case study reseach method

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on May 8, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organization, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research.

A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods , but quantitative methods are sometimes also used. Case studies are good for describing , comparing, evaluating and understanding different aspects of a research problem .

Table of contents

When to do a case study, step 1: select a case, step 2: build a theoretical framework, step 3: collect your data, step 4: describe and analyze the case, other interesting articles.

A case study is an appropriate research design when you want to gain concrete, contextual, in-depth knowledge about a specific real-world subject. It allows you to explore the key characteristics, meanings, and implications of the case.

Case studies are often a good choice in a thesis or dissertation . They keep your project focused and manageable when you don’t have the time or resources to do large-scale research.

You might use just one complex case study where you explore a single subject in depth, or conduct multiple case studies to compare and illuminate different aspects of your research problem.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Once you have developed your problem statement and research questions , you should be ready to choose the specific case that you want to focus on. A good case study should have the potential to:

• Provide new or unexpected insights into the subject
• Challenge or complicate existing assumptions and theories
• Propose practical courses of action to resolve a problem
• Open up new directions for future research

TipIf your research is more practical in nature and aims to simultaneously investigate an issue as you solve it, consider conducting action research instead.

Unlike quantitative or experimental research , a strong case study does not require a random or representative sample. In fact, case studies often deliberately focus on unusual, neglected, or outlying cases which may shed new light on the research problem.

Example of an outlying case studyIn the 1960s the town of Roseto, Pennsylvania was discovered to have extremely low rates of heart disease compared to the US average. It became an important case study for understanding previously neglected causes of heart disease.

However, you can also choose a more common or representative case to exemplify a particular category, experience or phenomenon.

Example of a representative case studyIn the 1920s, two sociologists used Muncie, Indiana as a case study of a typical American city that supposedly exemplified the changing culture of the US at the time.

While case studies focus more on concrete details than general theories, they should usually have some connection with theory in the field. This way the case study is not just an isolated description, but is integrated into existing knowledge about the topic. It might aim to:

• Exemplify a theory by showing how it explains the case under investigation
• Expand on a theory by uncovering new concepts and ideas that need to be incorporated
• Challenge a theory by exploring an outlier case that doesn’t fit with established assumptions

To ensure that your analysis of the case has a solid academic grounding, you should conduct a literature review of sources related to the topic and develop a theoretical framework . This means identifying key concepts and theories to guide your analysis and interpretation.

There are many different research methods you can use to collect data on your subject. Case studies tend to focus on qualitative data using methods such as interviews , observations , and analysis of primary and secondary sources (e.g., newspaper articles, photographs, official records). Sometimes a case study will also collect quantitative data.

Example of a mixed methods case studyFor a case study of a wind farm development in a rural area, you could collect quantitative data on employment rates and business revenue, collect qualitative data on local people’s perceptions and experiences, and analyze local and national media coverage of the development.

The aim is to gain as thorough an understanding as possible of the case and its context.

In writing up the case study, you need to bring together all the relevant aspects to give as complete a picture as possible of the subject.

How you report your findings depends on the type of research you are doing. Some case studies are structured like a standard scientific paper or thesis , with separate sections or chapters for the methods , results and discussion .

Others are written in a more narrative style, aiming to explore the case from various angles and analyze its meanings and implications (for example, by using textual analysis or discourse analysis ).

In all cases, though, make sure to give contextual details about the case, connect it back to the literature and theory, and discuss how it fits into wider patterns or debates.

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

• Normal distribution
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Ecological validity

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

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). What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved June 28, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/case-study/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, primary vs. secondary sources | difference & examples, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is action research | definition & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

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

The Ultimate Guide to Qualitative Research - Part 1: The Basics

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Theoretical framework
• Literature reviews

Research question

• Conceptual framework
• Conceptual vs. theoretical framework

Data collection

• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research

What is a case study?

Applications for case study research, what is a good case study, process of case study design, benefits and limitations of case studies.

• Ethnographical research
• Ethical considerations
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Case studies

Case studies are essential to qualitative research , offering a lens through which researchers can investigate complex phenomena within their real-life contexts. This chapter explores the concept, purpose, applications, examples, and types of case studies and provides guidance on how to conduct case study research effectively.

Whereas quantitative methods look at phenomena at scale, case study research looks at a concept or phenomenon in considerable detail. While analyzing a single case can help understand one perspective regarding the object of research inquiry, analyzing multiple cases can help obtain a more holistic sense of the topic or issue. Let's provide a basic definition of a case study, then explore its characteristics and role in the qualitative research process.

Definition of a case study

A case study in qualitative research is a strategy of inquiry that involves an in-depth investigation of a phenomenon within its real-world context. It provides researchers with the opportunity to acquire an in-depth understanding of intricate details that might not be as apparent or accessible through other methods of research. The specific case or cases being studied can be a single person, group, or organization – demarcating what constitutes a relevant case worth studying depends on the researcher and their research question .

Among qualitative research methods , a case study relies on multiple sources of evidence, such as documents, artifacts, interviews , or observations , to present a complete and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. The objective is to illuminate the readers' understanding of the phenomenon beyond its abstract statistical or theoretical explanations.

Characteristics of case studies

Case studies typically possess a number of distinct characteristics that set them apart from other research methods. These characteristics include a focus on holistic description and explanation, flexibility in the design and data collection methods, reliance on multiple sources of evidence, and emphasis on the context in which the phenomenon occurs.

Furthermore, case studies can often involve a longitudinal examination of the case, meaning they study the case over a period of time. These characteristics allow case studies to yield comprehensive, in-depth, and richly contextualized insights about the phenomenon of interest.

The role of case studies in research

Case studies hold a unique position in the broader landscape of research methods aimed at theory development. They are instrumental when the primary research interest is to gain an intensive, detailed understanding of a phenomenon in its real-life context.

In addition, case studies can serve different purposes within research - they can be used for exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory purposes, depending on the research question and objectives. This flexibility and depth make case studies a valuable tool in the toolkit of qualitative researchers.

Remember, a well-conducted case study can offer a rich, insightful contribution to both academic and practical knowledge through theory development or theory verification, thus enhancing our understanding of complex phenomena in their real-world contexts.

What is the purpose of a case study?

Case study research aims for a more comprehensive understanding of phenomena, requiring various research methods to gather information for qualitative analysis . Ultimately, a case study can allow the researcher to gain insight into a particular object of inquiry and develop a theoretical framework relevant to the research inquiry.

Why use case studies in qualitative research?

Using case studies as a research strategy depends mainly on the nature of the research question and the researcher's access to the data.

Conducting case study research provides a level of detail and contextual richness that other research methods might not offer. They are beneficial when there's a need to understand complex social phenomena within their natural contexts.

The explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive roles of case studies

Case studies can take on various roles depending on the research objectives. They can be exploratory when the research aims to discover new phenomena or define new research questions; they are descriptive when the objective is to depict a phenomenon within its context in a detailed manner; and they can be explanatory if the goal is to understand specific relationships within the studied context. Thus, the versatility of case studies allows researchers to approach their topic from different angles, offering multiple ways to uncover and interpret the data .

The impact of case studies on knowledge development

Case studies play a significant role in knowledge development across various disciplines. Analysis of cases provides an avenue for researchers to explore phenomena within their context based on the collected data.

This can result in the production of rich, practical insights that can be instrumental in both theory-building and practice. Case studies allow researchers to delve into the intricacies and complexities of real-life situations, uncovering insights that might otherwise remain hidden.

Types of case studies

In qualitative research , a case study is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Depending on the nature of the research question and the specific objectives of the study, researchers might choose to use different types of case studies. These types differ in their focus, methodology, and the level of detail they provide about the phenomenon under investigation.

Understanding these types is crucial for selecting the most appropriate approach for your research project and effectively achieving your research goals. Let's briefly look at the main types of case studies.

Exploratory case studies

Exploratory case studies are typically conducted to develop a theory or framework around an understudied phenomenon. They can also serve as a precursor to a larger-scale research project. Exploratory case studies are useful when a researcher wants to identify the key issues or questions which can spur more extensive study or be used to develop propositions for further research. These case studies are characterized by flexibility, allowing researchers to explore various aspects of a phenomenon as they emerge, which can also form the foundation for subsequent studies.

Descriptive case studies

Descriptive case studies aim to provide a complete and accurate representation of a phenomenon or event within its context. These case studies are often based on an established theoretical framework, which guides how data is collected and analyzed. The researcher is concerned with describing the phenomenon in detail, as it occurs naturally, without trying to influence or manipulate it.

Explanatory case studies

Explanatory case studies are focused on explanation - they seek to clarify how or why certain phenomena occur. Often used in complex, real-life situations, they can be particularly valuable in clarifying causal relationships among concepts and understanding the interplay between different factors within a specific context.

Intrinsic, instrumental, and collective case studies

These three categories of case studies focus on the nature and purpose of the study. An intrinsic case study is conducted when a researcher has an inherent interest in the case itself. Instrumental case studies are employed when the case is used to provide insight into a particular issue or phenomenon. A collective case study, on the other hand, involves studying multiple cases simultaneously to investigate some general phenomena.

Each type of case study serves a different purpose and has its own strengths and challenges. The selection of the type should be guided by the research question and objectives, as well as the context and constraints of the research.

The flexibility, depth, and contextual richness offered by case studies make this approach an excellent research method for various fields of study. They enable researchers to investigate real-world phenomena within their specific contexts, capturing nuances that other research methods might miss. Across numerous fields, case studies provide valuable insights into complex issues.

Critical information systems research

Case studies provide a detailed understanding of the role and impact of information systems in different contexts. They offer a platform to explore how information systems are designed, implemented, and used and how they interact with various social, economic, and political factors. Case studies in this field often focus on examining the intricate relationship between technology, organizational processes, and user behavior, helping to uncover insights that can inform better system design and implementation.

Health research

Health research is another field where case studies are highly valuable. They offer a way to explore patient experiences, healthcare delivery processes, and the impact of various interventions in a real-world context.

Case studies can provide a deep understanding of a patient's journey, giving insights into the intricacies of disease progression, treatment effects, and the psychosocial aspects of health and illness.

Asthma research studies

Specifically within medical research, studies on asthma often employ case studies to explore the individual and environmental factors that influence asthma development, management, and outcomes. A case study can provide rich, detailed data about individual patients' experiences, from the triggers and symptoms they experience to the effectiveness of various management strategies. This can be crucial for developing patient-centered asthma care approaches.

Other fields

Apart from the fields mentioned, case studies are also extensively used in business and management research, education research, and political sciences, among many others. They provide an opportunity to delve into the intricacies of real-world situations, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of various phenomena.

Case studies, with their depth and contextual focus, offer unique insights across these varied fields. They allow researchers to illuminate the complexities of real-life situations, contributing to both theory and practice.

Whatever field you're in, ATLAS.ti puts your data to work for you

Download a free trial of ATLAS.ti to turn your data into insights.

Understanding the key elements of case study design is crucial for conducting rigorous and impactful case study research. A well-structured design guides the researcher through the process, ensuring that the study is methodologically sound and its findings are reliable and valid. The main elements of case study design include the research question , propositions, units of analysis, and the logic linking the data to the propositions.

The research question is the foundation of any research study. A good research question guides the direction of the study and informs the selection of the case, the methods of collecting data, and the analysis techniques. A well-formulated research question in case study research is typically clear, focused, and complex enough to merit further detailed examination of the relevant case(s).

Propositions

Propositions, though not necessary in every case study, provide a direction by stating what we might expect to find in the data collected. They guide how data is collected and analyzed by helping researchers focus on specific aspects of the case. They are particularly important in explanatory case studies, which seek to understand the relationships among concepts within the studied phenomenon.

Units of analysis

The unit of analysis refers to the case, or the main entity or entities that are being analyzed in the study. In case study research, the unit of analysis can be an individual, a group, an organization, a decision, an event, or even a time period. It's crucial to clearly define the unit of analysis, as it shapes the qualitative data analysis process by allowing the researcher to analyze a particular case and synthesize analysis across multiple case studies to draw conclusions.

Argumentation

This refers to the inferential model that allows researchers to draw conclusions from the data. The researcher needs to ensure that there is a clear link between the data, the propositions (if any), and the conclusions drawn. This argumentation is what enables the researcher to make valid and credible inferences about the phenomenon under study.

Understanding and carefully considering these elements in the design phase of a case study can significantly enhance the quality of the research. It can help ensure that the study is methodologically sound and its findings contribute meaningful insights about the case.

Ready to jumpstart your research with ATLAS.ti?

Conceptualize your research project with our intuitive data analysis interface. Download a free trial today.

Conducting a case study involves several steps, from defining the research question and selecting the case to collecting and analyzing data . This section outlines these key stages, providing a practical guide on how to conduct case study research.

