulated using clear and straightforward language, ensuring it’s easily understood and testable.

Consider a hypothesis many teachers might subscribe to: students work better on Monday morning than on Friday afternoon (IV=Day, DV= Standard of work).

Now, if we decide to study this by giving the same group of students a lesson on a Monday morning and a Friday afternoon and then measuring their immediate recall of the material covered in each session, we would end up with the following:

• The alternative hypothesis states that students will recall significantly more information on a Monday morning than on a Friday afternoon.
• The null hypothesis states that there will be no significant difference in the amount recalled on a Monday morning compared to a Friday afternoon. Any difference will be due to chance or confounding factors.

More Examples

• Memory : Participants exposed to classical music during study sessions will recall more items from a list than those who studied in silence.
• Social Psychology : Individuals who frequently engage in social media use will report higher levels of perceived social isolation compared to those who use it infrequently.
• Developmental Psychology : Children who engage in regular imaginative play have better problem-solving skills than those who don’t.
• Clinical Psychology : Cognitive-behavioral therapy will be more effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety over a 6-month period compared to traditional talk therapy.
• Cognitive Psychology : Individuals who multitask between various electronic devices will have shorter attention spans on focused tasks than those who single-task.
• Health Psychology : Patients who practice mindfulness meditation will experience lower levels of chronic pain compared to those who don’t meditate.
• Organizational Psychology : Employees in open-plan offices will report higher levels of stress than those in private offices.
• Behavioral Psychology : Rats rewarded with food after pressing a lever will press it more frequently than rats who receive no reward.

• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Statistics By Jim

Making statistics intuitive

Correlational Study Overview & Examples

By Jim Frost 2 Comments

What is a Correlational Study?

A correlational study is an experimental design that evaluates only the correlation between variables. The researchers record measurements but do not control or manipulate the variables. Correlational research is a form of observational study .

A correlation indicates that as the value of one variable increases, the other tends to change in a specific direction:

• Positive correlation : Two variables increase or decrease together (as height increases, weight tends to increase).
• Negative correlation : As one variable increases, the other tends to decrease (as school absences increase, grades tend to fall).
• No correlation : No relationship exists between the two variables. As one increases, the other does not change in a specific direction (as absences increase, height doesn’t tend to increase or decrease).

For example, researchers conducting correlational research explored the relationship between social media usage and levels of anxiety in young adults. Participants reported their demographic information and daily time on various social media platforms and completed a standardized anxiety assessment tool.

The correlational study looked for relationships between social media usage and anxiety. Is increased social media usage associated with higher anxiety? Is it worse for particular demographics?

Learn more about Interpreting Correlation .

Using Correlational Research

Correlational research design is crucial in various disciplines, notably psychology and medicine. This type of design is generally cheaper, easier, and quicker to conduct than an experiment because the researchers don’t control any variables or conditions. Consequently, these studies often serve as an initial assessment, especially when random assignment and controlling variables for a true experiment are not feasible or unethical.

However, an unfortunate aspect of a correlational study is its limitation in establishing causation. While these studies can reveal connections between variables, they cannot prove that altering one variable will cause changes in another. Hence, correlational research can determine whether relationships exist but cannot confirm causality.

Remember, correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation !

Correlational Study vs Experiment

The difference between the two designs is simple.

In a correlational study, the researchers don’t systematically control any variables. They’re simply observing events and do not want to influence outcomes.

In an experiment, researchers manipulate variables and explicitly hope to affect the outcomes. For example, they might control the treatment condition by giving a medication or placebo to each subject. They also randomly assign subjects to the control and treatment groups, which helps establish causality.

Learn more about Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) , which statisticians consider to be true experiments.

Types of Correlation Studies and Examples

Researchers divide these studies into three broad types.

Secondary Data Sources

One approach to correlational research is to utilize pre-existing data, which may include official records, public polls, or data from earlier studies. This method can be cost-effective and time-efficient because other researchers have already gathered the data. These existing data sources can provide large sample sizes and longitudinal data , thereby showing relationship trends.

However, it also comes with potential drawbacks. The data may be incomplete or irrelevant to the new research question. Additionally, as a researcher, you won’t have control over the original data collection methods, potentially impacting the data’s reliability and validity .

Using existing data makes this approach a retrospective study .

Surveys in Correlation Research

Surveys are a great way to collect data for correlational studies while using a consistent instrument across all respondents. You can use various formats, such as in-person, online, and by phone. And you can ask the questions necessary to obtain the particular variables you need for your project. In short, it’s easy to customize surveys to match your study’s requirements.

However, you’ll need to carefully word all the questions to be clear and not introduce bias in the results. This process can take multiple iterations and pilot studies to produce the finished survey.

For example, you can use a survey to find correlations between various demographic variables and political opinions.

Naturalistic Observation

Naturalistic observation is a method of collecting field data for a correlational study. Researchers observe and measure variables in a natural environment. The process can include counting events, categorizing behavior, and describing outcomes without interfering with the activities.

For example, researchers might observe and record children’s behavior after watching television. Does a relationship exist between the type of television program and behaviors?

Naturalistic observations occur in a prospective study .

Analyzing Data from a Correlational Study

Statistical analysis of correlational research frequently involves correlation and regression analysis .

A correlation coefficient describes the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables with a single number.

Regression analysis can evaluate how multiple variables relate to a single outcome. For example, in the social media correlational study example, how do the demographic variables and daily social media usage collectively correlate with anxiety?

Curtis EA, Comiskey C, Dempsey O.  Importance and use of correlational research .  Nurse Researcher . 2016;23(6):20-25. doi:10.7748/nr.2016.e1382

Share this:

Reader Interactions

January 14, 2024 at 4:34 pm

Hi Jim. Have you written a blog note dedicated to clinical trials? If not, besides the note on hypothesis testing, are there other blogs ypo have written that touch on clinical trials?

January 14, 2024 at 5:49 pm

Hi Stan, I haven’t written a blog post specifically about clinical trials, but I have the following related posts:

Randomized Controlled Trials Clinical Trial about a COVID vaccine Clinical Trials about flu vaccines

Comments and Questions Cancel reply

Module 1: Lifespan Development

Correlational and experimental research, learning outcomes.

• Explain correlational research
• Describe the value of experimental research

Correlational Research

When scientists passively observe and measure phenomena it is called correlational research . Here, researchers do not intervene and change behavior, as they do in experiments. In correlational research, the goal is to identify patterns of relationships, but not cause and effect. Importantly, with correlational research, you can examine only two variables at a time, no more and no less.

So, what if you wanted to test whether spending money on others is related to happiness, but you don’t have $20 to give to each participant in order to have them spend it for your experiment? You could use a correlational design—which is exactly what Professor Elizabeth Dunn (2008) at the University of British Columbia did when she conducted research on spending and happiness. She asked people how much of their income they spent on others or donated to charity, and later she asked them how happy they were. Do you think these two variables were related? Yes, they were! The more money people reported spending on others, the happier they were.

Understanding Correlation

To find out how well two variables correlate, you can plot the relationship between the two scores on what is known as a scatterplot . In the scatterplot, each dot represents a data point. (In this case it’s individuals, but it could be some other unit.) Importantly, each dot provides us with two pieces of information—in this case, information about how good the person rated the past month (x-axis) and how happy the person felt in the past month (y-axis). Which variable is plotted on which axis does not matter.

Figure 1 . Scatterplot of the association between happiness and ratings of the past month, a positive correlation (r = .81). Each dot represents an individual.

The association between two variables can be summarized statistically using the correlation coefficient (abbreviated as r). A correlation coefficient provides information about the direction and strength of the association between two variables. For the example above, the direction of the association is positive. This means that people who perceived the past month as being good reported feeling more happy, whereas people who perceived the month as being bad reported feeling less happy.

With a positive correlation , the two variables go up or down together. In a scatterplot, the dots form a pattern that extends from the bottom left to the upper right (just as they do in Figure 1). The r value for a positive correlation is indicated by a positive number (although, the positive sign is usually omitted). Here, the r value is .81.

A negative correlation is one in which the two variables move in opposite directions. That is, as one variable goes up, the other goes down. Figure 2 shows the association between the average height of males in a country (y-axis) and the pathogen prevalence (or commonness of disease; x-axis) of that country. In this scatterplot, each dot represents a country. Notice how the dots extend from the top left to the bottom right. What does this mean in real-world terms? It means that people are shorter in parts of the world where there is more disease. The r value for a negative correlation is indicated by a negative number—that is, it has a minus (–) sign in front of it. Here, it is –.83.

Figure 2 . Scatterplot showing the association between average male height and pathogen prevalence, a negative correlation (r = –.83). Each dot represents a country (Chiao, 2009).

The strength of a correlation has to do with how well the two variables align. Recall that in Professor Dunn’s correlational study, spending on others positively correlated with happiness; the more money people reported spending on others, the happier they reported to be. At this point you may be thinking to yourself, I know a very generous person who gave away lots of money to other people but is miserable! Or maybe you know of a very stingy person who is happy as can be. Yes, there might be exceptions. If an association has many exceptions, it is considered a weak correlation. If an association has few or no exceptions, it is considered a strong correlation. A strong correlation is one in which the two variables always, or almost always, go together. In the example of happiness and how good the month has been, the association is strong. The stronger a correlation is, the tighter the dots in the scatterplot will be arranged along a sloped line.

The r value of a strong correlation will have a high absolute value (a perfect correlation has an absolute value of the whole number one, or 1.00). In other words, you disregard whether there is a negative sign in front of the r value, and just consider the size of the numerical value itself. If the absolute value is large, it is a strong correlation. A weak correlation is one in which the two variables correspond some of the time, but not most of the time. Figure 3 shows the relation between valuing happiness and grade point average (GPA). People who valued happiness more tended to earn slightly lower grades, but there were lots of exceptions to this. The r value for a weak correlation will have a low absolute value. If two variables are so weakly related as to be unrelated, we say they are uncorrelated, and the r value will be zero or very close to zero. In the previous example, is the correlation between height and pathogen prevalence strong? Compared to Figure 3, the dots in Figure 2 are tighter and less dispersed. The absolute value of –.83 is large (closer to one than to zero). Therefore, it is a strong negative correlation.