Defining the research question

The first step in case study research is defining a clear, focused research question. This question should guide the entire research process, from case selection to analysis. It's crucial to ensure that the research question is suitable for a case study approach. Typically, such questions are exploratory or descriptive in nature and focus on understanding a phenomenon within its real-life context.

Selecting and defining the case

The selection of the case should be based on the research question and the objectives of the study. It involves choosing a unique example or a set of examples that provide rich, in-depth data about the phenomenon under investigation. After selecting the case, it's crucial to define it clearly, setting the boundaries of the case, including the time period and the specific context.

Previous research can help guide the case study design. When considering a case study, an example of a case could be taken from previous case study research and used to define cases in a new research inquiry. Considering recently published examples can help understand how to select and define cases effectively.

Developing a detailed case study protocol

A case study protocol outlines the procedures and general rules to be followed during the case study. This includes the data collection methods to be used, the sources of data, and the procedures for analysis. Having a detailed case study protocol ensures consistency and reliability in the study.

The protocol should also consider how to work with the people involved in the research context to grant the research team access to collecting data. As mentioned in previous sections of this guide, establishing rapport is an essential component of qualitative research as it shapes the overall potential for collecting and analyzing data.

Collecting data

Gathering data in case study research often involves multiple sources of evidence, including documents, archival records, interviews, observations, and physical artifacts. This allows for a comprehensive understanding of the case. The process for gathering data should be systematic and carefully documented to ensure the reliability and validity of the study.

Analyzing and interpreting data

The next step is analyzing the data. This involves organizing the data , categorizing it into themes or patterns , and interpreting these patterns to answer the research question. The analysis might also involve comparing the findings with prior research or theoretical propositions.

Writing the case study report

The final step is writing the case study report . This should provide a detailed description of the case, the data, the analysis process, and the findings. The report should be clear, organized, and carefully written to ensure that the reader can understand the case and the conclusions drawn from it.

Each of these steps is crucial in ensuring that the case study research is rigorous, reliable, and provides valuable insights about the case.

The type, depth, and quality of data in your study can significantly influence the validity and utility of the study. In case study research, data is usually collected from multiple sources to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the case. This section will outline the various methods of collecting data used in case study research and discuss considerations for ensuring the quality of the data.

Interviews are a common method of gathering data in case study research. They can provide rich, in-depth data about the perspectives, experiences, and interpretations of the individuals involved in the case. Interviews can be structured , semi-structured , or unstructured , depending on the research question and the degree of flexibility needed.

Observations

Observations involve the researcher observing the case in its natural setting, providing first-hand information about the case and its context. Observations can provide data that might not be revealed in interviews or documents, such as non-verbal cues or contextual information.

Documents and artifacts

Documents and archival records provide a valuable source of data in case study research. They can include reports, letters, memos, meeting minutes, email correspondence, and various public and private documents related to the case.

These records can provide historical context, corroborate evidence from other sources, and offer insights into the case that might not be apparent from interviews or observations.

Physical artifacts refer to any physical evidence related to the case, such as tools, products, or physical environments. These artifacts can provide tangible insights into the case, complementing the data gathered from other sources.

Ensuring the quality of data collection

Determining the quality of data in case study research requires careful planning and execution. It's crucial to ensure that the data is reliable, accurate, and relevant to the research question. This involves selecting appropriate methods of collecting data, properly training interviewers or observers, and systematically recording and storing the data. It also includes considering ethical issues related to collecting and handling data, such as obtaining informed consent and ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of the participants.

Data analysis

Analyzing case study research involves making sense of the rich, detailed data to answer the research question. This process can be challenging due to the volume and complexity of case study data. However, a systematic and rigorous approach to analysis can ensure that the findings are credible and meaningful. This section outlines the main steps and considerations in analyzing data in case study research.

Organizing the data

The first step in the analysis is organizing the data. This involves sorting the data into manageable sections, often according to the data source or the theme. This step can also involve transcribing interviews, digitizing physical artifacts, or organizing observational data.

Categorizing and coding the data

Once the data is organized, the next step is to categorize or code the data. This involves identifying common themes, patterns, or concepts in the data and assigning codes to relevant data segments. Coding can be done manually or with the help of software tools, and in either case, qualitative analysis software can greatly facilitate the entire coding process. Coding helps to reduce the data to a set of themes or categories that can be more easily analyzed.

Identifying patterns and themes

After coding the data, the researcher looks for patterns or themes in the coded data. This involves comparing and contrasting the codes and looking for relationships or patterns among them. The identified patterns and themes should help answer the research question.

Interpreting the data

Once patterns and themes have been identified, the next step is to interpret these findings. This involves explaining what the patterns or themes mean in the context of the research question and the case. This interpretation should be grounded in the data, but it can also involve drawing on theoretical concepts or prior research.

Verification of the data

The last step in the analysis is verification. This involves checking the accuracy and consistency of the analysis process and confirming that the findings are supported by the data. This can involve re-checking the original data, checking the consistency of codes, or seeking feedback from research participants or peers.

Like any research method , case study research has its strengths and limitations. Researchers must be aware of these, as they can influence the design, conduct, and interpretation of the study.

Understanding the strengths and limitations of case study research can also guide researchers in deciding whether this approach is suitable for their research question . This section outlines some of the key strengths and limitations of case study research.

Benefits include the following:

• Rich, detailed data: One of the main strengths of case study research is that it can generate rich, detailed data about the case. This can provide a deep understanding of the case and its context, which can be valuable in exploring complex phenomena.
• Flexibility: Case study research is flexible in terms of design , data collection , and analysis . A sufficient degree of flexibility allows the researcher to adapt the study according to the case and the emerging findings.
• Real-world context: Case study research involves studying the case in its real-world context, which can provide valuable insights into the interplay between the case and its context.
• Multiple sources of evidence: Case study research often involves collecting data from multiple sources , which can enhance the robustness and validity of the findings.

On the other hand, researchers should consider the following limitations:

• Generalizability: A common criticism of case study research is that its findings might not be generalizable to other cases due to the specificity and uniqueness of each case.
• Time and resource intensive: Case study research can be time and resource intensive due to the depth of the investigation and the amount of collected data.
• Complexity of analysis: The rich, detailed data generated in case study research can make analyzing the data challenging.
• Subjectivity: Given the nature of case study research, there may be a higher degree of subjectivity in interpreting the data , so researchers need to reflect on this and transparently convey to audiences how the research was conducted.

Being aware of these strengths and limitations can help researchers design and conduct case study research effectively and interpret and report the findings appropriately.

Ready to analyze your data with ATLAS.ti?

See how our intuitive software can draw key insights from your data with a free trial today.

Case Study Research Method in Psychology

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:

Case studies are in-depth investigations of a person, group, event, or community. Typically, data is gathered from various sources using several methods (e.g., observations & interviews).

The case study research method originated in clinical medicine (the case history, i.e., the patient’s personal history). In psychology, case studies are often confined to the study of a particular individual.

The information is mainly biographical and relates to events in the individual’s past (i.e., retrospective), as well as to significant events that are currently occurring in his or her everyday life.

The case study is not a research method, but researchers select methods of data collection and analysis that will generate material suitable for case studies.

Freud (1909a, 1909b) conducted very detailed investigations into the private lives of his patients in an attempt to both understand and help them overcome their illnesses.

This makes it clear that the case study is a method that should only be used by a psychologist, therapist, or psychiatrist, i.e., someone with a professional qualification.

There is an ethical issue of competence. Only someone qualified to diagnose and treat a person can conduct a formal case study relating to atypical (i.e., abnormal) behavior or atypical development.

 Famous Case Studies

• Anna O – One of the most famous case studies, documenting psychoanalyst Josef Breuer’s treatment of “Anna O” (real name Bertha Pappenheim) for hysteria in the late 1800s using early psychoanalytic theory.
• Little Hans – A child psychoanalysis case study published by Sigmund Freud in 1909 analyzing his five-year-old patient Herbert Graf’s house phobia as related to the Oedipus complex.
• Bruce/Brenda – Gender identity case of the boy (Bruce) whose botched circumcision led psychologist John Money to advise gender reassignment and raise him as a girl (Brenda) in the 1960s.
• Genie Wiley – Linguistics/psychological development case of the victim of extreme isolation abuse who was studied in 1970s California for effects of early language deprivation on acquiring speech later in life.
• Phineas Gage – One of the most famous neuropsychology case studies analyzes personality changes in railroad worker Phineas Gage after an 1848 brain injury involving a tamping iron piercing his skull.

Clinical Case Studies

• Studying the effectiveness of psychotherapy approaches with an individual patient
• Assessing and treating mental illnesses like depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD
• Neuropsychological cases investigating brain injuries or disorders

Child Psychology Case Studies

• Studying psychological development from birth through adolescence
• Cases of learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, ADHD
• Effects of trauma, abuse, deprivation on development

Types of Case Studies

• Explanatory case studies : Used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles. Helpful for doing qualitative analysis to explain presumed causal links.
• Exploratory case studies : Used to explore situations where an intervention being evaluated has no clear set of outcomes. It helps define questions and hypotheses for future research.
• Descriptive case studies : Describe an intervention or phenomenon and the real-life context in which it occurred. It is helpful for illustrating certain topics within an evaluation.
• Multiple-case studies : Used to explore differences between cases and replicate findings across cases. Helpful for comparing and contrasting specific cases.
• Intrinsic : Used to gain a better understanding of a particular case. Helpful for capturing the complexity of a single case.
• Collective : Used to explore a general phenomenon using multiple case studies. Helpful for jointly studying a group of cases in order to inquire into the phenomenon.

Where Do You Find Data for a Case Study?

There are several places to find data for a case study. The key is to gather data from multiple sources to get a complete picture of the case and corroborate facts or findings through triangulation of evidence. Most of this information is likely qualitative (i.e., verbal description rather than measurement), but the psychologist might also collect numerical data.

1. Primary sources

• Interviews – Interviewing key people related to the case to get their perspectives and insights. The interview is an extremely effective procedure for obtaining information about an individual, and it may be used to collect comments from the person’s friends, parents, employer, workmates, and others who have a good knowledge of the person, as well as to obtain facts from the person him or herself.
• Observations – Observing behaviors, interactions, processes, etc., related to the case as they unfold in real-time.
• Documents & Records – Reviewing private documents, diaries, public records, correspondence, meeting minutes, etc., relevant to the case.

2. Secondary sources

• News/Media – News coverage of events related to the case study.
• Academic articles – Journal articles, dissertations etc. that discuss the case.
• Government reports – Official data and records related to the case context.
• Books/films – Books, documentaries or films discussing the case.

3. Archival records

Searching historical archives, museum collections and databases to find relevant documents, visual/audio records related to the case history and context.

Public archives like newspapers, organizational records, photographic collections could all include potentially relevant pieces of information to shed light on attitudes, cultural perspectives, common practices and historical contexts related to psychology.

4. Organizational records

Organizational records offer the advantage of often having large datasets collected over time that can reveal or confirm psychological insights.

Of course, privacy and ethical concerns regarding confidential data must be navigated carefully.

However, with proper protocols, organizational records can provide invaluable context and empirical depth to qualitative case studies exploring the intersection of psychology and organizations.

• Organizational/industrial psychology research : Organizational records like employee surveys, turnover/retention data, policies, incident reports etc. may provide insight into topics like job satisfaction, workplace culture and dynamics, leadership issues, employee behaviors etc.
• Clinical psychology : Therapists/hospitals may grant access to anonymized medical records to study aspects like assessments, diagnoses, treatment plans etc. This could shed light on clinical practices.
• School psychology : Studies could utilize anonymized student records like test scores, grades, disciplinary issues, and counseling referrals to study child development, learning barriers, effectiveness of support programs, and more.

How do I Write a Case Study in Psychology?

Follow specified case study guidelines provided by a journal or your psychology tutor. General components of clinical case studies include: background, symptoms, assessments, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Interpreting the information means the researcher decides what to include or leave out. A good case study should always clarify which information is the factual description and which is an inference or the researcher’s opinion.

1. Introduction

• Provide background on the case context and why it is of interest, presenting background information like demographics, relevant history, and presenting problem.
• Compare briefly to similar published cases if applicable. Clearly state the focus/importance of the case.

2. Case Presentation

• Describe the presenting problem in detail, including symptoms, duration,and impact on daily life.
• Include client demographics like age and gender, information about social relationships, and mental health history.
• Describe all physical, emotional, and/or sensory symptoms reported by the client.
• Use patient quotes to describe the initial complaint verbatim. Follow with full-sentence summaries of relevant history details gathered, including key components that led to a working diagnosis.
• Summarize clinical exam results, namely orthopedic/neurological tests, imaging, lab tests, etc. Note actual results rather than subjective conclusions. Provide images if clearly reproducible/anonymized.
• Clearly state the working diagnosis or clinical impression before transitioning to management.

3. Management and Outcome

• Indicate the total duration of care and number of treatments given over what timeframe. Use specific names/descriptions for any therapies/interventions applied.
• Present the results of the intervention,including any quantitative or qualitative data collected.
• For outcomes, utilize visual analog scales for pain, medication usage logs, etc., if possible. Include patient self-reports of improvement/worsening of symptoms. Note the reason for discharge/end of care.

4. Discussion

• Analyze the case, exploring contributing factors, limitations of the study, and connections to existing research.
• Analyze the effectiveness of the intervention,considering factors like participant adherence, limitations of the study, and potential alternative explanations for the results.
• Identify any questions raised in the case analysis and relate insights to established theories and current research if applicable. Avoid definitive claims about physiological explanations.
• Offer clinical implications, and suggest future research directions.

5. Additional Items

• Thank specific assistants for writing support only. No patient acknowledgments.
• References should directly support any key claims or quotes included.
• Use tables/figures/images only if substantially informative. Include permissions and legends/explanatory notes.
• Provides detailed (rich qualitative) information.
• Provides insight for further research.
• Permitting investigation of otherwise impractical (or unethical) situations.

Case studies allow a researcher to investigate a topic in far more detail than might be possible if they were trying to deal with a large number of research participants (nomothetic approach) with the aim of ‘averaging’.

Because of their in-depth, multi-sided approach, case studies often shed light on aspects of human thinking and behavior that would be unethical or impractical to study in other ways.

Research that only looks into the measurable aspects of human behavior is not likely to give us insights into the subjective dimension of experience, which is important to psychoanalytic and humanistic psychologists.

Case studies are often used in exploratory research. They can help us generate new ideas (that might be tested by other methods). They are an important way of illustrating theories and can help show how different aspects of a person’s life are related to each other.

The method is, therefore, important for psychologists who adopt a holistic point of view (i.e., humanistic psychologists ).

Limitations

• Lacking scientific rigor and providing little basis for generalization of results to the wider population.
• Researchers’ own subjective feelings may influence the case study (researcher bias).
• Difficult to replicate.
• Time-consuming and expensive.
• The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources.

Because a case study deals with only one person/event/group, we can never be sure if the case study investigated is representative of the wider body of “similar” instances. This means the conclusions drawn from a particular case may not be transferable to other settings.

Because case studies are based on the analysis of qualitative (i.e., descriptive) data , a lot depends on the psychologist’s interpretation of the information she has acquired.

This means that there is a lot of scope for Anna O , and it could be that the subjective opinions of the psychologist intrude in the assessment of what the data means.

For example, Freud has been criticized for producing case studies in which the information was sometimes distorted to fit particular behavioral theories (e.g., Little Hans ).

This is also true of Money’s interpretation of the Bruce/Brenda case study (Diamond, 1997) when he ignored evidence that went against his theory.

Breuer, J., & Freud, S. (1895).  Studies on hysteria . Standard Edition 2: London.

Curtiss, S. (1981). Genie: The case of a modern wild child .

Diamond, M., & Sigmundson, K. (1997). Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long-term Review and Clinical Implications. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , 151(3), 298-304

Freud, S. (1909a). Analysis of a phobia of a five year old boy. In The Pelican Freud Library (1977), Vol 8, Case Histories 1, pages 169-306

Freud, S. (1909b). Bemerkungen über einen Fall von Zwangsneurose (Der “Rattenmann”). Jb. psychoanal. psychopathol. Forsch ., I, p. 357-421; GW, VII, p. 379-463; Notes upon a case of obsessional neurosis, SE , 10: 151-318.

Harlow J. M. (1848). Passage of an iron rod through the head.  Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, 39 , 389–393.

Harlow, J. M. (1868).  Recovery from the Passage of an Iron Bar through the Head .  Publications of the Massachusetts Medical Society. 2  (3), 327-347.

Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1972).  Man & Woman, Boy & Girl : The Differentiation and Dimorphism of Gender Identity from Conception to Maturity. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Money, J., & Tucker, P. (1975). Sexual signatures: On being a man or a woman.

Further Information

• Case Study Approach
• Case Study Method
• Enhancing the Quality of Case Studies in Health Services Research
• “We do things together” A case study of “couplehood” in dementia
• Using mixed methods for evaluating an integrative approach to cancer care: a case study

Related Articles

Research Methodology

Mixed Methods Research

Conversation Analysis

Discourse Analysis

Phenomenology In Qualitative Research

Ethnography In Qualitative Research

Narrative Analysis In Qualitative Research

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is a Case Study?

Weighing the pros and cons of this method of research

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Cara Lustik is a fact-checker and copywriter.

Verywell / Colleen Tighe

• Pros and Cons

What Types of Case Studies Are Out There?

Where do you find data for a case study, how do i write a psychology case study.

A case study is an in-depth study of one person, group, or event. In a case study, nearly every aspect of the subject's life and history is analyzed to seek patterns and causes of behavior. Case studies can be used in many different fields, including psychology, medicine, education, anthropology, political science, and social work.

The point of a case study is to learn as much as possible about an individual or group so that the information can be generalized to many others. Unfortunately, case studies tend to be highly subjective, and it is sometimes difficult to generalize results to a larger population.

While case studies focus on a single individual or group, they follow a format similar to other types of psychology writing. If you are writing a case study, we got you—here are some rules of APA format to reference.  

At a Glance

A case study, or an in-depth study of a person, group, or event, can be a useful research tool when used wisely. In many cases, case studies are best used in situations where it would be difficult or impossible for you to conduct an experiment. They are helpful for looking at unique situations and allow researchers to gather a lot of˜ information about a specific individual or group of people. However, it's important to be cautious of any bias we draw from them as they are highly subjective.

What Are the Benefits and Limitations of Case Studies?

A case study can have its strengths and weaknesses. Researchers must consider these pros and cons before deciding if this type of study is appropriate for their needs.

One of the greatest advantages of a case study is that it allows researchers to investigate things that are often difficult or impossible to replicate in a lab. Some other benefits of a case study:

• Allows researchers to capture information on the 'how,' 'what,' and 'why,' of something that's implemented
• Gives researchers the chance to collect information on why one strategy might be chosen over another
• Permits researchers to develop hypotheses that can be explored in experimental research

On the other hand, a case study can have some drawbacks:

• It cannot necessarily be generalized to the larger population
• Cannot demonstrate cause and effect
• It may not be scientifically rigorous
• It can lead to bias

Researchers may choose to perform a case study if they want to explore a unique or recently discovered phenomenon. Through their insights, researchers develop additional ideas and study questions that might be explored in future studies.

It's important to remember that the insights from case studies cannot be used to determine cause-and-effect relationships between variables. However, case studies may be used to develop hypotheses that can then be addressed in experimental research.

Case Study Examples

There have been a number of notable case studies in the history of psychology. Much of  Freud's work and theories were developed through individual case studies. Some great examples of case studies in psychology include:

• Anna O : Anna O. was a pseudonym of a woman named Bertha Pappenheim, a patient of a physician named Josef Breuer. While she was never a patient of Freud's, Freud and Breuer discussed her case extensively. The woman was experiencing symptoms of a condition that was then known as hysteria and found that talking about her problems helped relieve her symptoms. Her case played an important part in the development of talk therapy as an approach to mental health treatment.
• Phineas Gage : Phineas Gage was a railroad employee who experienced a terrible accident in which an explosion sent a metal rod through his skull, damaging important portions of his brain. Gage recovered from his accident but was left with serious changes in both personality and behavior.
• Genie : Genie was a young girl subjected to horrific abuse and isolation. The case study of Genie allowed researchers to study whether language learning was possible, even after missing critical periods for language development. Her case also served as an example of how scientific research may interfere with treatment and lead to further abuse of vulnerable individuals.

Such cases demonstrate how case research can be used to study things that researchers could not replicate in experimental settings. In Genie's case, her horrific abuse denied her the opportunity to learn a language at critical points in her development.

This is clearly not something researchers could ethically replicate, but conducting a case study on Genie allowed researchers to study phenomena that are otherwise impossible to reproduce.

There are a few different types of case studies that psychologists and other researchers might use:

• Collective case studies : These involve studying a group of individuals. Researchers might study a group of people in a certain setting or look at an entire community. For example, psychologists might explore how access to resources in a community has affected the collective mental well-being of those who live there.
• Descriptive case studies : These involve starting with a descriptive theory. The subjects are then observed, and the information gathered is compared to the pre-existing theory.
• Explanatory case studies : These   are often used to do causal investigations. In other words, researchers are interested in looking at factors that may have caused certain things to occur.
• Exploratory case studies : These are sometimes used as a prelude to further, more in-depth research. This allows researchers to gather more information before developing their research questions and hypotheses .
• Instrumental case studies : These occur when the individual or group allows researchers to understand more than what is initially obvious to observers.
• Intrinsic case studies : This type of case study is when the researcher has a personal interest in the case. Jean Piaget's observations of his own children are good examples of how an intrinsic case study can contribute to the development of a psychological theory.

The three main case study types often used are intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. Intrinsic case studies are useful for learning about unique cases. Instrumental case studies help look at an individual to learn more about a broader issue. A collective case study can be useful for looking at several cases simultaneously.

The type of case study that psychology researchers use depends on the unique characteristics of the situation and the case itself.

There are a number of different sources and methods that researchers can use to gather information about an individual or group. Six major sources that have been identified by researchers are:

• Archival records : Census records, survey records, and name lists are examples of archival records.
• Direct observation : This strategy involves observing the subject, often in a natural setting . While an individual observer is sometimes used, it is more common to utilize a group of observers.
• Documents : Letters, newspaper articles, administrative records, etc., are the types of documents often used as sources.
• Interviews : Interviews are one of the most important methods for gathering information in case studies. An interview can involve structured survey questions or more open-ended questions.
• Participant observation : When the researcher serves as a participant in events and observes the actions and outcomes, it is called participant observation.
• Physical artifacts : Tools, objects, instruments, and other artifacts are often observed during a direct observation of the subject.

If you have been directed to write a case study for a psychology course, be sure to check with your instructor for any specific guidelines you need to follow. If you are writing your case study for a professional publication, check with the publisher for their specific guidelines for submitting a case study.

Here is a general outline of what should be included in a case study.

Section 1: A Case History

This section will have the following structure and content:

Background information : The first section of your paper will present your client's background. Include factors such as age, gender, work, health status, family mental health history, family and social relationships, drug and alcohol history, life difficulties, goals, and coping skills and weaknesses.

Description of the presenting problem : In the next section of your case study, you will describe the problem or symptoms that the client presented with.

Describe any physical, emotional, or sensory symptoms reported by the client. Thoughts, feelings, and perceptions related to the symptoms should also be noted. Any screening or diagnostic assessments that are used should also be described in detail and all scores reported.

Your diagnosis : Provide your diagnosis and give the appropriate Diagnostic and Statistical Manual code. Explain how you reached your diagnosis, how the client's symptoms fit the diagnostic criteria for the disorder(s), or any possible difficulties in reaching a diagnosis.

Section 2: Treatment Plan

This portion of the paper will address the chosen treatment for the condition. This might also include the theoretical basis for the chosen treatment or any other evidence that might exist to support why this approach was chosen.

• Cognitive behavioral approach : Explain how a cognitive behavioral therapist would approach treatment. Offer background information on cognitive behavioral therapy and describe the treatment sessions, client response, and outcome of this type of treatment. Make note of any difficulties or successes encountered by your client during treatment.
• Humanistic approach : Describe a humanistic approach that could be used to treat your client, such as client-centered therapy . Provide information on the type of treatment you chose, the client's reaction to the treatment, and the end result of this approach. Explain why the treatment was successful or unsuccessful.
• Psychoanalytic approach : Describe how a psychoanalytic therapist would view the client's problem. Provide some background on the psychoanalytic approach and cite relevant references. Explain how psychoanalytic therapy would be used to treat the client, how the client would respond to therapy, and the effectiveness of this treatment approach.
• Pharmacological approach : If treatment primarily involves the use of medications, explain which medications were used and why. Provide background on the effectiveness of these medications and how monotherapy may compare with an approach that combines medications with therapy or other treatments.

This section of a case study should also include information about the treatment goals, process, and outcomes.

When you are writing a case study, you should also include a section where you discuss the case study itself, including the strengths and limitiations of the study. You should note how the findings of your case study might support previous research. 

In your discussion section, you should also describe some of the implications of your case study. What ideas or findings might require further exploration? How might researchers go about exploring some of these questions in additional studies?

Need More Tips?

Here are a few additional pointers to keep in mind when formatting your case study:

• Never refer to the subject of your case study as "the client." Instead, use their name or a pseudonym.
• Read examples of case studies to gain an idea about the style and format.
• Remember to use APA format when citing references .