Figure 3 . Scatterplot showing the association between valuing happiness and GPA, a weak negative correlation (r = –.32). Each dot represents an individual.

Problems with correlation

If generosity and happiness are positively correlated, should we conclude that being generous causes happiness? Similarly, if height and pathogen prevalence are negatively correlated, should we conclude that disease causes shortness? From a correlation alone, we can’t be certain. For example, in the first case, it may be that happiness causes generosity, or that generosity causes happiness. Or, a third variable might cause both happiness and generosity, creating the illusion of a direct link between the two. For example, wealth could be the third variable that causes both greater happiness and greater generosity. This is why correlation does not mean causation—an often repeated phrase among psychologists.

In this video, University of Pennsylvania psychologist and bestselling author, Angela Duckworth describes the correlational research that informed her understanding of grit.

You can view the transcript for “Grit: The power of passion and perseverance | Angela Lee Duckworth” here (opens in new window) .

link to learning

Click through this interactive presentation to examine actual research studies.

Experimental Research

Experiments  are designed to test  hypotheses  (or specific statements about the relationship between  variables ) in a controlled setting in efforts to explain how certain factors or events produce outcomes. A variable is anything that changes in value. Concepts are  operationalized  or transformed into variables in research which means that the researcher must specify exactly what is going to be measured in the study. For example, if we are interested in studying marital satisfaction, we have to specify what marital satisfaction really means or what we are going to use as an indicator of marital satisfaction. What is something measurable that would indicate some level of marital satisfaction? Would it be the amount of time couples spend together each day? Or eye contact during a discussion about money? Or maybe a subject’s score on a marital satisfaction scale? Each of these is measurable but these may not be equally valid or accurate indicators of marital satisfaction. What do you think? These are the kinds of considerations researchers must make when working through the design.

The experimental method is the only research method that can measure cause and effect relationships between variables. Three conditions must be met in order to establish cause and effect. Experimental designs are useful in meeting these conditions:

• The independent and dependent variables must be related.  In other words, when one is altered, the other changes in response. The independent variable is something altered or introduced by the researcher; sometimes thought of as the treatment or intervention. The dependent variable is the outcome or the factor affected by the introduction of the independent variable; the dependent variable  depends on the independent variable. For example, if we are looking at the impact of exercise on stress levels, the independent variable would be exercise; the dependent variable would be stress.
• The cause must come before the effect.  Experiments measure subjects on the dependent variable before exposing them to the independent variable (establishing a baseline). So we would measure the subjects’ level of stress before introducing exercise and then again after the exercise to see if there has been a change in stress levels. (Observational and survey research does not always allow us to look at the timing of these events which makes understanding causality problematic with these methods.)
• The cause must be isolated.  The researcher must ensure that no outside, perhaps unknown variables, are actually causing the effect we see. The experimental design helps make this possible. In an experiment, we would make sure that our subjects’ diets were held constant throughout the exercise program. Otherwise, the diet might really be creating a change in stress level rather than exercise.

A basic experimental design involves beginning with a sample (or subset of a population) and randomly assigning subjects to one of two groups: the  experimental group or the control group . Ideally, to prevent bias, the participants would be blind to their condition (not aware of which group they are in) and the researchers would also be blind to each participant’s condition (referred to as “ double blind “). The experimental group is the group that is going to be exposed to an independent variable or condition the researcher is introducing as a potential cause of an event. The control group is going to be used for comparison and is going to have the same experience as the experimental group but will not be exposed to the independent variable. This helps address the placebo effect, which is that a group may expect changes to happen just by participating. After exposing the experimental group to the independent variable, the two groups are measured again to see if a change has occurred. If so, we are in a better position to suggest that the independent variable caused the change in the dependent variable . The basic experimental model looks like this:

The major advantage of the experimental design is that of helping to establish cause and effect relationships. A disadvantage of this design is the difficulty of translating much of what concerns us about human behavior into a laboratory setting.

Link to Learning

Have you ever wondered why people make decisions that seem to be in opposition to their longterm best interest? In Eldar Shafir’s TED Talk Living Under Scarcity , Shafir describes a series of experiments that shed light on how scarcity (real or perceived) affects our decisions.

• Modification, adaptation, and original content. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Psyc 200 Lifespan Psychology. Authored by : Laura Overstreet. Located at : http://opencourselibrary.org/econ-201/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Research Designs. Authored by : Christie Napa Scollon. Provided by : Singapore Management University. Project : The Noba Project. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Vocabulary and review about correlational research. Provided by : Lumen Learning. Located at : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/waymaker-psychology/wp-admin/post.php?post=1848&action=edit . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. Authored by : Angela Lee Duckworth. Provided by : TED. Located at : https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_grit_the_power_of_passion_and_perseverance . License : CC BY-NC-ND: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 3. Psychological Science & Research

3.5 Psychologists Use Descriptive, Correlational, and Experimental Research Designs to Understand Behaviour

Charles Stangor and Jennifer Walinga

Learning Objectives

• Differentiate the goals of descriptive, correlational, and experimental research designs and explain the advantages and disadvantages of each.
• Explain the goals of descriptive research and the statistical techniques used to interpret it.
• Summarize the uses of correlational research and describe why correlational research cannot be used to infer causality.
• Review the procedures of experimental research and explain how it can be used to draw causal inferences.

Psychologists agree that if their ideas and theories about human behaviour are to be taken seriously, they must be backed up by data. However, the research of different psychologists is designed with different goals in mind, and the different goals require different approaches. These varying approaches, summarized in Table 3.3, are known as research designs . A research design  is the specific method a researcher uses to collect, analyze, and interpret data . Psychologists use three major types of research designs in their research, and each provides an essential avenue for scientific investigation. Descriptive research  is research designed to provide a snapshot of the current state of affairs . Correlational research  is research designed to discover relationships among variables and to allow the prediction of future events from present knowledge . Experimental research  is research in which initial equivalence among research participants in more than one group is created, followed by a manipulation of a given experience for these groups and a measurement of the influence of the manipulation . Each of the three research designs varies according to its strengths and limitations, and it is important to understand how each differs.

Descriptive Research: Assessing the Current State of Affairs

Descriptive research is designed to create a snapshot of the current thoughts, feelings, or behaviour of individuals. This section reviews three types of descriptive research : case studies , surveys , and naturalistic observation (Figure 3.3).

Sometimes the data in a descriptive research project are based on only a small set of individuals, often only one person or a single small group. These research designs are known as case studies — descriptive records of one or more individual’s experiences and behaviour . Sometimes case studies involve ordinary individuals, as when developmental psychologist Jean Piaget used his observation of his own children to develop his stage theory of cognitive development. More frequently, case studies are conducted on individuals who have unusual or abnormal experiences or characteristics or who find themselves in particularly difficult or stressful situations. The assumption is that by carefully studying individuals who are socially marginal, who are experiencing unusual situations, or who are going through a difficult phase in their lives, we can learn something about human nature.

Sigmund Freud was a master of using the psychological difficulties of individuals to draw conclusions about basic psychological processes. Freud wrote case studies of some of his most interesting patients and used these careful examinations to develop his important theories of personality. One classic example is Freud’s description of “Little Hans,” a child whose fear of horses the psychoanalyst interpreted in terms of repressed sexual impulses and the Oedipus complex (Freud, 1909/1964).

Another well-known case study is Phineas Gage, a man whose thoughts and emotions were extensively studied by cognitive psychologists after a railroad spike was blasted through his skull in an accident. Although there are questions about the interpretation of this case study (Kotowicz, 2007), it did provide early evidence that the brain’s frontal lobe is involved in emotion and morality (Damasio et al., 2005). An interesting example of a case study in clinical psychology is described by Rokeach (1964), who investigated in detail the beliefs of and interactions among three patients with schizophrenia, all of whom were convinced they were Jesus Christ.

In other cases the data from descriptive research projects come in the form of a survey — a measure administered through either an interview or a written questionnaire to get a picture of the beliefs or behaviours of a sample of people of interest . The people chosen to participate in the research (known as the sample) are selected to be representative of all the people that the researcher wishes to know about (the population). In election polls, for instance, a sample is taken from the population of all “likely voters” in the upcoming elections.

The results of surveys may sometimes be rather mundane, such as “Nine out of 10 doctors prefer Tymenocin” or “The median income in the city of Hamilton is $46,712.” Yet other times (particularly in discussions of social behaviour), the results can be shocking: “More than 40,000 people are killed by gunfire in the United States every year” or “More than 60% of women between the ages of 50 and 60 suffer from depression.” Descriptive research is frequently used by psychologists to get an estimate of the prevalence (or incidence ) of psychological disorders.

A final type of descriptive research — known as naturalistic observation — is research based on the observation of everyday events . For instance, a developmental psychologist who watches children on a playground and describes what they say to each other while they play is conducting descriptive research, as is a biopsychologist who observes animals in their natural habitats. One example of observational research involves a systematic procedure known as the strange situation , used to get a picture of how adults and young children interact. The data that are collected in the strange situation are systematically coded in a coding sheet such as that shown in Table 3.4.

The results of descriptive research projects are analyzed using descriptive statistics — numbers that summarize the distribution of scores on a measured variable . Most variables have distributions similar to that shown in Figure 3.4 where most of the scores are located near the centre of the distribution, and the distribution is symmetrical and bell-shaped. A data distribution that is shaped like a bell is known as a normal distribution .