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach .  BMC Med Res Methodol . 2011;11:100.

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach . BMC Med Res Methodol . 2011 Jun 27;11:100. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Gagnon, Yves-Chantal.  The Case Study as Research Method: A Practical Handbook . Canada, Chicago Review Press Incorporated DBA Independent Pub Group, 2010.

Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods . United States, SAGE Publications, 2017.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

A case study research paper examines a person, place, event, condition, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis in order to extrapolate  key themes and results that help predict future trends, illuminate previously hidden issues that can be applied to practice, and/or provide a means for understanding an important research problem with greater clarity. A case study research paper usually examines a single subject of analysis, but case study papers can also be designed as a comparative investigation that shows relationships between two or more subjects. The methods used to study a case can rest within a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method investigative paradigm.

Case Studies. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010 ; “What is a Case Study?” In Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London: SAGE, 2010.

How to Approach Writing a Case Study Research Paper

General information about how to choose a topic to investigate can be found under the " Choosing a Research Problem " tab in the Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper writing guide. Review this page because it may help you identify a subject of analysis that can be investigated using a case study design.

However, identifying a case to investigate involves more than choosing the research problem . A case study encompasses a problem contextualized around the application of in-depth analysis, interpretation, and discussion, often resulting in specific recommendations for action or for improving existing conditions. As Seawright and Gerring note, practical considerations such as time and access to information can influence case selection, but these issues should not be the sole factors used in describing the methodological justification for identifying a particular case to study. Given this, selecting a case includes considering the following:

• The case represents an unusual or atypical example of a research problem that requires more in-depth analysis? Cases often represent a topic that rests on the fringes of prior investigations because the case may provide new ways of understanding the research problem. For example, if the research problem is to identify strategies to improve policies that support girl's access to secondary education in predominantly Muslim nations, you could consider using Azerbaijan as a case study rather than selecting a more obvious nation in the Middle East. Doing so may reveal important new insights into recommending how governments in other predominantly Muslim nations can formulate policies that support improved access to education for girls.
• The case provides important insight or illuminate a previously hidden problem? In-depth analysis of a case can be based on the hypothesis that the case study will reveal trends or issues that have not been exposed in prior research or will reveal new and important implications for practice. For example, anecdotal evidence may suggest drug use among homeless veterans is related to their patterns of travel throughout the day. Assuming prior studies have not looked at individual travel choices as a way to study access to illicit drug use, a case study that observes a homeless veteran could reveal how issues of personal mobility choices facilitate regular access to illicit drugs. Note that it is important to conduct a thorough literature review to ensure that your assumption about the need to reveal new insights or previously hidden problems is valid and evidence-based.
• The case challenges and offers a counter-point to prevailing assumptions? Over time, research on any given topic can fall into a trap of developing assumptions based on outdated studies that are still applied to new or changing conditions or the idea that something should simply be accepted as "common sense," even though the issue has not been thoroughly tested in current practice. A case study analysis may offer an opportunity to gather evidence that challenges prevailing assumptions about a research problem and provide a new set of recommendations applied to practice that have not been tested previously. For example, perhaps there has been a long practice among scholars to apply a particular theory in explaining the relationship between two subjects of analysis. Your case could challenge this assumption by applying an innovative theoretical framework [perhaps borrowed from another discipline] to explore whether this approach offers new ways of understanding the research problem. Taking a contrarian stance is one of the most important ways that new knowledge and understanding develops from existing literature.
• The case provides an opportunity to pursue action leading to the resolution of a problem? Another way to think about choosing a case to study is to consider how the results from investigating a particular case may result in findings that reveal ways in which to resolve an existing or emerging problem. For example, studying the case of an unforeseen incident, such as a fatal accident at a railroad crossing, can reveal hidden issues that could be applied to preventative measures that contribute to reducing the chance of accidents in the future. In this example, a case study investigating the accident could lead to a better understanding of where to strategically locate additional signals at other railroad crossings so as to better warn drivers of an approaching train, particularly when visibility is hindered by heavy rain, fog, or at night.
• The case offers a new direction in future research? A case study can be used as a tool for an exploratory investigation that highlights the need for further research about the problem. A case can be used when there are few studies that help predict an outcome or that establish a clear understanding about how best to proceed in addressing a problem. For example, after conducting a thorough literature review [very important!], you discover that little research exists showing the ways in which women contribute to promoting water conservation in rural communities of east central Africa. A case study of how women contribute to saving water in a rural village of Uganda can lay the foundation for understanding the need for more thorough research that documents how women in their roles as cooks and family caregivers think about water as a valuable resource within their community. This example of a case study could also point to the need for scholars to build new theoretical frameworks around the topic [e.g., applying feminist theories of work and family to the issue of water conservation].

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (October 1989): 532-550; Emmel, Nick. Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2013; Gerring, John. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” American Political Science Review 98 (May 2004): 341-354; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Seawright, Jason and John Gerring. "Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research." Political Research Quarterly 61 (June 2008): 294-308.

Structure and Writing Style

The purpose of a paper in the social sciences designed around a case study is to thoroughly investigate a subject of analysis in order to reveal a new understanding about the research problem and, in so doing, contributing new knowledge to what is already known from previous studies. In applied social sciences disciplines [e.g., education, social work, public administration, etc.], case studies may also be used to reveal best practices, highlight key programs, or investigate interesting aspects of professional work.

In general, the structure of a case study research paper is not all that different from a standard college-level research paper. However, there are subtle differences you should be aware of. Here are the key elements to organizing and writing a case study research paper.

I.  Introduction

As with any research paper, your introduction should serve as a roadmap for your readers to ascertain the scope and purpose of your study . The introduction to a case study research paper, however, should not only describe the research problem and its significance, but you should also succinctly describe why the case is being used and how it relates to addressing the problem. The two elements should be linked. With this in mind, a good introduction answers these four questions:

• What is being studied? Describe the research problem and describe the subject of analysis [the case] you have chosen to address the problem. Explain how they are linked and what elements of the case will help to expand knowledge and understanding about the problem.
• Why is this topic important to investigate? Describe the significance of the research problem and state why a case study design and the subject of analysis that the paper is designed around is appropriate in addressing the problem.
• What did we know about this topic before I did this study? Provide background that helps lead the reader into the more in-depth literature review to follow. If applicable, summarize prior case study research applied to the research problem and why it fails to adequately address the problem. Describe why your case will be useful. If no prior case studies have been used to address the research problem, explain why you have selected this subject of analysis.
• How will this study advance new knowledge or new ways of understanding? Explain why your case study will be suitable in helping to expand knowledge and understanding about the research problem.

Each of these questions should be addressed in no more than a few paragraphs. Exceptions to this can be when you are addressing a complex research problem or subject of analysis that requires more in-depth background information.

II.  Literature Review

The literature review for a case study research paper is generally structured the same as it is for any college-level research paper. The difference, however, is that the literature review is focused on providing background information and  enabling historical interpretation of the subject of analysis in relation to the research problem the case is intended to address . This includes synthesizing studies that help to:

• Place relevant works in the context of their contribution to understanding the case study being investigated . This would involve summarizing studies that have used a similar subject of analysis to investigate the research problem. If there is literature using the same or a very similar case to study, you need to explain why duplicating past research is important [e.g., conditions have changed; prior studies were conducted long ago, etc.].
• Describe the relationship each work has to the others under consideration that informs the reader why this case is applicable . Your literature review should include a description of any works that support using the case to investigate the research problem and the underlying research questions.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research using the case study . If applicable, review any research that has examined the research problem using a different research design. Explain how your use of a case study design may reveal new knowledge or a new perspective or that can redirect research in an important new direction.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies . This refers to synthesizing any literature that points to unresolved issues of concern about the research problem and describing how the subject of analysis that forms the case study can help resolve these existing contradictions.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research . Your review should examine any literature that lays a foundation for understanding why your case study design and the subject of analysis around which you have designed your study may reveal a new way of approaching the research problem or offer a perspective that points to the need for additional research.
• Expose any gaps that exist in the literature that the case study could help to fill . Summarize any literature that not only shows how your subject of analysis contributes to understanding the research problem, but how your case contributes to a new way of understanding the problem that prior research has failed to do.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important!] . Collectively, your literature review should always place your case study within the larger domain of prior research about the problem. The overarching purpose of reviewing pertinent literature in a case study paper is to demonstrate that you have thoroughly identified and synthesized prior studies in relation to explaining the relevance of the case in addressing the research problem.

III.  Method

In this section, you explain why you selected a particular case [i.e., subject of analysis] and the strategy you used to identify and ultimately decide that your case was appropriate in addressing the research problem. The way you describe the methods used varies depending on the type of subject of analysis that constitutes your case study.

If your subject of analysis is an incident or event . In the social and behavioral sciences, the event or incident that represents the case to be studied is usually bounded by time and place, with a clear beginning and end and with an identifiable location or position relative to its surroundings. The subject of analysis can be a rare or critical event or it can focus on a typical or regular event. The purpose of studying a rare event is to illuminate new ways of thinking about the broader research problem or to test a hypothesis. Critical incident case studies must describe the method by which you identified the event and explain the process by which you determined the validity of this case to inform broader perspectives about the research problem or to reveal new findings. However, the event does not have to be a rare or uniquely significant to support new thinking about the research problem or to challenge an existing hypothesis. For example, Walo, Bull, and Breen conducted a case study to identify and evaluate the direct and indirect economic benefits and costs of a local sports event in the City of Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. The purpose of their study was to provide new insights from measuring the impact of a typical local sports event that prior studies could not measure well because they focused on large "mega-events." Whether the event is rare or not, the methods section should include an explanation of the following characteristics of the event: a) when did it take place; b) what were the underlying circumstances leading to the event; and, c) what were the consequences of the event in relation to the research problem.

If your subject of analysis is a person. Explain why you selected this particular individual to be studied and describe what experiences they have had that provide an opportunity to advance new understandings about the research problem. Mention any background about this person which might help the reader understand the significance of their experiences that make them worthy of study. This includes describing the relationships this person has had with other people, institutions, and/or events that support using them as the subject for a case study research paper. It is particularly important to differentiate the person as the subject of analysis from others and to succinctly explain how the person relates to examining the research problem [e.g., why is one politician in a particular local election used to show an increase in voter turnout from any other candidate running in the election]. Note that these issues apply to a specific group of people used as a case study unit of analysis [e.g., a classroom of students].

If your subject of analysis is a place. In general, a case study that investigates a place suggests a subject of analysis that is unique or special in some way and that this uniqueness can be used to build new understanding or knowledge about the research problem. A case study of a place must not only describe its various attributes relevant to the research problem [e.g., physical, social, historical, cultural, economic, political], but you must state the method by which you determined that this place will illuminate new understandings about the research problem. It is also important to articulate why a particular place as the case for study is being used if similar places also exist [i.e., if you are studying patterns of homeless encampments of veterans in open spaces, explain why you are studying Echo Park in Los Angeles rather than Griffith Park?]. If applicable, describe what type of human activity involving this place makes it a good choice to study [e.g., prior research suggests Echo Park has more homeless veterans].

If your subject of analysis is a phenomenon. A phenomenon refers to a fact, occurrence, or circumstance that can be studied or observed but with the cause or explanation to be in question. In this sense, a phenomenon that forms your subject of analysis can encompass anything that can be observed or presumed to exist but is not fully understood. In the social and behavioral sciences, the case usually focuses on human interaction within a complex physical, social, economic, cultural, or political system. For example, the phenomenon could be the observation that many vehicles used by ISIS fighters are small trucks with English language advertisements on them. The research problem could be that ISIS fighters are difficult to combat because they are highly mobile. The research questions could be how and by what means are these vehicles used by ISIS being supplied to the militants and how might supply lines to these vehicles be cut off? How might knowing the suppliers of these trucks reveal larger networks of collaborators and financial support? A case study of a phenomenon most often encompasses an in-depth analysis of a cause and effect that is grounded in an interactive relationship between people and their environment in some way.

NOTE:   The choice of the case or set of cases to study cannot appear random. Evidence that supports the method by which you identified and chose your subject of analysis should clearly support investigation of the research problem and linked to key findings from your literature review. Be sure to cite any studies that helped you determine that the case you chose was appropriate for examining the problem.

IV.  Discussion

The main elements of your discussion section are generally the same as any research paper, but centered around interpreting and drawing conclusions about the key findings from your analysis of the case study. Note that a general social sciences research paper may contain a separate section to report findings. However, in a paper designed around a case study, it is common to combine a description of the results with the discussion about their implications. The objectives of your discussion section should include the following:

Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings Briefly reiterate the research problem you are investigating and explain why the subject of analysis around which you designed the case study were used. You should then describe the findings revealed from your study of the case using direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results. Highlight any findings that were unexpected or especially profound.

Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important Systematically explain the meaning of your case study findings and why you believe they are important. Begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most important or surprising finding first, then systematically review each finding. Be sure to thoroughly extrapolate what your analysis of the case can tell the reader about situations or conditions beyond the actual case that was studied while, at the same time, being careful not to misconstrue or conflate a finding that undermines the external validity of your conclusions.

Relate the Findings to Similar Studies No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your case study results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for choosing your subject of analysis. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your case study design and the subject of analysis differs from prior research about the topic.

Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings Remember that the purpose of social science research is to discover and not to prove. When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations revealed by the case study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. Be alert to what the in-depth analysis of the case may reveal about the research problem, including offering a contrarian perspective to what scholars have stated in prior research if that is how the findings can be interpreted from your case.

Acknowledge the Study's Limitations You can state the study's limitations in the conclusion section of your paper but describing the limitations of your subject of analysis in the discussion section provides an opportunity to identify the limitations and explain why they are not significant. This part of the discussion section should also note any unanswered questions or issues your case study could not address. More detailed information about how to document any limitations to your research can be found here .

Suggest Areas for Further Research Although your case study may offer important insights about the research problem, there are likely additional questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or findings that unexpectedly revealed themselves as a result of your in-depth analysis of the case. Be sure that the recommendations for further research are linked to the research problem and that you explain why your recommendations are valid in other contexts and based on the original assumptions of your study.

V.  Conclusion

As with any research paper, you should summarize your conclusion in clear, simple language; emphasize how the findings from your case study differs from or supports prior research and why. Do not simply reiterate the discussion section. Provide a synthesis of key findings presented in the paper to show how these converge to address the research problem. If you haven't already done so in the discussion section, be sure to document the limitations of your case study and any need for further research.

The function of your paper's conclusion is to: 1) reiterate the main argument supported by the findings from your case study; 2) state clearly the context, background, and necessity of pursuing the research problem using a case study design in relation to an issue, controversy, or a gap found from reviewing the literature; and, 3) provide a place to persuasively and succinctly restate the significance of your research problem, given that the reader has now been presented with in-depth information about the topic.

Consider the following points to help ensure your conclusion is appropriate:

• If the argument or purpose of your paper is complex, you may need to summarize these points for your reader.
• If prior to your conclusion, you have not yet explained the significance of your findings or if you are proceeding inductively, use the conclusion of your paper to describe your main points and explain their significance.
• Move from a detailed to a general level of consideration of the case study's findings that returns the topic to the context provided by the introduction or within a new context that emerges from your case study findings.

Note that, depending on the discipline you are writing in or the preferences of your professor, the concluding paragraph may contain your final reflections on the evidence presented as it applies to practice or on the essay's central research problem. However, the nature of being introspective about the subject of analysis you have investigated will depend on whether you are explicitly asked to express your observations in this way.

Problems to Avoid

Overgeneralization One of the goals of a case study is to lay a foundation for understanding broader trends and issues applied to similar circumstances. However, be careful when drawing conclusions from your case study. They must be evidence-based and grounded in the results of the study; otherwise, it is merely speculation. Looking at a prior example, it would be incorrect to state that a factor in improving girls access to education in Azerbaijan and the policy implications this may have for improving access in other Muslim nations is due to girls access to social media if there is no documentary evidence from your case study to indicate this. There may be anecdotal evidence that retention rates were better for girls who were engaged with social media, but this observation would only point to the need for further research and would not be a definitive finding if this was not a part of your original research agenda.

Failure to Document Limitations No case is going to reveal all that needs to be understood about a research problem. Therefore, just as you have to clearly state the limitations of a general research study , you must describe the specific limitations inherent in the subject of analysis. For example, the case of studying how women conceptualize the need for water conservation in a village in Uganda could have limited application in other cultural contexts or in areas where fresh water from rivers or lakes is plentiful and, therefore, conservation is understood more in terms of managing access rather than preserving access to a scarce resource.

Failure to Extrapolate All Possible Implications Just as you don't want to over-generalize from your case study findings, you also have to be thorough in the consideration of all possible outcomes or recommendations derived from your findings. If you do not, your reader may question the validity of your analysis, particularly if you failed to document an obvious outcome from your case study research. For example, in the case of studying the accident at the railroad crossing to evaluate where and what types of warning signals should be located, you failed to take into consideration speed limit signage as well as warning signals. When designing your case study, be sure you have thoroughly addressed all aspects of the problem and do not leave gaps in your analysis that leave the reader questioning the results.

Case Studies. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Merriam, Sharan B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education . Rev. ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998; Miller, Lisa L. “The Use of Case Studies in Law and Social Science Research.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14 (2018): TBD; Mills, Albert J., Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Putney, LeAnn Grogan. "Case Study." In Encyclopedia of Research Design , Neil J. Salkind, editor. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010), pp. 116-120; Simons, Helen. Case Study Research in Practice . London: SAGE Publications, 2009;  Kratochwill,  Thomas R. and Joel R. Levin, editors. Single-Case Research Design and Analysis: New Development for Psychology and Education .  Hilldsale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992; Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London : SAGE, 2010; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Los Angeles, CA, SAGE Publications, 2014; Walo, Maree, Adrian Bull, and Helen Breen. “Achieving Economic Benefits at Local Events: A Case Study of a Local Sports Event.” Festival Management and Event Tourism 4 (1996): 95-106.

Writing Tip

At Least Five Misconceptions about Case Study Research

Social science case studies are often perceived as limited in their ability to create new knowledge because they are not randomly selected and findings cannot be generalized to larger populations. Flyvbjerg examines five misunderstandings about case study research and systematically "corrects" each one. To quote, these are:

Misunderstanding 1 :  General, theoretical [context-independent] knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical [context-dependent] knowledge. Misunderstanding 2 :  One cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore, the case study cannot contribute to scientific development. Misunderstanding 3 :  The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses; that is, in the first stage of a total research process, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building. Misunderstanding 4 :  The case study contains a bias toward verification, that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions. Misunderstanding 5 :  It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the basis of specific case studies [p. 221].

While writing your paper, think introspectively about how you addressed these misconceptions because to do so can help you strengthen the validity and reliability of your research by clarifying issues of case selection, the testing and challenging of existing assumptions, the interpretation of key findings, and the summation of case outcomes. Think of a case study research paper as a complete, in-depth narrative about the specific properties and key characteristics of your subject of analysis applied to the research problem.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (April 2006): 219-245.

• << Previous: Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Next: Writing a Field Report >>
• Last Updated: Jun 3, 2024 9:44 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Understanding Case Study Method in Research: A Comprehensive Guide

Table of Contents

Have you ever wondered how researchers uncover the nuanced layers of individual experiences or the intricate workings of a particular event? One of the keys to unlocking these mysteries lies in the qualitative research focusing on a single subject in its real-life context.">case study method , a research strategy that might seem straightforward at first glance but is rich with complexity and insightful potential. Let’s dive into the world of case studies and discover why they are such a valuable tool in the arsenal of research methods.

What is a Case Study Method?

At its core, the case study method is a form of qualitative research that involves an in-depth, detailed examination of a single subject, such as an individual, group, organization, event, or phenomenon. It’s a method favored when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, and where multiple sources of data are used to illuminate the case from various perspectives. This method’s strength lies in its ability to provide a comprehensive understanding of the case in its real-life context.

Historical Context and Evolution of Case Studies

Case studies have been around for centuries, with their roots in medical and psychological research. Over time, their application has spread to disciplines like sociology, anthropology, business, and education. The evolution of this method has been marked by a growing appreciation for qualitative data and the rich, contextual insights it can provide, which quantitative methods may overlook.

Characteristics of Case Study Research

What sets the case study method apart are its distinct characteristics:

• Intensive Examination: It provides a deep understanding of the case in question, considering the complexity and uniqueness of each case.
• Contextual Analysis: The researcher studies the case within its real-life context, recognizing that the context can significantly influence the phenomenon.
• Multiple Data Sources: Case studies often utilize various data sources like interviews, observations, documents, and reports, which provide multiple perspectives on the subject.
• Participant’s Perspective: This method often focuses on the perspectives of the participants within the case, giving voice to those directly involved.

Types of Case Studies

There are different types of case studies, each suited for specific research objectives:

• Exploratory: These are conducted before large-scale research projects to help identify questions, select measurement constructs, and develop hypotheses.
• Descriptive: These involve a detailed, in-depth description of the case, without attempting to determine cause and effect.
• Explanatory: These are used to investigate cause-and-effect relationships and understand underlying principles of certain phenomena.
• Intrinsic: This type is focused on the case itself because the case presents an unusual or unique issue.
• Instrumental: Here, the case is secondary to understanding a broader issue or phenomenon.
• Collective: These involve studying a group of cases collectively or comparably to understand a phenomenon, population, or general condition.

The Process of Conducting a Case Study

Conducting a case study involves several well-defined steps:

• Defining Your Case: What or who will you study? Define the case and ensure it aligns with your research objectives.
• Selecting Participants: If studying people, careful selection is crucial to ensure they fit the case criteria and can provide the necessary insights.
• Data Collection: Gather information through various methods like interviews, observations, and reviewing documents.
• Data Analysis: Analyze the collected data to identify patterns, themes, and insights related to your research question.
• Reporting Findings: Present your findings in a way that communicates the complexity and richness of the case study, often through narrative.

Case Studies in Practice: Real-world Examples

Case studies are not just academic exercises; they have practical applications in every field. For instance, in business, they can explore consumer behavior or organizational strategies. In psychology, they can provide detailed insight into individual behaviors or conditions. Education often uses case studies to explore teaching methods or learning difficulties.

Advantages of Case Study Research

While the case study method has its critics, it offers several undeniable advantages:

• Rich, Detailed Data: It captures data too complex for quantitative methods.
• Contextual Insights: It provides a better understanding of the phenomena in its natural setting.
• Contribution to Theory: It can generate and refine theory, offering a foundation for further research.

Limitations and Criticism

However, it’s important to acknowledge the limitations and criticisms:

• Generalizability : Findings from case studies may not be widely generalizable due to the focus on a single case.
• Subjectivity: The researcher’s perspective may influence the study, which requires careful reflection and transparency.
• Time-Consuming: They require a significant amount of time to conduct and analyze properly.

Concluding Thoughts on the Case Study Method

The case study method is a powerful tool that allows researchers to delve into the intricacies of a subject in its real-world environment. While not without its challenges, when executed correctly, the insights garnered can be incredibly valuable, offering depth and context that other methods may miss. Robert K\. Yin ’s advocacy for this method underscores its potential to illuminate and explain contemporary phenomena, making it an indispensable part of the researcher’s toolkit.

Reflecting on the case study method, how do you think its application could change with the advancements in technology and data analytics? Could such a traditional method be enhanced or even replaced in the future?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

Submit Comment

Research Methods in Psychology

1 Introduction to Psychological Research – Objectives and Goals, Problems, Hypothesis and Variables

• Nature of Psychological Research
• The Context of Discovery
• Context of Justification
• Characteristics of Psychological Research
• Goals and Objectives of Psychological Research

2 Introduction to Psychological Experiments and Tests

• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Extraneous Variables
• Experimental and Control Groups
• Introduction of Test
• Types of Psychological Test
• Uses of Psychological Tests

3 Steps in Research

• Research Process
• Identification of the Problem
• Review of Literature
• Formulating a Hypothesis
• Identifying Manipulating and Controlling Variables
• Formulating a Research Design
• Constructing Devices for Observation and Measurement
• Sample Selection and Data Collection
• Data Analysis and Interpretation
• Hypothesis Testing
• Drawing Conclusion

4 Types of Research and Methods of Research

• Historical Research
• Descriptive Research
• Correlational Research
• Qualitative Research
• Ex-Post Facto Research
• True Experimental Research
• Quasi-Experimental Research

5 Definition and Description Research Design, Quality of Research Design

• Research Design
• Purpose of Research Design
• Design Selection
• Criteria of Research Design
• Qualities of Research Design

6 Experimental Design (Control Group Design and Two Factor Design)

• Experimental Design
• Control Group Design
• Two Factor Design

7 Survey Design

• Survey Research Designs
• Steps in Survey Design
• Structuring and Designing the Questionnaire
• Interviewing Methodology
• Data Analysis
• Final Report

8 Single Subject Design

• Single Subject Design: Definition and Meaning
• Phases Within Single Subject Design
• Requirements of Single Subject Design
• Characteristics of Single Subject Design
• Types of Single Subject Design
• Advantages of Single Subject Design
• Disadvantages of Single Subject Design

9 Observation Method

• Definition and Meaning of Observation
• Characteristics of Observation
• Types of Observation
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Observation
• Guides for Observation Method

10 Interview and Interviewing

• Definition of Interview
• Types of Interview
• Aspects of Qualitative Research Interviews
• Interview Questions
• Convergent Interviewing as Action Research
• Research Team

11 Questionnaire Method

• Definition and Description of Questionnaires
• Types of Questionnaires
• Purpose of Questionnaire Studies
• Designing Research Questionnaires
• The Methods to Make a Questionnaire Efficient
• The Types of Questionnaire to be Included in the Questionnaire
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Questionnaire
• When to Use a Questionnaire?

12 Case Study

• Definition and Description of Case Study Method
• Historical Account of Case Study Method
• Designing Case Study
• Requirements for Case Studies
• Guideline to Follow in Case Study Method
• Other Important Measures in Case Study Method
• Case Reports

13 Report Writing

• Purpose of a Report
• Writing Style of the Report
• Report Writing – the Do’s and the Don’ts
• Format for Report in Psychology Area
• Major Sections in a Report

14 Review of Literature

• Purposes of Review of Literature
• Sources of Review of Literature
• Types of Literature
• Writing Process of the Review of Literature
• Preparation of Index Card for Reviewing and Abstracting

15 Methodology

• Definition and Purpose of Methodology
• Participants (Sample)
• Apparatus and Materials

16 Result, Analysis and Discussion of the Data

• Definition and Description of Results
• Statistical Presentation
• Tables and Figures

17 Summary and Conclusion

• Summary Definition and Description
• Guidelines for Writing a Summary
• Writing the Summary and Choosing Words
• A Process for Paraphrasing and Summarising
• Summary of a Report
• Writing Conclusions

18 References in Research Report

• Reference List (the Format)
• References (Process of Writing)
• Reference List and Print Sources
• Electronic Sources
• Book on CD Tape and Movie
• Reference Specifications
• General Guidelines to Write References

Share on Mastodon

The Case Study as Research Method: A Practical Handbook

Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management

ISSN : 1176-6093

Article publication date: 21 June 2011

Scapens, R.W. (2011), "The Case Study as Research Method: A Practical Handbook", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management , Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 201-204. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091111137582

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2011, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

This book aims to provide case‐study researchers with a step‐by‐step practical guide to “help them conduct the study with the required degree of rigour” (p. xi).

It seeks to “demonstrate that the case study is indeed a scientific method” (p. 104) and to show “the usefulness of the case method as one tool in the researcher's methodological arsenal” (p. 105). The individual chapters cover the various stages in conducting case‐study research, and each chapter sets out a number of practical steps which have to be taken by the researcher. The following are the eight stages/chapters and, in brackets, the number of steps in each stages:

Assessing appropriateness and usefulness (4).

Ensuring accuracy of results (21).

Preparation (6).

Selecting cases (4).

Collecting data (7).

Analyzing data (4).

Interpreting data (3).

Reporting results (4).

It is particularly noticeable that ensuring accuracy of results has by far the largest number of number of steps – 21 steps compared to seven or fewer steps in the other stages. This reflects Gagnon's concern to demonstrate the scientific rigour of case‐study research. In the forward, he explains that the book draws on his experience in conducting his own PhD research, which was closely supervised by three professors, one of whom was inclined towards quantitative research. Consequently, his research was underpinned by the principles and philosophy of quantitative research. This is clearly reflected in the approach taken in this book, which seeks to show that case‐study research is just as rigorous and scientific as quantitative research, and it can produce an objective and accurate representation of the observed reality.

There is no discussion of the methodological issues relating to the use of case‐study research methods. This is acknowledged in the forward, although Gagnon refers to them as philosophical or epistemological issues (p. xii), as he tends to use the terms methodology and method interchangeably – as is common in quantitative research. Although he starts (step 1.1) by trying to distance case and other qualitative research from the work of positivists, arguing that society is socially constructed, he nevertheless sees social reality as objective and independent of the researcher. So for Gagnon, the aim of case research is to accurately reflect that reality. At various points in the book the notion of interpretation is used – evidence is interpreted and the (objective) case findings have to be interpreted.

So although there is a distancing from positivist research (p. 1), the approach taken in this book retains an objective view of the social reality which is being researched; a view which is rather different to the subjective view of reality taken by many interpretive case researchers. This distinction between an objective and a subjective view of the social reality being researched – and especially its use in contrasting positivist and interpretive research – has its origins the taxonomy of Burrell and Morgan (1979) . Although there have been various developments in the so‐called “objective‐subjective debate”, and recently some discussion in relation to management accounting research ( Kakkuri‐Knuuttila et al. , 2008 ; Ahrens, 2008 ), this debate is not mentioned in the book. Nevertheless, it is clear that Gagnon is firmly in the objective camp. In a recent paper, Johnson et al. (2006, p. 138) provide a more contemporary classification of the different types of qualitative research. In their terms, the approach taken in this book could be described as neo‐empiricist – an approach which they characterise as “qualitative positivists”.

The approach taken in this handbook leaves case studies open to the criticisms that they are a small sample, and consequently difficult to generalise, and to arguments that case studies are most appropriate for exploratory research which can subsequently be generalised though quantitative research. Gagnon explains that this was the approach he used after completing his thesis (p. xi). The handbook only seems to recognise two types of case studies, namely exploratory and raw empirical case studies – the latter being used where “the researcher is interested in a subject without having formed any preconceived ideas about it” (p. 15) – which has echoes of Glaser and Strauss (1967) . However, limiting case studies to these two types ignores other potential types; in particular, explanatory case studies which are where interpretive case‐study research can make important contributions ( Ryan et al. , 2002 ).

This limited approach to case studies comes through in the practical steps which are recommended in the handbook, and especially in the discussion of reliability and validity. The suggested steps seem to be designed to keep very close to the notions of reliability and validity used in quantitative research. There is no mention of the recent discussion of “validity” in interpretive accounting research, which emphasises the importance of authenticity and credibility and their implications for writing up qualitative and case‐study research ( Lukka and Modell, 2010 ). Although the final stage of Gagnon's handbook makes some very general comments about reporting the results, it does not mention, for example, Baxter and Chua's (2008) paper in QRAM which discusses the importance of demonstrating authenticity, credibility and transferability in writing qualitative research.

Despite Gagnon's emphasis on traditional notions of reliability and validity the handbook provides some useful practical advice for all case‐study researchers. For example, case‐study research needs a very good research design; case‐study researchers must work hard to gain access to and acceptance in the research settings; a clear strategy is needed for data collection; the case researcher should create field notes (in a field notebook, or otherwise) to record all the thoughts, ideas, observations, etc. that would not otherwise be collected; and the vast amount of data that case‐study research can generate needs to be carefully managed. Furthermore, because of what Gagnon calls the “risk of mortality” (p. 54) (i.e. the risk that access to a research site may be lost – for instance, if the organisation goes bankrupt) it is crucial for some additional site(s) to be selected at the outset to ensure that the planned research can be completed. This is what I call “insurance cases” when talking to my own PhD students. Interestingly, Gagnon recognises the ethical issues involved in doing case studies – something which is not always mentioned by the more objectivist type of case‐study researchers. He emphasises that it is crucial to honour confidentiality agreements, to ensure data are stored securely and that commitments are met and promises kept.

There is an interesting discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of using computer methods in analysing data (in stage 6). However, the discussion of coding appears to be heavily influenced by grounded theory, and is clearly concerned with producing an accurate reflection of an objective reality. In addition, Gagnon's depiction of case analysis is overly focussed on content analysis – possibly because it is a quantitative type of technique. There is no reference to the other approaches available to qualitative researchers. For example, there is no mention of the various visualisation techniques set out in Miles and Huberman (1994) .

To summarise, Gagnon's book is particularly useful for case‐study researchers who see the reality they are researching as objective and researcher independent. However, this is a sub‐set of case‐study researchers. Although some of the practical guidance offered is relevant for other types of case‐study researchers, those who see multiple realities in the social actors and/or recognise the subjectivity of the research process might have difficulty with some of the steps in this handbook. Gagnon's aim to show that the case study is a scientific method, gives the handbook a focus on traditional (quantitatively inspired) notions rigour and validity, and a tendency to ignore (or at least marginalise) other types of case study research. For example, the focus on exploratory cases, which need to be supplemented by broad based quantitative research, overlooks the real potential of case study research which lies in explanatory cases. Furthermore, Gagnon is rather worried about participant research, as the researcher may play a role which is “not consistent with scientific method” (p. 42), and which may introduce researcher bias and thereby damage “the impartiality of the study” (p. 53). Leaving aside the philosophical question about whether any social science research, including quantitative research, can be impartial, this stance could severely limit the potential of case‐study research and it would rule out both the early work on the sociology of mass production and the recent calls for interventionist research. Clearly, there could be a problem where a researcher is trying to sell consulting services, but there is a long tradition of social researchers working within organisations that they are studying. Furthermore, if interpretive research is to be relevant for practice, researchers may have to work with organisations to introduce new ideas and new ways of analysing problems. Gagnon would seem to want to avoid all such research – as it would not be “impartial”.

Consequently, although there is some good practical advice for case study researchers in this handbook, some of the recommendations have to be treated cautiously, as it is a book which sees case‐study research in a very specific way. As mentioned earlier, in the Forward Gagnon explicitly recognises that the book does not take a position on the methodological debates surrounding the use of case studies as a research method, and he says that “The reader should therefore use and judge this handbook with these considerations in mind” (p. xii). This is very good advice – caveat emptor .

Ahrens , T. ( 2008 ), “ A comment on Marja‐Liisa Kakkuri‐Knuuttila ”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 33 Nos 2/3 , pp. 291 ‐ 7 , Kari Lukka and Jaakko Kuorikoski.

Baxter , J. and Chua , W.F. ( 2008 ), “ The field researcher as author‐writer ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management , Vol. 5 No. 2 , pp. 101 ‐ 21 .

Burrell , G. and Morgan , G. ( 1979 ), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis , Heinneman , London .

Glaser , B.G. and Strauss , A.L. ( 1967 ), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research , Aldine , New York, NY .

Johnson , P. , Buehring , A. , Cassell , C. and Symon , G. ( 2006 ), “ Evaluating qualitative management research: towards a contingent critieriology ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 8 No. 3 , pp. 131 ‐ 56 .

Kakkuri‐Knuuttila , M.‐L. , Lukka , K. and Kuorikoski , J. ( 2008 ), “ Straddling between paradigms: a naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting ”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 33 Nos 2/3 , pp. 267 ‐ 91 .

Lukka , K. and Modell , S. ( 2010 ), “ Validation in interpretive management accounting research ”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 35 , pp. 462 ‐ 77 .

Miles , M.B. and Huberman , A.M. ( 1994 ), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Source Book of New Methods , 2nd ed. , Sage , London .

Ryan , R.J. , Scapens , R.W. and Theobald , M. ( 2002 ), Research Methods and Methodology in Finance and Accounting , 2nd ed. , Thomson Learning , London .

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

What is case study research?

Last updated

8 February 2023

Reviewed by

Cathy Heath

Short on time? Get an AI generated summary of this article instead

Suppose a company receives a spike in the number of customer complaints, or medical experts discover an outbreak of illness affecting children but are not quite sure of the reason. In both cases, carrying out a case study could be the best way to get answers.

Organization

Case studies can be carried out across different disciplines, including education, medicine, sociology, and business.

Most case studies employ qualitative methods, but quantitative methods can also be used. Researchers can then describe, compare, evaluate, and identify patterns or cause-and-effect relationships between the various variables under study. They can then use this knowledge to decide what action to take. 

Another thing to note is that case studies are generally singular in their focus. This means they narrow focus to a particular area, making them highly subjective. You cannot always generalize the results of a case study and apply them to a larger population. However, they are valuable tools to illustrate a principle or develop a thesis.

Analyze case study research

Dovetail streamlines case study research to help you uncover and share actionable insights

• What are the different types of case study designs?

Researchers can choose from a variety of case study designs. The design they choose is dependent on what questions they need to answer, the context of the research environment, how much data they already have, and what resources are available.

Here are the common types of case study design:

Explanatory

An explanatory case study is an initial explanation of the how or why that is behind something. This design is commonly used when studying a real-life phenomenon or event. Once the organization understands the reasons behind a phenomenon, it can then make changes to enhance or eliminate the variables causing it. 

Here is an example: How is co-teaching implemented in elementary schools? The title for a case study of this subject could be “Case Study of the Implementation of Co-Teaching in Elementary Schools.”

Descriptive

An illustrative or descriptive case study helps researchers shed light on an unfamiliar object or subject after a period of time. The case study provides an in-depth review of the issue at hand and adds real-world examples in the area the researcher wants the audience to understand. 

The researcher makes no inferences or causal statements about the object or subject under review. This type of design is often used to understand cultural shifts.

Here is an example: How did people cope with the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami? This case study could be titled "A Case Study of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and its Effect on the Indonesian Population."