A distribution can be described in terms of its central tendency — that is, the point in the distribution around which the data are centred — and its dispersion, or spread . The arithmetic average, or arithmetic mean , symbolized by the letter M , is the most commonly used measure of central tendency . It is computed by calculating the sum of all the scores of the variable and dividing this sum by the number of participants in the distribution (denoted by the letter N ). In the data presented in Figure 3.4 the mean height of the students is 67.12 inches (170.5 cm). The sample mean is usually indicated by the letter M .

In some cases, however, the data distribution is not symmetrical. This occurs when there are one or more extreme scores (known as outliers ) at one end of the distribution. Consider, for instance, the variable of family income (see Figure 3.6), which includes an outlier (a value of $3,800,000). In this case the mean is not a good measure of central tendency. Although it appears from Figure 3.5 that the central tendency of the family income variable should be around $70,000, the mean family income is actually $223,960. The single very extreme income has a disproportionate impact on the mean, resulting in a value that does not well represent the central tendency.

The median is used as an alternative measure of central tendency when distributions are not symmetrical. The median  is the score in the center of the distribution, meaning that 50% of the scores are greater than the median and 50% of the scores are less than the median . In our case, the median household income ($73,000) is a much better indication of central tendency than is the mean household income ($223,960).

A final measure of central tendency, known as the mode , represents the value that occurs most frequently in the distribution . You can see from Figure 3.5 that the mode for the family income variable is $93,000 (it occurs four times).

In addition to summarizing the central tendency of a distribution, descriptive statistics convey information about how the scores of the variable are spread around the central tendency. Dispersion refers to the extent to which the scores are all tightly clustered around the central tendency , as seen in Figure 3.6.

Or they may be more spread out away from it, as seen in Figure 3.7.

One simple measure of dispersion is to find the largest (the maximum ) and the smallest (the minimum ) observed values of the variable and to compute the range of the variable as the maximum observed score minus the minimum observed score. You can check that the range of the height variable in Figure 3.4 is 72 – 62 = 10. The standard deviation , symbolized as s , is the most commonly used measure of dispersion . Distributions with a larger standard deviation have more spread. The standard deviation of the height variable is s = 2.74, and the standard deviation of the family income variable is s = $745,337.

An advantage of descriptive research is that it attempts to capture the complexity of everyday behaviour. Case studies provide detailed information about a single person or a small group of people, surveys capture the thoughts or reported behaviours of a large population of people, and naturalistic observation objectively records the behaviour of people or animals as it occurs naturally. Thus descriptive research is used to provide a relatively complete understanding of what is currently happening.

Despite these advantages, descriptive research has a distinct disadvantage in that, although it allows us to get an idea of what is currently happening, it is usually limited to static pictures. Although descriptions of particular experiences may be interesting, they are not always transferable to other individuals in other situations, nor do they tell us exactly why specific behaviours or events occurred. For instance, descriptions of individuals who have suffered a stressful event, such as a war or an earthquake, can be used to understand the individuals’ reactions to the event but cannot tell us anything about the long-term effects of the stress. And because there is no comparison group that did not experience the stressful situation, we cannot know what these individuals would be like if they hadn’t had the stressful experience.

Correlational Research: Seeking Relationships among Variables

In contrast to descriptive research, which is designed primarily to provide static pictures, correlational research involves the measurement of two or more relevant variables and an assessment of the relationship between or among those variables. For instance, the variables of height and weight are systematically related (correlated) because taller people generally weigh more than shorter people. In the same way, study time and memory errors are also related, because the more time a person is given to study a list of words, the fewer errors he or she will make. When there are two variables in the research design, one of them is called the predictor variable and the other the outcome variable . The research design can be visualized as shown in Figure 3.8, where the curved arrow represents the expected correlation between these two variables.

One way of organizing the data from a correlational study with two variables is to graph the values of each of the measured variables using a scatter plot . As you can see in Figure 3.9 a scatter plot  is a visual image of the relationship between two variables . A point is plotted for each individual at the intersection of his or her scores for the two variables. When the association between the variables on the scatter plot can be easily approximated with a straight line , as in parts (a) and (b) of Figure 3.9 the variables are said to have a linear relationship .

When the straight line indicates that individuals who have above-average values for one variable also tend to have above-average values for the other variable , as in part (a), the relationship is said to be positive linear . Examples of positive linear relationships include those between height and weight, between education and income, and between age and mathematical abilities in children. In each case, people who score higher on one of the variables also tend to score higher on the other variable. Negative linear relationships , in contrast, as shown in part (b), occur when above-average values for one variable tend to be associated with below-average values for the other variable. Examples of negative linear relationships include those between the age of a child and the number of diapers the child uses, and between practice on and errors made on a learning task. In these cases, people who score higher on one of the variables tend to score lower on the other variable.

Relationships between variables that cannot be described with a straight line are known as nonlinear relationships . Part (c) of Figure 3.9 shows a common pattern in which the distribution of the points is essentially random. In this case there is no relationship at all between the two variables , and they are said to be independent . Parts (d) and (e) of Figure 3.9 show patterns of association in which, although there is an association, the points are not well described by a single straight line. For instance, part (d) shows the type of relationship that frequently occurs between anxiety and performance. Increases in anxiety from low to moderate levels are associated with performance increases, whereas increases in anxiety from moderate to high levels are associated with decreases in performance. Relationships that change in direction and thus are not described by a single straight line are called curvilinear relationships .

The most common statistical measure of the strength of linear relationships among variables is the Pearson correlation coefficient , which is symbolized by the letter r . The value of the correlation coefficient ranges from r = –1.00 to r = +1.00. The direction of the linear relationship is indicated by the sign of the correlation coefficient. Positive values of r (such as r = .54 or r = .67) indicate that the relationship is positive linear (i.e., the pattern of the dots on the scatter plot runs from the lower left to the upper right), whereas negative values of r (such as r = –.30 or r = –.72) indicate negative linear relationships (i.e., the dots run from the upper left to the lower right). The strength of the linear relationship is indexed by the distance of the correlation coefficient from zero (its absolute value). For instance, r = –.54 is a stronger relationship than r = .30, and r = .72 is a stronger relationship than r = –.57. Because the Pearson correlation coefficient only measures linear relationships, variables that have curvilinear relationships are not well described by r , and the observed correlation will be close to zero.

It is also possible to study relationships among more than two measures at the same time. A research design in which more than one predictor variable is used to predict a single outcome variable is analyzed through multiple regression (Aiken & West, 1991).  Multiple regression  is a statistical technique, based on correlation coefficients among variables, that allows predicting a single outcome variable from more than one predictor variable . For instance, Figure 3.10 shows a multiple regression analysis in which three predictor variables (Salary, job satisfaction, and years employed) are used to predict a single outcome (job performance). The use of multiple regression analysis shows an important advantage of correlational research designs — they can be used to make predictions about a person’s likely score on an outcome variable (e.g., job performance) based on knowledge of other variables.

An important limitation of correlational research designs is that they cannot be used to draw conclusions about the causal relationships among the measured variables. Consider, for instance, a researcher who has hypothesized that viewing violent behaviour will cause increased aggressive play in children. He has collected, from a sample of Grade 4 children, a measure of how many violent television shows each child views during the week, as well as a measure of how aggressively each child plays on the school playground. From his collected data, the researcher discovers a positive correlation between the two measured variables.

Although this positive correlation appears to support the researcher’s hypothesis, it cannot be taken to indicate that viewing violent television causes aggressive behaviour. Although the researcher is tempted to assume that viewing violent television causes aggressive play, there are other possibilities. One alternative possibility is that the causal direction is exactly opposite from what has been hypothesized. Perhaps children who have behaved aggressively at school develop residual excitement that leads them to want to watch violent television shows at home (Figure 3.12):

Although this possibility may seem less likely, there is no way to rule out the possibility of such reverse causation on the basis of this observed correlation. It is also possible that both causal directions are operating and that the two variables cause each other (Figure 3.13).

Still another possible explanation for the observed correlation is that it has been produced by the presence of a common-causal variable (also known as a third variable ). A common-causal variable  is a variable that is not part of the research hypothesis but that causes both the predictor and the outcome variable and thus produces the observed correlation between them . In our example, a potential common-causal variable is the discipline style of the children’s parents. Parents who use a harsh and punitive discipline style may produce children who like to watch violent television and who also behave aggressively in comparison to children whose parents use less harsh discipline (Figure 3.14)

In this case, television viewing and aggressive play would be positively correlated (as indicated by the curved arrow between them), even though neither one caused the other but they were both caused by the discipline style of the parents (the straight arrows). When the predictor and outcome variables are both caused by a common-causal variable, the observed relationship between them is said to be spurious . A spurious relationship  is a relationship between two variables in which a common-causal variable produces and “explains away” the relationship . If effects of the common-causal variable were taken away, or controlled for, the relationship between the predictor and outcome variables would disappear. In the example, the relationship between aggression and television viewing might be spurious because by controlling for the effect of the parents’ disciplining style, the relationship between television viewing and aggressive behaviour might go away.

Common-causal variables in correlational research designs can be thought of as mystery variables because, as they have not been measured, their presence and identity are usually unknown to the researcher. Since it is not possible to measure every variable that could cause both the predictor and outcome variables, the existence of an unknown common-causal variable is always a possibility. For this reason, we are left with the basic limitation of correlational research: correlation does not demonstrate causation. It is important that when you read about correlational research projects, you keep in mind the possibility of spurious relationships, and be sure to interpret the findings appropriately. Although correlational research is sometimes reported as demonstrating causality without any mention being made of the possibility of reverse causation or common-causal variables, informed consumers of research, like you, are aware of these interpretational problems.

In sum, correlational research designs have both strengths and limitations. One strength is that they can be used when experimental research is not possible because the predictor variables cannot be manipulated. Correlational designs also have the advantage of allowing the researcher to study behaviour as it occurs in everyday life. And we can also use correlational designs to make predictions — for instance, to predict from the scores on their battery of tests the success of job trainees during a training session. But we cannot use such correlational information to determine whether the training caused better job performance. For that, researchers rely on experiments.

Experimental Research: Understanding the Causes of Behaviour

The goal of experimental research design is to provide more definitive conclusions about the causal relationships among the variables in the research hypothesis than is available from correlational designs. In an experimental research design, the variables of interest are called the independent variable (or variables ) and the dependent variable . The independent variable  in an experiment is the causing variable that is created (manipulated) by the experimenter . The dependent variable  in an experiment is a measured variable that is expected to be influenced by the experimental manipulation . The research hypothesis suggests that the manipulated independent variable or variables will cause changes in the measured dependent variables. We can diagram the research hypothesis by using an arrow that points in one direction. This demonstrates the expected direction of causality (Figure 3.15):

Research Focus: Video Games and Aggression

Consider an experiment conducted by Anderson and Dill (2000). The study was designed to test the hypothesis that viewing violent video games would increase aggressive behaviour. In this research, male and female undergraduates from Iowa State University were given a chance to play with either a violent video game (Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent video game (Myst). During the experimental session, the participants played their assigned video games for 15 minutes. Then, after the play, each participant played a competitive game with an opponent in which the participant could deliver blasts of white noise through the earphones of the opponent. The operational definition of the dependent variable (aggressive behaviour) was the level and duration of noise delivered to the opponent. The design of the experiment is shown in Figure 3.16

Two advantages of the experimental research design are (a) the assurance that the independent variable (also known as the experimental manipulation ) occurs prior to the measured dependent variable, and (b) the creation of initial equivalence between the conditions of the experiment (in this case by using random assignment to conditions).

Experimental designs have two very nice features. For one, they guarantee that the independent variable occurs prior to the measurement of the dependent variable. This eliminates the possibility of reverse causation. Second, the influence of common-causal variables is controlled, and thus eliminated, by creating initial equivalence among the participants in each of the experimental conditions before the manipulation occurs.

The most common method of creating equivalence among the experimental conditions is through random assignment to conditions, a procedure in which the condition that each participant is assigned to is determined through a random process, such as drawing numbers out of an envelope or using a random number table . Anderson and Dill first randomly assigned about 100 participants to each of their two groups (Group A and Group B). Because they used random assignment to conditions, they could be confident that, before the experimental manipulation occurred, the students in Group A were, on average, equivalent to the students in Group B on every possible variable, including variables that are likely to be related to aggression, such as parental discipline style, peer relationships, hormone levels, diet — and in fact everything else.

Then, after they had created initial equivalence, Anderson and Dill created the experimental manipulation — they had the participants in Group A play the violent game and the participants in Group B play the nonviolent game. Then they compared the dependent variable (the white noise blasts) between the two groups, finding that the students who had viewed the violent video game gave significantly longer noise blasts than did the students who had played the nonviolent game.

Anderson and Dill had from the outset created initial equivalence between the groups. This initial equivalence allowed them to observe differences in the white noise levels between the two groups after the experimental manipulation, leading to the conclusion that it was the independent variable (and not some other variable) that caused these differences. The idea is that the only thing that was different between the students in the two groups was the video game they had played.

Despite the advantage of determining causation, experiments do have limitations. One is that they are often conducted in laboratory situations rather than in the everyday lives of people. Therefore, we do not know whether results that we find in a laboratory setting will necessarily hold up in everyday life. Second, and more important, is that some of the most interesting and key social variables cannot be experimentally manipulated. If we want to study the influence of the size of a mob on the destructiveness of its behaviour, or to compare the personality characteristics of people who join suicide cults with those of people who do not join such cults, these relationships must be assessed using correlational designs, because it is simply not possible to experimentally manipulate these variables.

Key Takeaways

• Descriptive, correlational, and experimental research designs are used to collect and analyze data.
• Descriptive designs include case studies, surveys, and naturalistic observation. The goal of these designs is to get a picture of the current thoughts, feelings, or behaviours in a given group of people. Descriptive research is summarized using descriptive statistics.
• Correlational research designs measure two or more relevant variables and assess a relationship between or among them. The variables may be presented on a scatter plot to visually show the relationships. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient ( r ) is a measure of the strength of linear relationship between two variables.
• Common-causal variables may cause both the predictor and outcome variable in a correlational design, producing a spurious relationship. The possibility of common-causal variables makes it impossible to draw causal conclusions from correlational research designs.
• Experimental research involves the manipulation of an independent variable and the measurement of a dependent variable. Random assignment to conditions is normally used to create initial equivalence between the groups, allowing researchers to draw causal conclusions.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

• There is a negative correlation between the row that a student sits in in a large class (when the rows are numbered from front to back) and his or her final grade in the class. Do you think this represents a causal relationship or a spurious relationship, and why?
• Think of two variables (other than those mentioned in this book) that are likely to be correlated, but in which the correlation is probably spurious. What is the likely common-causal variable that is producing the relationship?
• Imagine a researcher wants to test the hypothesis that participating in psychotherapy will cause a decrease in reported anxiety. Describe the type of research design the investigator might use to draw this conclusion. What would be the independent and dependent variables in the research?

Image Attributions

Figure 3.3: “ Reading newspaper ” by Alaskan Dude (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reading_newspaper.jpg) is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991).  Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978).  Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (4), 772–790.

Damasio, H., Grabowski, T., Frank, R., Galaburda, A. M., Damasio, A. R., Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (2005). The return of Phineas Gage: Clues about the brain from the skull of a famous patient. In  Social neuroscience: Key readings.  (pp. 21–28). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Freud, S. (1909/1964). Analysis of phobia in a five-year-old boy. In E. A. Southwell & M. Merbaum (Eds.),  Personality: Readings in theory and research  (pp. 3–32). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. (Original work published 1909).

Kotowicz, Z. (2007). The strange case of Phineas Gage.  History of the Human Sciences, 20 (1), 115–131.

Rokeach, M. (1964).  The three Christs of Ypsilanti: A psychological study . New York, NY: Knopf.

Stangor, C. (2011). Research methods for the behavioural sciences (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Cengage.

Long Descriptions

Figure 3.5 long description: There are 25 families. 24 families have an income between $44,000 and $111,000 and one family has an income of $3,800,000. The mean income is $223,960 while the median income is $73,000.

Figure 3.9 long description: Types of scatter plots.

• Positive linear, r=positive .82. The plots on the graph form a rough line that runs from lower left to upper right.
• Negative linear, r=negative .70. The plots on the graph form a rough line that runs from upper left to lower right.
• Independent, r=0.00. The plots on the graph are spread out around the centre.
• Curvilinear, r=0.00. The plots of the graph form a rough line that goes up and then down like a hill.
• Curvilinear, r=0.00. The plots on the graph for a rough line that goes down and then up like a ditch.

Introduction to Psychology Copyright © 2019 by Charles Stangor and Jennifer Walinga is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Non-Experimental Research

29 Correlational Research

Learning objectives.

• Define correlational research and give several examples.
• Explain why a researcher might choose to conduct correlational research rather than experimental research or another type of non-experimental research.
• Interpret the strength and direction of different correlation coefficients.
• Explain why correlation does not imply causation.

What Is Correlational Research?

Correlational research is a type of non-experimental research in which the researcher measures two variables (binary or continuous) and assesses the statistical relationship (i.e., the correlation) between them with little or no effort to control extraneous variables. There are many reasons that researchers interested in statistical relationships between variables would choose to conduct a correlational study rather than an experiment. The first is that they do not believe that the statistical relationship is a causal one or are not interested in causal relationships. Recall two goals of science are to describe and to predict and the correlational research strategy allows researchers to achieve both of these goals. Specifically, this strategy can be used to describe the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables and if there is a relationship between the variables then the researchers can use scores on one variable to predict scores on the other (using a statistical technique called regression, which is discussed further in the section on Complex Correlation in this chapter).

Another reason that researchers would choose to use a correlational study rather than an experiment is that the statistical relationship of interest is thought to be causal, but the researcher  cannot manipulate the independent variable because it is impossible, impractical, or unethical. For example, while a researcher might be interested in the relationship between the frequency people use cannabis and their memory abilities they cannot ethically manipulate the frequency that people use cannabis. As such, they must rely on the correlational research strategy; they must simply measure the frequency that people use cannabis and measure their memory abilities using a standardized test of memory and then determine whether the frequency people use cannabis is statistically related to memory test performance. 

Correlation is also used to establish the reliability and validity of measurements. For example, a researcher might evaluate the validity of a brief extraversion test by administering it to a large group of participants along with a longer extraversion test that has already been shown to be valid. This researcher might then check to see whether participants’ scores on the brief test are strongly correlated with their scores on the longer one. Neither test score is thought to cause the other, so there is no independent variable to manipulate. In fact, the terms  independent variable  and dependent variabl e  do not apply to this kind of research.

Another strength of correlational research is that it is often higher in external validity than experimental research. Recall there is typically a trade-off between internal validity and external validity. As greater controls are added to experiments, internal validity is increased but often at the expense of external validity as artificial conditions are introduced that do not exist in reality. In contrast, correlational studies typically have low internal validity because nothing is manipulated or controlled but they often have high external validity. Since nothing is manipulated or controlled by the experimenter the results are more likely to reflect relationships that exist in the real world.

Finally, extending upon this trade-off between internal and external validity, correlational research can help to provide converging evidence for a theory. If a theory is supported by a true experiment that is high in internal validity as well as by a correlational study that is high in external validity then the researchers can have more confidence in the validity of their theory. As a concrete example, correlational studies establishing that there is a relationship between watching violent television and aggressive behavior have been complemented by experimental studies confirming that the relationship is a causal one (Bushman & Huesmann, 2001) [1] .