Exploratory

Exploratory research is also called a pilot case study. It is usually the first step within a larger research project, often relying on questionnaires and surveys . Researchers use exploratory research to help narrow down their focus, define parameters, draft a specific research question , and/or identify variables in a larger study. This research design usually covers a wider area than others, and focuses on the ‘what’ and ‘who’ of a topic.

Here is an example: How do nutrition and socialization in early childhood affect learning in children? The title of the exploratory study may be “Case Study of the Effects of Nutrition and Socialization on Learning in Early Childhood.”

An intrinsic case study is specifically designed to look at a unique and special phenomenon. At the start of the study, the researcher defines the phenomenon and the uniqueness that differentiates it from others. 

In this case, researchers do not attempt to generalize, compare, or challenge the existing assumptions. Instead, they explore the unique variables to enhance understanding. Here is an example: “Case Study of Volcanic Lightning.”

This design can also be identified as a cumulative case study. It uses information from past studies or observations of groups of people in certain settings as the foundation of the new study. Given that it takes multiple areas into account, it allows for greater generalization than a single case study. 

The researchers also get an in-depth look at a particular subject from different viewpoints.  Here is an example: “Case Study of how PTSD affected Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Differently Due to Advances in Military Technology.”

Critical instance

A critical case study incorporates both explanatory and intrinsic study designs. It does not have predetermined purposes beyond an investigation of the said subject. It can be used for a deeper explanation of the cause-and-effect relationship. It can also be used to question a common assumption or myth. 

The findings can then be used further to generalize whether they would also apply in a different environment.  Here is an example: “What Effect Does Prolonged Use of Social Media Have on the Mind of American Youth?”

Instrumental

Instrumental research attempts to achieve goals beyond understanding the object at hand. Researchers explore a larger subject through different, separate studies and use the findings to understand its relationship to another subject. This type of design also provides insight into an issue or helps refine a theory. 

For example, you may want to determine if violent behavior in children predisposes them to crime later in life. The focus is on the relationship between children and violent behavior, and why certain children do become violent. Here is an example: “Violence Breeds Violence: Childhood Exposure and Participation in Adult Crime.”

Evaluation case study design is employed to research the effects of a program, policy, or intervention, and assess its effectiveness and impact on future decision-making. 

For example, you might want to see whether children learn times tables quicker through an educational game on their iPad versus a more teacher-led intervention. Here is an example: “An Investigation of the Impact of an iPad Multiplication Game for Primary School Children.” 

• When do you use case studies?

Case studies are ideal when you want to gain a contextual, concrete, or in-depth understanding of a particular subject. It helps you understand the characteristics, implications, and meanings of the subject.

They are also an excellent choice for those writing a thesis or dissertation, as they help keep the project focused on a particular area when resources or time may be too limited to cover a wider one. You may have to conduct several case studies to explore different aspects of the subject in question and understand the problem.

• What are the steps to follow when conducting a case study?

1. Select a case

Once you identify the problem at hand and come up with questions, identify the case you will focus on. The study can provide insights into the subject at hand, challenge existing assumptions, propose a course of action, and/or open up new areas for further research.

2. Create a theoretical framework

While you will be focusing on a specific detail, the case study design you choose should be linked to existing knowledge on the topic. This prevents it from becoming an isolated description and allows for enhancing the existing information. 

It may expand the current theory by bringing up new ideas or concepts, challenge established assumptions, or exemplify a theory by exploring how it answers the problem at hand. A theoretical framework starts with a literature review of the sources relevant to the topic in focus. This helps in identifying key concepts to guide analysis and interpretation.

3. Collect the data

Case studies are frequently supplemented with qualitative data such as observations, interviews, and a review of both primary and secondary sources such as official records, news articles, and photographs. There may also be quantitative data —this data assists in understanding the case thoroughly.

4. Analyze your case

The results of the research depend on the research design. Most case studies are structured with chapters or topic headings for easy explanation and presentation. Others may be written as narratives to allow researchers to explore various angles of the topic and analyze its meanings and implications.

In all areas, always give a detailed contextual understanding of the case and connect it to the existing theory and literature before discussing how it fits into your problem area.

• What are some case study examples?

What are the best approaches for introducing our product into the Kenyan market?

How does the change in marketing strategy aid in increasing the sales volumes of product Y?

How can teachers enhance student participation in classrooms?

How does poverty affect literacy levels in children?

Case study topics

Case study of product marketing strategies in the Kenyan market

Case study of the effects of a marketing strategy change on product Y sales volumes

Case study of X school teachers that encourage active student participation in the classroom

Case study of the effects of poverty on literacy levels in children

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 6 February 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 April 2023

Last updated: 7 March 2023

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

Research Writing and Analysis

• NVivo Group and Study Sessions
• SPSS This link opens in a new window
• Statistical Analysis Group sessions
• Using Qualtrics
• Dissertation and Data Analysis Group Sessions
• Defense Schedule - Commons Calendar This link opens in a new window
• Research Process Flow Chart
• Research Alignment Chapter 1 This link opens in a new window
• Step 1: Seek Out Evidence
• Step 2: Explain
• Step 3: The Big Picture
• Step 4: Own It
• Step 5: Illustrate
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review This link opens in a new window
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• How to Synthesize and Analyze
• Synthesis and Analysis Practice
• Synthesis and Analysis Group Sessions
• Problem Statement
• Purpose Statement
• Conceptual Framework
• Theoretical Framework
• Locating Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks This link opens in a new window
• Quantitative Research Questions
• Qualitative Research Questions
• Trustworthiness of Qualitative Data
• Analysis and Coding Example- Qualitative Data
• Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Dissertation to Journal Article This link opens in a new window
• International Journal of Online Graduate Education (IJOGE) This link opens in a new window
• Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning (JRIT&L) This link opens in a new window

Writing a Case Study

What is a case study?

A Case study is: 

• An in-depth research design that primarily uses a qualitative methodology but sometimes​​ includes quantitative methodology.
• Used to examine an identifiable problem confirmed through research.
• Used to investigate an individual, group of people, organization, or event.
• Used to mostly answer "how" and "why" questions.

What are the different types of case studies?

Note: These are the primary case studies. As you continue to research and learn

about case studies you will begin to find a robust list of different types. 

Who are your case study participants?

What is triangulation ? 

Validity and credibility are an essential part of the case study. Therefore, the researcher should include triangulation to ensure trustworthiness while accurately reflecting what the researcher seeks to investigate.

How to write a Case Study?

When developing a case study, there are different ways you could present the information, but remember to include the five parts for your case study.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods

Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on 5 May 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 30 January 2023.

A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organisation, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research.

A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods , but quantitative methods are sometimes also used. Case studies are good for describing , comparing, evaluating, and understanding different aspects of a research problem .

Table of contents

When to do a case study, step 1: select a case, step 2: build a theoretical framework, step 3: collect your data, step 4: describe and analyse the case.

A case study is an appropriate research design when you want to gain concrete, contextual, in-depth knowledge about a specific real-world subject. It allows you to explore the key characteristics, meanings, and implications of the case.

Case studies are often a good choice in a thesis or dissertation . They keep your project focused and manageable when you don’t have the time or resources to do large-scale research.

You might use just one complex case study where you explore a single subject in depth, or conduct multiple case studies to compare and illuminate different aspects of your research problem.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Once you have developed your problem statement and research questions , you should be ready to choose the specific case that you want to focus on. A good case study should have the potential to:

• Provide new or unexpected insights into the subject
• Challenge or complicate existing assumptions and theories
• Propose practical courses of action to resolve a problem
• Open up new directions for future research

Unlike quantitative or experimental research, a strong case study does not require a random or representative sample. In fact, case studies often deliberately focus on unusual, neglected, or outlying cases which may shed new light on the research problem.

If you find yourself aiming to simultaneously investigate and solve an issue, consider conducting action research . As its name suggests, action research conducts research and takes action at the same time, and is highly iterative and flexible. 

However, you can also choose a more common or representative case to exemplify a particular category, experience, or phenomenon.

While case studies focus more on concrete details than general theories, they should usually have some connection with theory in the field. This way the case study is not just an isolated description, but is integrated into existing knowledge about the topic. It might aim to:

• Exemplify a theory by showing how it explains the case under investigation
• Expand on a theory by uncovering new concepts and ideas that need to be incorporated
• Challenge a theory by exploring an outlier case that doesn’t fit with established assumptions

To ensure that your analysis of the case has a solid academic grounding, you should conduct a literature review of sources related to the topic and develop a theoretical framework . This means identifying key concepts and theories to guide your analysis and interpretation.

There are many different research methods you can use to collect data on your subject. Case studies tend to focus on qualitative data using methods such as interviews, observations, and analysis of primary and secondary sources (e.g., newspaper articles, photographs, official records). Sometimes a case study will also collect quantitative data .

The aim is to gain as thorough an understanding as possible of the case and its context.

In writing up the case study, you need to bring together all the relevant aspects to give as complete a picture as possible of the subject.

How you report your findings depends on the type of research you are doing. Some case studies are structured like a standard scientific paper or thesis, with separate sections or chapters for the methods , results , and discussion .

Others are written in a more narrative style, aiming to explore the case from various angles and analyse its meanings and implications (for example, by using textual analysis or discourse analysis ).

In all cases, though, make sure to give contextual details about the case, connect it back to the literature and theory, and discuss how it fits into wider patterns or debates.

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.

McCombes, S. (2023, January 30). Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved 24 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/case-studies/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, correlational research | guide, design & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, descriptive research design | definition, methods & examples.

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Res Methodol

The case study approach

Sarah crowe.

1 Division of Primary Care, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Kathrin Cresswell

2 Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Ann Robertson

3 School of Health in Social Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Anthony Avery

Aziz sheikh.

The case study approach allows in-depth, multi-faceted explorations of complex issues in their real-life settings. The value of the case study approach is well recognised in the fields of business, law and policy, but somewhat less so in health services research. Based on our experiences of conducting several health-related case studies, we reflect on the different types of case study design, the specific research questions this approach can help answer, the data sources that tend to be used, and the particular advantages and disadvantages of employing this methodological approach. The paper concludes with key pointers to aid those designing and appraising proposals for conducting case study research, and a checklist to help readers assess the quality of case study reports.

Introduction

The case study approach is particularly useful to employ when there is a need to obtain an in-depth appreciation of an issue, event or phenomenon of interest, in its natural real-life context. Our aim in writing this piece is to provide insights into when to consider employing this approach and an overview of key methodological considerations in relation to the design, planning, analysis, interpretation and reporting of case studies.

The illustrative 'grand round', 'case report' and 'case series' have a long tradition in clinical practice and research. Presenting detailed critiques, typically of one or more patients, aims to provide insights into aspects of the clinical case and, in doing so, illustrate broader lessons that may be learnt. In research, the conceptually-related case study approach can be used, for example, to describe in detail a patient's episode of care, explore professional attitudes to and experiences of a new policy initiative or service development or more generally to 'investigate contemporary phenomena within its real-life context' [ 1 ]. Based on our experiences of conducting a range of case studies, we reflect on when to consider using this approach, discuss the key steps involved and illustrate, with examples, some of the practical challenges of attaining an in-depth understanding of a 'case' as an integrated whole. In keeping with previously published work, we acknowledge the importance of theory to underpin the design, selection, conduct and interpretation of case studies[ 2 ]. In so doing, we make passing reference to the different epistemological approaches used in case study research by key theoreticians and methodologists in this field of enquiry.

This paper is structured around the following main questions: What is a case study? What are case studies used for? How are case studies conducted? What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided? We draw in particular on four of our own recently published examples of case studies (see Tables ​ Tables1, 1 , ​ ,2, 2 , ​ ,3 3 and ​ and4) 4 ) and those of others to illustrate our discussion[ 3 - 7 ].

Example of a case study investigating the reasons for differences in recruitment rates of minority ethnic people in asthma research[ 3 ]

Example of a case study investigating the process of planning and implementing a service in Primary Care Organisations[ 4 ]

Example of a case study investigating the introduction of the electronic health records[ 5 ]

Example of a case study investigating the formal and informal ways students learn about patient safety[ 6 ]

What is a case study?

A case study is a research approach that is used to generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context. It is an established research design that is used extensively in a wide variety of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. A case study can be defined in a variety of ways (Table ​ (Table5), 5 ), the central tenet being the need to explore an event or phenomenon in depth and in its natural context. It is for this reason sometimes referred to as a "naturalistic" design; this is in contrast to an "experimental" design (such as a randomised controlled trial) in which the investigator seeks to exert control over and manipulate the variable(s) of interest.

Definitions of a case study

Stake's work has been particularly influential in defining the case study approach to scientific enquiry. He has helpfully characterised three main types of case study: intrinsic , instrumental and collective [ 8 ]. An intrinsic case study is typically undertaken to learn about a unique phenomenon. The researcher should define the uniqueness of the phenomenon, which distinguishes it from all others. In contrast, the instrumental case study uses a particular case (some of which may be better than others) to gain a broader appreciation of an issue or phenomenon. The collective case study involves studying multiple cases simultaneously or sequentially in an attempt to generate a still broader appreciation of a particular issue.