Does Correlational Research Always Involve Quantitative Variables?

A common misconception among beginning researchers is that correlational research must involve two quantitative variables, such as scores on two extraversion tests or the number of daily hassles and number of symptoms people have experienced. However, the defining feature of correlational research is that the two variables are measured—neither one is manipulated—and this is true regardless of whether the variables are quantitative or categorical. Imagine, for example, that a researcher administers the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale to 50 American college students and 50 Japanese college students. Although this “feels” like a between-subjects experiment, it is a correlational study because the researcher did not manipulate the students’ nationalities. The same is true of the study by Cacioppo and Petty comparing college faculty and factory workers in terms of their need for cognition. It is a correlational study because the researchers did not manipulate the participants’ occupations.

Figure 6.2 shows data from a hypothetical study on the relationship between whether people make a daily list of things to do (a “to-do list”) and stress. Notice that it is unclear whether this is an experiment or a correlational study because it is unclear whether the independent variable was manipulated. If the researcher randomly assigned some participants to make daily to-do lists and others not to, then it is an experiment. If the researcher simply asked participants whether they made daily to-do lists, then it is a correlational study. The distinction is important because if the study was an experiment, then it could be concluded that making the daily to-do lists reduced participants’ stress. But if it was a correlational study, it could only be concluded that these variables are statistically related. Perhaps being stressed has a negative effect on people’s ability to plan ahead (the directionality problem). Or perhaps people who are more conscientious are more likely to make to-do lists and less likely to be stressed (the third-variable problem). The crucial point is that what defines a study as experimental or correlational is not the variables being studied, nor whether the variables are quantitative or categorical, nor the type of graph or statistics used to analyze the data. What defines a study is how the study is conducted.

Data Collection in Correlational Research

Again, the defining feature of correlational research is that neither variable is manipulated. It does not matter how or where the variables are measured. A researcher could have participants come to a laboratory to complete a computerized backward digit span task and a computerized risky decision-making task and then assess the relationship between participants’ scores on the two tasks. Or a researcher could go to a shopping mall to ask people about their attitudes toward the environment and their shopping habits and then assess the relationship between these two variables. Both of these studies would be correlational because no independent variable is manipulated. 

Correlations Between Quantitative Variables

Correlations between quantitative variables are often presented using scatterplots . Figure 6.3 shows some hypothetical data on the relationship between the amount of stress people are under and the number of physical symptoms they have. Each point in the scatterplot represents one person’s score on both variables. For example, the circled point in Figure 6.3 represents a person whose stress score was 10 and who had three physical symptoms. Taking all the points into account, one can see that people under more stress tend to have more physical symptoms. This is a good example of a positive relationship , in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with higher scores on the other. In other words, they move in the same direction, either both up or both down. A negative relationship is one in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with lower scores on the other. In other words, they move in opposite directions. There is a negative relationship between stress and immune system functioning, for example, because higher stress is associated with lower immune system functioning.

The strength of a correlation between quantitative variables is typically measured using a statistic called  Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (or Pearson's  r ) . As Figure 6.4 shows, Pearson’s r ranges from −1.00 (the strongest possible negative relationship) to +1.00 (the strongest possible positive relationship). A value of 0 means there is no relationship between the two variables. When Pearson’s  r  is 0, the points on a scatterplot form a shapeless “cloud.” As its value moves toward −1.00 or +1.00, the points come closer and closer to falling on a single straight line. Correlation coefficients near ±.10 are considered small, values near ± .30 are considered medium, and values near ±.50 are considered large. Notice that the sign of Pearson’s  r  is unrelated to its strength. Pearson’s  r  values of +.30 and −.30, for example, are equally strong; it is just that one represents a moderate positive relationship and the other a moderate negative relationship. With the exception of reliability coefficients, most correlations that we find in Psychology are small or moderate in size. The website http://rpsychologist.com/d3/correlation/ , created by Kristoffer Magnusson, provides an excellent interactive visualization of correlations that permits you to adjust the strength and direction of a correlation while witnessing the corresponding changes to the scatterplot.

There are two common situations in which the value of Pearson’s  r  can be misleading. Pearson’s  r  is a good measure only for linear relationships, in which the points are best approximated by a straight line. It is not a good measure for nonlinear relationships, in which the points are better approximated by a curved line. Figure 6.5, for example, shows a hypothetical relationship between the amount of sleep people get per night and their level of depression. In this example, the line that best approximates the points is a curve—a kind of upside-down “U”—because people who get about eight hours of sleep tend to be the least depressed. Those who get too little sleep and those who get too much sleep tend to be more depressed. Even though Figure 6.5 shows a fairly strong relationship between depression and sleep, Pearson’s  r  would be close to zero because the points in the scatterplot are not well fit by a single straight line. This means that it is important to make a scatterplot and confirm that a relationship is approximately linear before using Pearson’s  r . Nonlinear relationships are fairly common in psychology, but measuring their strength is beyond the scope of this book.

The other common situations in which the value of Pearson’s  r  can be misleading is when one or both of the variables have a limited range in the sample relative to the population. This problem is referred to as  restriction of range . Assume, for example, that there is a strong negative correlation between people’s age and their enjoyment of hip hop music as shown by the scatterplot in Figure 6.6. Pearson’s  r  here is −.77. However, if we were to collect data only from 18- to 24-year-olds—represented by the shaded area of Figure 6.6—then the relationship would seem to be quite weak. In fact, Pearson’s  r  for this restricted range of ages is 0. It is a good idea, therefore, to design studies to avoid restriction of range. For example, if age is one of your primary variables, then you can plan to collect data from people of a wide range of ages. Because restriction of range is not always anticipated or easily avoidable, however, it is good practice to examine your data for possible restriction of range and to interpret Pearson’s  r  in light of it. (There are also statistical methods to correct Pearson’s  r  for restriction of range, but they are beyond the scope of this book).

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

You have probably heard repeatedly that “Correlation does not imply causation.” An amusing example of this comes from a 2012 study that showed a positive correlation (Pearson’s r = 0.79) between the per capita chocolate consumption of a nation and the number of Nobel prizes awarded to citizens of that nation [2] . It seems clear, however, that this does not mean that eating chocolate causes people to win Nobel prizes, and it would not make sense to try to increase the number of Nobel prizes won by recommending that parents feed their children more chocolate.

There are two reasons that correlation does not imply causation. The first is called the  directionality problem . Two variables,  X  and  Y , can be statistically related because X  causes  Y  or because  Y  causes  X . Consider, for example, a study showing that whether or not people exercise is statistically related to how happy they are—such that people who exercise are happier on average than people who do not. This statistical relationship is consistent with the idea that exercising causes happiness, but it is also consistent with the idea that happiness causes exercise. Perhaps being happy gives people more energy or leads them to seek opportunities to socialize with others by going to the gym. The second reason that correlation does not imply causation is called the  third-variable problem . Two variables,  X  and  Y , can be statistically related not because  X  causes  Y , or because  Y  causes  X , but because some third variable,  Z , causes both  X  and  Y . For example, the fact that nations that have won more Nobel prizes tend to have higher chocolate consumption probably reflects geography in that European countries tend to have higher rates of per capita chocolate consumption and invest more in education and technology (once again, per capita) than many other countries in the world. Similarly, the statistical relationship between exercise and happiness could mean that some third variable, such as physical health, causes both of the others. Being physically healthy could cause people to exercise and cause them to be happier. Correlations that are a result of a third-variable are often referred to as  spurious correlations .

Some excellent and amusing examples of spurious correlations can be found at http://www.tylervigen.com  (Figure 6.7  provides one such example).

“Lots of Candy Could Lead to Violence”

Although researchers in psychology know that correlation does not imply causation, many journalists do not. One website about correlation and causation, http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/100/correlation_or_causation.htm , links to dozens of media reports about real biomedical and psychological research. Many of the headlines suggest that a causal relationship has been demonstrated when a careful reading of the articles shows that it has not because of the directionality and third-variable problems.

One such article is about a study showing that children who ate candy every day were more likely than other children to be arrested for a violent offense later in life. But could candy really “lead to” violence, as the headline suggests? What alternative explanations can you think of for this statistical relationship? How could the headline be rewritten so that it is not misleading?

As you have learned by reading this book, there are various ways that researchers address the directionality and third-variable problems. The most effective is to conduct an experiment. For example, instead of simply measuring how much people exercise, a researcher could bring people into a laboratory and randomly assign half of them to run on a treadmill for 15 minutes and the rest to sit on a couch for 15 minutes. Although this seems like a minor change to the research design, it is extremely important. Now if the exercisers end up in more positive moods than those who did not exercise, it cannot be because their moods affected how much they exercised (because it was the researcher who used random assignment to determine how much they exercised). Likewise, it cannot be because some third variable (e.g., physical health) affected both how much they exercised and what mood they were in. Thus experiments eliminate the directionality and third-variable problems and allow researchers to draw firm conclusions about causal relationships.

Media Attributions

• Nicholas Cage and Pool Drownings  © Tyler Viegen is licensed under a  CC BY (Attribution)  license
• Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised violence on aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 223–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ↵
• Messerli, F. H. (2012). Chocolate consumption, cognitive function, and Nobel laureates. New England Journal of Medicine, 367 , 1562-1564. ↵

A graph that presents correlations between two quantitative variables, one on the x-axis and one on the y-axis. Scores are plotted at the intersection of the values on each axis.

A relationship in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with higher scores on the other.

A relationship in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with lower scores on the other.

A statistic that measures the strength of a correlation between quantitative variables.

When one or both variables have a limited range in the sample relative to the population, making the value of the correlation coefficient misleading.

The problem where two variables, X  and  Y , are statistically related either because X  causes  Y, or because  Y  causes  X , and thus the causal direction of the effect cannot be known.

Two variables, X and Y, can be statistically related not because X causes Y, or because Y causes X, but because some third variable, Z, causes both X and Y.

Correlations that are a result not of the two variables being measured, but rather because of a third, unmeasured, variable that affects both of the measured variables.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2019 by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

Published on May 6, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested by scientific research. If you want to test a relationship between two or more variables, you need to write hypotheses before you start your experiment or data collection .

Example: Hypothesis

Daily apple consumption leads to fewer doctor’s visits.

Table of contents

What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about writing hypotheses.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess – it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Variables in hypotheses

Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more types of variables .

• An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls.
• A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.

If there are any control variables , extraneous variables , or confounding variables , be sure to jot those down as you go to minimize the chances that research bias  will affect your results.

In this example, the independent variable is exposure to the sun – the assumed cause . The dependent variable is the level of happiness – the assumed effect .

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Step 1. ask a question.

Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project.

Step 2. Do some preliminary research

Your initial answer to the question should be based on what is already known about the topic. Look for theories and previous studies to help you form educated assumptions about what your research will find.

At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to ensure that you’re embarking on a relevant topic . This can also help you identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalize more complex constructs.

Step 3. Formulate your hypothesis

Now you should have some idea of what you expect to find. Write your initial answer to the question in a clear, concise sentence.

4. Refine your hypothesis

You need to make sure your hypothesis is specific and testable. There are various ways of phrasing a hypothesis, but all the terms you use should have clear definitions, and the hypothesis should contain:

• The relevant variables
• The specific group being studied
• The predicted outcome of the experiment or analysis

5. Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in  if…then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable.

In academic research, hypotheses are more commonly phrased in terms of correlations or effects, where you directly state the predicted relationship between variables.

If you are comparing two groups, the hypothesis can state what difference you expect to find between them.

6. Write a null hypothesis

If your research involves statistical hypothesis testing , you will also have to write a null hypothesis . The null hypothesis is the default position that there is no association between the variables. The null hypothesis is written as H 0 , while the alternative hypothesis is H 1 or H a .

• H 0 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has no effect on their final exam scores.
• H 1 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has a positive effect on their final exam scores.

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

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Null and alternative hypotheses are used in statistical hypothesis testing . The null hypothesis of a test always predicts no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis states your research prediction of an effect or relationship.

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

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.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 19, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/hypothesis/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, construct validity | definition, types, & examples, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, operationalization | a guide with examples, pros & cons, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

User Preferences

Content preview.

Arcu felis bibendum ut tristique et egestas quis:

• Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
• Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
• Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident

Keyboard Shortcuts

5.2 - writing hypotheses.

The first step in conducting a hypothesis test is to write the hypothesis statements that are going to be tested. For each test you will have a null hypothesis (\(H_0\)) and an alternative hypothesis (\(H_a\)).

When writing hypotheses there are three things that we need to know: (1) the parameter that we are testing (2) the direction of the test (non-directional, right-tailed or left-tailed), and (3) the value of the hypothesized parameter.

• At this point we can write hypotheses for a single mean (\(\mu\)), paired means(\(\mu_d\)), a single proportion (\(p\)), the difference between two independent means (\(\mu_1-\mu_2\)), the difference between two proportions (\(p_1-p_2\)), a simple linear regression slope (\(\beta\)), and a correlation (\(\rho\)). 
• The research question will give us the information necessary to determine if the test is two-tailed (e.g., "different from," "not equal to"), right-tailed (e.g., "greater than," "more than"), or left-tailed (e.g., "less than," "fewer than").
• The research question will also give us the hypothesized parameter value. This is the number that goes in the hypothesis statements (i.e., \(\mu_0\) and \(p_0\)). For the difference between two groups, regression, and correlation, this value is typically 0.

Hypotheses are always written in terms of population parameters (e.g., \(p\) and \(\mu\)).  The tables below display all of the possible hypotheses for the parameters that we have learned thus far. Note that the null hypothesis always includes the equality (i.e., =).

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 12 methods for correlational studies.

Francis Lau .

12.1. Introduction

Correlational studies aim to find out if there are differences in the characteristics of a population depending on whether or not its subjects have been exposed to an event of interest in the naturalistic setting. In eHealth, correlational studies are often used to determine whether the use of an eHealth system is associated with a particular set of user characteristics and/or quality of care patterns ( Friedman & Wyatt, 2006 ). An example is a computerized provider order entry ( cpoe ) study to differentiate the background, usage and performance between clinical users and non-users of the cpoe system after its implementation in a hospital.

Correlational studies are different from comparative studies in that the evaluator does not control the allocation of subjects into comparison groups or assignment of the intervention to specific groups. Instead, the evaluator defines a set of variables including an outcome of interest then tests for hypothesized relations among these variables. The outcome is known as the dependent variable and the variables being tested for association are the independent variables. Correlational studies are similar to comparative studies in that they take on an objectivist view where the variables can be defined, measured and analyzed for the presence of hypothesized relations. As such, correlational studies face the same challenges as comparative studies in terms of their internal and external validity. Of particular importance are the issues of design choices, selection bias, confounders, and reporting consistency.

In this chapter we describe the basic types of correlational studies seen in the eHealth literature and their methodological considerations. Also included are three case examples to show how these studies are done.

12.2. Types of Correlational Studies

Correlational studies, better known as observational studies in epidemiology, are used to examine event exposure, disease prevalence and risk factors in a population ( Elwood, 2007 ). In eHealth, the exposure typically refers to the use of an eHealth system by a population of subjects in a given setting. These subjects may be patients, providers or organizations identified through a set of variables that are thought to differ in their measured values depending on whether or not the subjects were “exposed” to the eHealth system.

There are three basic types of correlational studies that are used in eHealth evaluation: cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies ( Vandenbroucke et al., 2014 ). These are described below.

• Cohort studies – A sample of subjects is observed over time where those exposed and not exposed to the eHealth system are compared for differences in one or more predefined outcomes, such as adverse event rates. Cohort studies may be prospective in nature where subjects are followed for a time period into the future or retrospective for a period into the past. The comparisons are typically made at the beginning of the study as baseline measures, then repeated over time at predefined intervals for differences and trends. Some cohort studies involve only a single group of subjects. Their focus is to describe the characteristics of subjects based on a set of variables, such as the pattern of ehr use by providers and their quality of care in an organization over a given time period.
• Cross-sectional studies – These are considered a type of cohort study where only one comparison is made between exposed and unexposed subjects. They provide a snapshot of the outcome and the associated characteristics of the cohort at a specific point in time.
• Case-control studies – Subjects in a sample that are exposed to the eHealth system are matched with those not exposed but otherwise similar in composition, then compared for differences in some predefined outcomes. Case-control studies are retrospective in nature where subjects already exposed to the event are selected then matched with unexposed subjects, using historical cases to ensure they have similar characteristics.

A cross-sectional survey is a type of cross-sectional study where the data source is drawn from postal questionnaires and interviews. This topic will be covered in the chapter on methods for survey studies.

12.3. Methodological Considerations

While correlational studies are considered less rigorous than rct s, they are the preferred designs when it is neither feasible nor ethical to conduct experimental trials. Key methodological issues arise in terms of: (a) design options, (b) biases and confounders, (c) controlling for confounding effects, (d) adherence to good practices, and (e) reporting consistency. These issues are discussed below.

12.3.1. Design Options

There are growing populations with multiple chronic conditions and healthcare interventions. They have made it difficult to design rct s with sufficient sample size and long-term follow-up to account for all the variability this phenomenon entails. Also rct s are intended to test the efficacy of an intervention in a restricted sample of subjects under ideal settings. They have limited generalizability to the population at large in routine settings ( Fleurence, Naci, & Jansen, 2010 ). As such, correlational studies, especially those involving the use of routinely collected ehr data from the general population, have become viable alternatives to rct s. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of the three design options presented above. They are listed below.

• Cohort studies – These studies typically follow the cohorts over time, which allow one to examine causal relationships between exposure and one or more outcomes. They also allow one to measure change in exposure and outcomes over time. However, these studies can be costly and time-consuming to conduct if the outcomes are rare or occur in the future. With prospective cohorts they can be prone to dropout. With retrospective cohorts accurate historical records are required which may not be available or complete ( Levin, 2003a ).
• Case-control studies – These studies are suited to examine infrequent or rare outcomes since they are selected at the outset to ensure sufficient cases. Yet the selection of exposed and matching cases can be problematic, as not all relevant characteristics are known. Moreover, the cases may not be representative of the population of interest. The focus on exposed cases that occur infrequently may overestimate their risks ( Levin, 2003b ).
• Cross-sectional studies – These studies are easier and quicker to conduct than others as they involve a one-time effort over a short period using a sample from the population of interest. They can be used to generate hypotheses and examine multiple outcomes and characteristics at the same time with no loss to follow-up. On the other hand, these studies only give a snapshot of the situation at one time point, making it difficult for causal inference of the exposure and outcomes. The results might be different had another time period been chosen ( Levin, 2006 ).

12.3.2. Biases and Confounders

Shamliyan, Kane, and Dickinson (2010) conducted a systematic review on tools used to assess the quality of observational studies. Despite the large number of quality scales and checklists found in the literature, they concluded that the universal concerns are in the areas of selection bias, confounding, and misclassification. These concerns, also mentioned by Vandenbroucke and colleagues (2014) in their reporting guidelines for observational studies, are summarized below.

• Selection bias – When subjects are selected through their exposure to the event rather than by random or concealed allocation, there is a risk that the subjects are not comparable due to the presence of systematic differences in their baseline characteristics. For example, a correlational study that examines the association between ehr use and quality of care may have younger providers with more computer savvy in the exposed group because they use ehr more and with more facility than those in the unexposed group. It is also possible to have sicker patients in the exposed group since they require more frequent ehr use than unexposed patients who may be healthier and have less need for the ehr . This is sometimes referred to as response bias, where the characteristics of subjects agreed to be in the study are different from those who declined to take part.
• Confounding – Extraneous factors that influence the outcome but are also associated with the exposure are said to have a confounding effect. One such type is confounding by indication where sicker patients are both more likely to receive treatments and also more likely to have adverse outcomes. For example, a study of cds alerts and adverse drug events may find a positive but spurious association due to the inclusion of sicker patients with multiple conditions and medications, which increases their chance of adverse events regardless of cds alerts.
• Misclassification – When there are systematic differences in the completeness or accuracy of the data recorded on the subjects, there is a risk of misclassification in their exposures or outcomes. This is also known as information or detection bias. An example is where sicker patients may have more complete ehr data because they received more tests, treatments and outcome tracking than those who are healthier and require less attention. As such, the exposure and outcomes of sicker patients may be overestimated.

It is important to note that bias and confounding are not synonymous. Bias is caused by finding the wrong association from flawed information or subject selection. Confounding is factually correct with respect to the relationship found, but is incorrect in its interpretation due to an extraneous factor that is associated with both the exposure and outcome.

12.3.3. Controlling for Confounding Effects

There are three common methods to control for confounding effects. These are by matching, stratification, and modelling. They are described below ( Higgins & Green, 2011 ).

• Matching – The selection of subjects with similar characteristics so that they are comparable; the matching can be done at the individual subject level where each exposed subject is matched with one or more unexposed subjects as controls. It can also be done at the group level with equal numbers of exposed and unexposed subjects. Another way to match subjects is by propensity score, that is, a measure derived from a set of characteristics in the subjects. An example is the retrospective cohort study by Zhou, Leith, Li, and Tom (2015) to examine the association between caregiver phr use and healthcare utilization by pediatric patients. In that study, a propensity score-matching algorithm was used to match phr -registered children to non-registered children. The matching model used registration as the outcome variable and all child and caregiver characteristics as the independent variables.
• Stratification – Subjects are categorized into subgroups based on a set of characteristics such as age and sex then analyzed for the effect within each subgroup. An example is the retrospective cohort study by Staes et al. (2008) , examining the impact of computerized alerts on the quality of outpatient lab monitoring for transplant patients. In that study, the before/after comparison of the timeliness of reporting and clinician responses was stratified by the type of test (creatinine, cyclosporine A, and tacrolimus) and report source (hospital laboratory or other labs).
• Modelling – The use of statistical models to compute adjusted effects while accounting for relevant characteristics such as age and sex differences among subjects. An example is the retrospective cohort study by Beck and colleagues (2012) to compare documentation consistency and care plan improvement before and after the implementation of an electronic asthma-specific history and physical template. In that study, before/after group characteristics were compared for differences using t -tests for continuous variables and χ 2 statistics for categorical variables. Logistic regression was used to adjust for group differences in age, gender, insurance, albuterol use at admission, and previous hospitalization.

12.3.4. Adherence to Good Practices in Prospective Observational Studies

The ispor Good Research Practices Task Force published a set of recommendations in designing, conducting and reporting prospective observational studies for comparative effectiveness research ( Berger et al., 2012 ) that are relevant to eHealth evaluation. Their key recommendations are listed below.

• Key policy questions should be defined to allow inferences to be drawn.
• Hypothesis testing protocol design to include the hypothesis/questions, treatment groups and outcomes, measured and unmeasured confounders, primary analyses, and required sample size.
• Rationale for prospective observational study design over others (e.g., rct ) is based on question, feasibility, intervention characteristics and ability to answer the question versus cost and timeliness.
• Study design choice is able to address potential biases and confounders through the use of inception cohorts, multiple comparator groups, matching designs and unaffected outcomes.
• Explanation of study design and analytic choices is transparent.
• Study execution is carried out in ways that ensure relevance and reasonable follow-up is not different from the usual practice.
• Study registration takes place on publicly available sites prior to its initiation.

12.3.5. The Need for Reporting Consistency

Vandenbroucke et al. (2014) published an expanded version of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology ( strobe ) statement to improve the reporting of observational studies that can be applied in eHealth evaluation. It is made up of 22 items, of which 18 are common to cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies, with four being specific to each of the three designs. The 22 reporting items are listed below (for details refer to the cited reference).

• Title and abstract – one item that covers the type of design used, and a summary of what was done and found.
• Introduction – two items on study background/rationale, objectives and/or hypotheses.
• Methods – nine items on design, setting, participants, variables, data sources/measurement, bias, study size, quantitative variables and statistical methods used.
• Results – five items on participants, descriptive, outcome data, main results and other analyses.
• Discussion – four items on key results, limitations, interpretation and generalizability.
• Other information – one item on funding source.

The four items specific to study design relate to the reporting of participants, statistical methods, descriptive results and outcome data. They are briefly described below for the three types of designs.

• Cohort studies – Participant eligibility criteria and sources, methods of selection, follow-up and handling dropouts, description of follow-up time and duration, and number of outcome events or summary measures over time. For matched studies include matching criteria and number of exposed and unexposed subjects.
• Cross-sectional studies – Participant eligibility criteria, sources and methods of selection, analytical methods accounting for sampling strategy as needed, and number of outcome events or summary measures.
• Case-control studies – Participant eligibility criteria, sources and methods of case/control selection with rationale for choices, methods of matching cases/controls, and number of exposures by category or summary measures of exposures. For matched studies include matching criteria and number of controls per case.

12.4. Case Examples

12.4.1. cohort study of automated immunosuppressive care.

Park and colleagues (2010) conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine the association between the use of a cds (clinical decision support) system in post-liver transplant immunosuppressive care and the rates of rejection episode and drug toxicity. The study is summarized below.

• Setting – A liver transplant program in the United States that had implemented an automated cds system to manage immunosuppressive therapy for its post-liver transplant recipients after discharge. The system consolidated all clinical information to expedite immunosuppressive review, ordering, and follow-up with recipients. Prior to automation, a paper charting system was used that involved manually tracking lab tests, transcribing results into a paper spreadsheet, finding physicians to review results and orders, and contacting recipients to notify them of changes.
• Subjects – The study population included recipients of liver transplants between 2004 and 2008 who received outpatient immunosuppressive therapy that included tacrolimus medications.
• Design – A retrospective cohort study with a before/after design to compare recipients managed by the paper charting system against those managed by the cds system for up to one year after discharge.
• Measures – The outcome variables were the percentages of recipients with at least one rejection and/or tacrolimus toxicity episode during the one-year follow-up period. The independent variables included recipient, intraoperative, donor and postoperative characteristics, and use of paper charting or cds . Examples of recipient variables were age, gender, body mass index, presence of diabetes and hypertension, and pre-transplant lab results. Examples of intraoperative data were blood type match, type of transplant and volume of blood transfused. Examples of donor data included percentage of fat in the liver. Examples of post-transplantation data included the type of immunosuppressive induction therapy and the management method.
• Analysis – Mean, standard deviation and t -tests were computed for continuous variables after checking for normal distribution. Percentages and Fisher’s exact test were computed for categorical variables. Autoregressive integrated moving average analysis was done to determine change in outcomes over time. Logistic regression with variables thought to be clinically relevant was used to identify significant univariable and multivariable factors associated with the outcomes. P values of less than 0.05 were considered significant.
• Findings – Overall, the cds system was associated with significantly fewer episodes of rejection and tacrolimus toxicity. The integrated moving average analysis showed a significant decrease in outcome rates after the cds system was implemented compared with paper charting. Multivariable analysis showed the cds system had lower odds of a rejection episode than paper charting ( or 0.20; p < 0.01) and lower odds of tacrolimus toxicity ( or 0.5; p < 0.01). Other significant non-system related factors included the use of specific drugs, the percentage of fat in the donor liver and the volume of packed red cells transfused.

12.4.2. Cross-sectional Analysis of EHR Documentation and Care Quality

Linder, Schnipper, and Middleton (2012) conducted a cross-sectional study to examine the association between the type of ehr documentation used by physicians and the quality of care provided. The study is summarized below.

• Setting – An integrated primary care practice-based research network affiliated with an academic centre in the United States. The network uses an in-house ehr system with decision support for preventive services, chronic care management, and medication monitoring and alerts. The ehr data include problem and medication lists, coded allergies and lab tests.
• Subjects – Physicians and patients from 10 primary care practices that were part of an rct to examine the use of a decision support tool to manage patients with coronary artery disease and diabetes ( cad/DM ). Eligible patients were those with cad/DM in their ehr problem list prior to the rct start date.
• Design – A nine-month retrospective cross-sectional analysis of ehr data collected from the rct . Three physician documentation styles were defined based on 188,554 visit notes in the ehr : (a) dictation, (b) structured documentation, and (c) free text note. Physicians were divided into three groups based on their predominant style defined as more than 25% of their notes composed by a given method.
• Measures – The outcome variables were 15 ehr -based cad/DM quality measures assessed 30 days after primary care visits. They covered quality of documentation, medication use, lab testing, physiologic measures, and vaccinations. Measures collected prior to the day of visit were eligible and considered fulfilled with the presence of coded ehr data on vital signs, medications, allergies, problem lists, lab tests, and vaccinations. Independent variables on physicians and patients were included as covariates. For physicians, they included age, gender, training level, proportion of cad/DM patients in their panel, total patient visits, and self-reported experience with the ehr . For patients, they included socio-demographic factors, the number of clinic visits and hospitalizations, the number of problems and medications in the ehr , and whether their physician was in the intervention group.
• Analysis – Baseline characteristics of physicians and patients were compared using descriptive statistics. Continuous variables were compared using anova . For categorical variables, Fisher’s exact test was used for physician variables and χ 2 test for patient variables. Multivariate logistic regression models were used for each quality measure to adjust for patient and physician clustering and potential confounders. Bonferroni procedure was used to account for multiple comparisons for the 15 quality measures.
• Findings – During the study period, 234 physicians documented 18,569 visits from 7,000 cad/DM patients. Of these physicians, 146 (62%) typed free-text notes, 68 (25%) used structured documentation, and 20 (9%) dictated notes. After adjusting for cluster effect, physicians who dictated their notes had the worst quality of care in all 15 measures. In particular, physicians who dictated notes were significantly worse in three of 15 measures (antiplatelet medication, tobacco use, diabetic eye exam); physicians who used structured documentation were better in three measures (blood pressure, body mass, diabetic foot exam); and those who used free-text were better in one measure (influenza vaccination). In summary, physicians who dictated notes had worse quality of care than those with structured documentation.

12.4.3. Case-control Comparison of Internet Portal Use

Nielsen, Halamka, and Kinkel (2012) conducted a case-control study to evaluate whether there was an association between active Internet patient portal use by Multiple Sclerosis ( ms ) patients and medical resource utilization. Patient predictors and barriers to portal use were also identified. The study is summarized below.

• Setting – An academic ms centre in the United States with an in-house Internet patient portal site that was accessed by ms patients to schedule clinic appointments, request prescription refills and referrals, view test results, upload personal health information, and communicate with providers via secure e-mails.
• Subjects – 240 adult ms patients actively followed during 2008 and 2009 were randomly selected from the ehr ; 120 of these patients had submitted at least one message during that period and were defined as portal users. Another 120 patients who did not enrol in the portal or send any message were selected as non-users for comparison.
• Design – A retrospective case-control study facilitated through a chart review comparing portal users against non-users from the same period. Patient demographic and clinical information was extracted from the ehr , while portal usage, including feature access type and frequency and e-mail message content, were provided by it staff.
• Measures – Patient variables included age, gender, race, insurance type, employment status, number of medical problems, disease duration, psychiatric history, number of medications, and physical disability scores. Provider variables included prescription type and frequency. Portal usage variables included feature access type and frequency for test results, appointments, prescription requests and logins, and categorized messaging contents.
• Analysis – Comparison of patient demographic, clinical and medical resource utilization data from users and non-users were made using descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon rank sum test, Fisher’s exact test and χ 2 test. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify patient predictors and barriers to portal use. Provider prescribing habits against patient’s psychiatric history and portal use were examined by two-way analysis of variance. All statistical tests used p value of 0.05 with no adjustment made for multiple comparisons. A logistic multivariate regression model was created to predict portal use based on patient demographics, clinical condition, socio-economic status, and physical disability metrics.
• Findings – Portal users were mostly young professionals with little physical disability. The most frequently used feature was secure patient-provider messaging, often for medication requests or refills, and self-reported side effects. Predictors and barriers of portal use were the number of medications prescribed ( or 1.69, p < 0.0001), Caucasian ethnicity ( or 5.04, p = 0.007), arm and hand disability ( or 0.23, p = 0.01), and impaired vision ( or 0.31, p = 0.01). For medical resource utilization, portal users had more frequent clinic visits, medication use and prescriptions from centre staff providers. Patients with a history of psychiatric disease were prescribed more ms medications than those without any history ( p < 0.0001). In summary, ms patients used the Internet more than the general population, but physical disability limited their access and need to be addressed.

12.4.4. Limitations

A general limitation of a correlational study is that it can determine association between exposure and outcomes but cannot predict causation. The more specific limitations of the three case examples cited by the authors are listed below.

• Automated immunosuppressive care – Baseline differences existed between groups with unknown effects; possible other unmeasured confounders; possible Hawthorne effects from focus on immunosuppressive care.
• ehr documentation and care quality – Small sample size; only three documentation styles were considered (e.g., scribe and voice recognition software were excluded) and unsure if they were stable during study period; quality measures specific to cad/DM conditions only; complex methods of adjusting for clustering and confounding that did not account for unmeasured confounders; the level of physician training (e.g., attending versus residents) not adjusted.
• Internet portal use – Small sample size not representative of the study population; referral centre site could over-represent complex patients requiring advanced care; all patients had health insurance.

12.5. Summary

In this chapter we described cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies as three types of correlational studies used in eHealth evaluation. The methodological issues addressed include bias and confounding, controlling for confounders, adherence to good practices and consistency in reporting. Three case examples were included to show how eHealth correlational studies are done.

1 ISPOR – International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

• Beck A. F., Sauers H. S., Kahn R. S., Yau C., Weiser J., Simmons J.M. Improved documentation and care planning with an asthma-specific history and physical. Hospital Pediatrics. 2012; 2 (4):194–201. [ PubMed : 24313025 ]
• Berger M. L., Dreyer N., Anderson F., Towse A., Sedrakyan A., Normand S.L. Prospective observational studies to address comparative effectiveness: The ispor good research practices task force report. Value in Health. 2012; 15 (2):217–230. Retrieved from http://www ​.sciencedirect ​.com/science/article ​/pii/S1098301512000071 . [ PubMed : 22433752 ]
• Elwood M. Critical appraisal of epidemiological studies and clinical studies. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
• Fleurence R. L., Naci H., Jansen J.P. The critical role of observational evidence in comparative effectiveness research. Health Affairs. 2010; 29 (10):1826–1833. [ PubMed : 20921482 ]
• Friedman C. P., Wyatt J.C. Evaluation methods in biomedical informatics. 2nd ed. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc; 2006.
• Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. (Version 5.1.0, updated March 2011) Retrieved from http://handbook ​.cochrane.org/
• Levin K. A. Study design iv : Cohort studies. Evidence-based Dentistry. 2003a; 7 :51–52. [ PubMed : 16858385 ]
• Levin K. A. Study design v : Case-control studies. Evidence-based Dentistry. 2003b; 7 :83–84. [ PubMed : 17003803 ]
• Levin K. A. Study design iii : Cross-sectional studies. Evidence-based Dentistry. 2006; 7 :24–25. [ PubMed : 16557257 ]
• Linder J. A., Schnipper J. L., Middleton B. Method of electronic health record documentation and quality of primary care. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2012; 19 (6):1019–1024. [ PMC free article : PMC3534457 ] [ PubMed : 22610494 ]
• Nielsen A. S., Halamka J. D., Kinkel R.P. Internet portal use in an academic multiple sclerosis center. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2012; 19 (1):128–133. [ PMC free article : PMC3240754 ] [ PubMed : 21571744 ]
• Park E. S., Peccoud M. R., Wicks K. A., Halldorson J. B., Carithers R. L. Jr., Reyes J. D., Perkins J.D. Use of an automated clinical management system improves outpatient immunosuppressive care following liver transplantation. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2010; 17 (4):396–402. [ PMC free article : PMC2995663 ] [ PubMed : 20595306 ]
• Shamliyan T., Kane R. L., Dickinson S. A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010; 63 (10):1061–1070. [ PubMed : 20728045 ]
• Staes C. J., Evans R. S., Rocha B. H. S. C., Sorensen J. B., Huff S. M., Arata J., Narus S.P. Computerized alerts improve outpatient laboratory monitoring of transplant patients. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2008; 15 (3):324–332. [ PMC free article : PMC2410008 ] [ PubMed : 18308982 ]
• Vandenbroucke J. P., von Elm E., Altman D. G., Gotzsche P. C., Mulrow C. D., Pocock S. J., Egger M. for the strobe Initiative. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology ( strobe ): explanation and elaboration. International Journal of Surgery. 2014; 12 (12):1500–1524. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ s174391911400212x . [ PubMed : 25046751 ]
• Zhou Y. Y., Leith W. M., Li H., Tom J.O. Personal health record use for children and health care utilization: propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2015; 22 (4):748–754. [ PubMed : 25656517 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

• Cite this Page Lau F. Chapter 12 Methods for Correlational Studies. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)
• Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

• Introduction
• Types of Correlational Studies
• Methodological Considerations
• Case Examples

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Chapter 12 Methods for Correlational Studies - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: A... Chapter 12 Methods for Correlational Studies - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Neag School of Education

Educational Research Basics by Del Siegle

Null and alternative hypotheses.

Converting research questions to hypothesis is a simple task. Take the questions and make it a positive statement that says a relationship exists (correlation studies) or a difference exists between the groups (experiment study) and you have the alternative hypothesis. Write the statement such that a relationship does not exist or a difference does not exist and you have the null hypothesis. You can reverse the process if you have a hypothesis and wish to write a research question.

When you are comparing two groups, the groups are the independent variable. When you are testing whether something affects something else, the cause is the independent variable. The independent variable is the one you manipulate.

Teachers given higher pay will have more positive attitudes toward children than teachers given lower pay. The first step is to ask yourself “Are there two or more groups being compared?” The answer is “Yes.” What are the groups? Teachers who are given higher pay and teachers who are given lower pay. The independent variable is teacher pay. The dependent variable (the outcome) is attitude towards school.

You could also approach is another way. “Is something causing something else?” The answer is “Yes.”  What is causing what? Teacher pay is causing attitude towards school. Therefore, teacher pay is the independent variable (cause) and attitude towards school is the dependent variable (outcome).

By tradition, we try to disprove (reject) the null hypothesis. We can never prove a null hypothesis, because it is impossible to prove something does not exist. We can disprove something does not exist by finding an example of it. Therefore, in research we try to disprove the null hypothesis. When we do find that a relationship (or difference) exists then we reject the null and accept the alternative. If we do not find that a relationship (or difference) exists, we fail to reject the null hypothesis (and go with it). We never say we accept the null hypothesis because it is never possible to prove something does not exist. That is why we say that we failed to reject the null hypothesis, rather than we accepted it.

Del Siegle, Ph.D. Neag School of Education – University of Connecticut [email protected] www.delsiegle.com