These are however not necessarily mutually exclusive categories. In the first of our examples (Table ​ (Table1), 1 ), we undertook an intrinsic case study to investigate the issue of recruitment of minority ethnic people into the specific context of asthma research studies, but it developed into a instrumental case study through seeking to understand the issue of recruitment of these marginalised populations more generally, generating a number of the findings that are potentially transferable to other disease contexts[ 3 ]. In contrast, the other three examples (see Tables ​ Tables2, 2 , ​ ,3 3 and ​ and4) 4 ) employed collective case study designs to study the introduction of workforce reconfiguration in primary care, the implementation of electronic health records into hospitals, and to understand the ways in which healthcare students learn about patient safety considerations[ 4 - 6 ]. Although our study focusing on the introduction of General Practitioners with Specialist Interests (Table ​ (Table2) 2 ) was explicitly collective in design (four contrasting primary care organisations were studied), is was also instrumental in that this particular professional group was studied as an exemplar of the more general phenomenon of workforce redesign[ 4 ].

What are case studies used for?

According to Yin, case studies can be used to explain, describe or explore events or phenomena in the everyday contexts in which they occur[ 1 ]. These can, for example, help to understand and explain causal links and pathways resulting from a new policy initiative or service development (see Tables ​ Tables2 2 and ​ and3, 3 , for example)[ 1 ]. In contrast to experimental designs, which seek to test a specific hypothesis through deliberately manipulating the environment (like, for example, in a randomised controlled trial giving a new drug to randomly selected individuals and then comparing outcomes with controls),[ 9 ] the case study approach lends itself well to capturing information on more explanatory ' how ', 'what' and ' why ' questions, such as ' how is the intervention being implemented and received on the ground?'. The case study approach can offer additional insights into what gaps exist in its delivery or why one implementation strategy might be chosen over another. This in turn can help develop or refine theory, as shown in our study of the teaching of patient safety in undergraduate curricula (Table ​ (Table4 4 )[ 6 , 10 ]. Key questions to consider when selecting the most appropriate study design are whether it is desirable or indeed possible to undertake a formal experimental investigation in which individuals and/or organisations are allocated to an intervention or control arm? Or whether the wish is to obtain a more naturalistic understanding of an issue? The former is ideally studied using a controlled experimental design, whereas the latter is more appropriately studied using a case study design.

Case studies may be approached in different ways depending on the epistemological standpoint of the researcher, that is, whether they take a critical (questioning one's own and others' assumptions), interpretivist (trying to understand individual and shared social meanings) or positivist approach (orientating towards the criteria of natural sciences, such as focusing on generalisability considerations) (Table ​ (Table6). 6 ). Whilst such a schema can be conceptually helpful, it may be appropriate to draw on more than one approach in any case study, particularly in the context of conducting health services research. Doolin has, for example, noted that in the context of undertaking interpretative case studies, researchers can usefully draw on a critical, reflective perspective which seeks to take into account the wider social and political environment that has shaped the case[ 11 ].

Example of epistemological approaches that may be used in case study research

How are case studies conducted?

Here, we focus on the main stages of research activity when planning and undertaking a case study; the crucial stages are: defining the case; selecting the case(s); collecting and analysing the data; interpreting data; and reporting the findings.

Defining the case

Carefully formulated research question(s), informed by the existing literature and a prior appreciation of the theoretical issues and setting(s), are all important in appropriately and succinctly defining the case[ 8 , 12 ]. Crucially, each case should have a pre-defined boundary which clarifies the nature and time period covered by the case study (i.e. its scope, beginning and end), the relevant social group, organisation or geographical area of interest to the investigator, the types of evidence to be collected, and the priorities for data collection and analysis (see Table ​ Table7 7 )[ 1 ]. A theory driven approach to defining the case may help generate knowledge that is potentially transferable to a range of clinical contexts and behaviours; using theory is also likely to result in a more informed appreciation of, for example, how and why interventions have succeeded or failed[ 13 ].

Example of a checklist for rating a case study proposal[ 8 ]

For example, in our evaluation of the introduction of electronic health records in English hospitals (Table ​ (Table3), 3 ), we defined our cases as the NHS Trusts that were receiving the new technology[ 5 ]. Our focus was on how the technology was being implemented. However, if the primary research interest had been on the social and organisational dimensions of implementation, we might have defined our case differently as a grouping of healthcare professionals (e.g. doctors and/or nurses). The precise beginning and end of the case may however prove difficult to define. Pursuing this same example, when does the process of implementation and adoption of an electronic health record system really begin or end? Such judgements will inevitably be influenced by a range of factors, including the research question, theory of interest, the scope and richness of the gathered data and the resources available to the research team.

Selecting the case(s)

The decision on how to select the case(s) to study is a very important one that merits some reflection. In an intrinsic case study, the case is selected on its own merits[ 8 ]. The case is selected not because it is representative of other cases, but because of its uniqueness, which is of genuine interest to the researchers. This was, for example, the case in our study of the recruitment of minority ethnic participants into asthma research (Table ​ (Table1) 1 ) as our earlier work had demonstrated the marginalisation of minority ethnic people with asthma, despite evidence of disproportionate asthma morbidity[ 14 , 15 ]. In another example of an intrinsic case study, Hellstrom et al.[ 16 ] studied an elderly married couple living with dementia to explore how dementia had impacted on their understanding of home, their everyday life and their relationships.

For an instrumental case study, selecting a "typical" case can work well[ 8 ]. In contrast to the intrinsic case study, the particular case which is chosen is of less importance than selecting a case that allows the researcher to investigate an issue or phenomenon. For example, in order to gain an understanding of doctors' responses to health policy initiatives, Som undertook an instrumental case study interviewing clinicians who had a range of responsibilities for clinical governance in one NHS acute hospital trust[ 17 ]. Sampling a "deviant" or "atypical" case may however prove even more informative, potentially enabling the researcher to identify causal processes, generate hypotheses and develop theory.

In collective or multiple case studies, a number of cases are carefully selected. This offers the advantage of allowing comparisons to be made across several cases and/or replication. Choosing a "typical" case may enable the findings to be generalised to theory (i.e. analytical generalisation) or to test theory by replicating the findings in a second or even a third case (i.e. replication logic)[ 1 ]. Yin suggests two or three literal replications (i.e. predicting similar results) if the theory is straightforward and five or more if the theory is more subtle. However, critics might argue that selecting 'cases' in this way is insufficiently reflexive and ill-suited to the complexities of contemporary healthcare organisations.

The selected case study site(s) should allow the research team access to the group of individuals, the organisation, the processes or whatever else constitutes the chosen unit of analysis for the study. Access is therefore a central consideration; the researcher needs to come to know the case study site(s) well and to work cooperatively with them. Selected cases need to be not only interesting but also hospitable to the inquiry [ 8 ] if they are to be informative and answer the research question(s). Case study sites may also be pre-selected for the researcher, with decisions being influenced by key stakeholders. For example, our selection of case study sites in the evaluation of the implementation and adoption of electronic health record systems (see Table ​ Table3) 3 ) was heavily influenced by NHS Connecting for Health, the government agency that was responsible for overseeing the National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT)[ 5 ]. This prominent stakeholder had already selected the NHS sites (through a competitive bidding process) to be early adopters of the electronic health record systems and had negotiated contracts that detailed the deployment timelines.

It is also important to consider in advance the likely burden and risks associated with participation for those who (or the site(s) which) comprise the case study. Of particular importance is the obligation for the researcher to think through the ethical implications of the study (e.g. the risk of inadvertently breaching anonymity or confidentiality) and to ensure that potential participants/participating sites are provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice about joining the study. The outcome of providing this information might be that the emotive burden associated with participation, or the organisational disruption associated with supporting the fieldwork, is considered so high that the individuals or sites decide against participation.

In our example of evaluating implementations of electronic health record systems, given the restricted number of early adopter sites available to us, we sought purposively to select a diverse range of implementation cases among those that were available[ 5 ]. We chose a mixture of teaching, non-teaching and Foundation Trust hospitals, and examples of each of the three electronic health record systems procured centrally by the NPfIT. At one recruited site, it quickly became apparent that access was problematic because of competing demands on that organisation. Recognising the importance of full access and co-operative working for generating rich data, the research team decided not to pursue work at that site and instead to focus on other recruited sites.

Collecting the data

In order to develop a thorough understanding of the case, the case study approach usually involves the collection of multiple sources of evidence, using a range of quantitative (e.g. questionnaires, audits and analysis of routinely collected healthcare data) and more commonly qualitative techniques (e.g. interviews, focus groups and observations). The use of multiple sources of data (data triangulation) has been advocated as a way of increasing the internal validity of a study (i.e. the extent to which the method is appropriate to answer the research question)[ 8 , 18 - 21 ]. An underlying assumption is that data collected in different ways should lead to similar conclusions, and approaching the same issue from different angles can help develop a holistic picture of the phenomenon (Table ​ (Table2 2 )[ 4 ].

Brazier and colleagues used a mixed-methods case study approach to investigate the impact of a cancer care programme[ 22 ]. Here, quantitative measures were collected with questionnaires before, and five months after, the start of the intervention which did not yield any statistically significant results. Qualitative interviews with patients however helped provide an insight into potentially beneficial process-related aspects of the programme, such as greater, perceived patient involvement in care. The authors reported how this case study approach provided a number of contextual factors likely to influence the effectiveness of the intervention and which were not likely to have been obtained from quantitative methods alone.

In collective or multiple case studies, data collection needs to be flexible enough to allow a detailed description of each individual case to be developed (e.g. the nature of different cancer care programmes), before considering the emerging similarities and differences in cross-case comparisons (e.g. to explore why one programme is more effective than another). It is important that data sources from different cases are, where possible, broadly comparable for this purpose even though they may vary in nature and depth.

Analysing, interpreting and reporting case studies

Making sense and offering a coherent interpretation of the typically disparate sources of data (whether qualitative alone or together with quantitative) is far from straightforward. Repeated reviewing and sorting of the voluminous and detail-rich data are integral to the process of analysis. In collective case studies, it is helpful to analyse data relating to the individual component cases first, before making comparisons across cases. Attention needs to be paid to variations within each case and, where relevant, the relationship between different causes, effects and outcomes[ 23 ]. Data will need to be organised and coded to allow the key issues, both derived from the literature and emerging from the dataset, to be easily retrieved at a later stage. An initial coding frame can help capture these issues and can be applied systematically to the whole dataset with the aid of a qualitative data analysis software package.

The Framework approach is a practical approach, comprising of five stages (familiarisation; identifying a thematic framework; indexing; charting; mapping and interpretation) , to managing and analysing large datasets particularly if time is limited, as was the case in our study of recruitment of South Asians into asthma research (Table ​ (Table1 1 )[ 3 , 24 ]. Theoretical frameworks may also play an important role in integrating different sources of data and examining emerging themes. For example, we drew on a socio-technical framework to help explain the connections between different elements - technology; people; and the organisational settings within which they worked - in our study of the introduction of electronic health record systems (Table ​ (Table3 3 )[ 5 ]. Our study of patient safety in undergraduate curricula drew on an evaluation-based approach to design and analysis, which emphasised the importance of the academic, organisational and practice contexts through which students learn (Table ​ (Table4 4 )[ 6 ].

Case study findings can have implications both for theory development and theory testing. They may establish, strengthen or weaken historical explanations of a case and, in certain circumstances, allow theoretical (as opposed to statistical) generalisation beyond the particular cases studied[ 12 ]. These theoretical lenses should not, however, constitute a strait-jacket and the cases should not be "forced to fit" the particular theoretical framework that is being employed.

When reporting findings, it is important to provide the reader with enough contextual information to understand the processes that were followed and how the conclusions were reached. In a collective case study, researchers may choose to present the findings from individual cases separately before amalgamating across cases. Care must be taken to ensure the anonymity of both case sites and individual participants (if agreed in advance) by allocating appropriate codes or withholding descriptors. In the example given in Table ​ Table3, 3 , we decided against providing detailed information on the NHS sites and individual participants in order to avoid the risk of inadvertent disclosure of identities[ 5 , 25 ].

What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided?

The case study approach is, as with all research, not without its limitations. When investigating the formal and informal ways undergraduate students learn about patient safety (Table ​ (Table4), 4 ), for example, we rapidly accumulated a large quantity of data. The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted on the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources. This highlights a more general point of the importance of avoiding the temptation to collect as much data as possible; adequate time also needs to be set aside for data analysis and interpretation of what are often highly complex datasets.

Case study research has sometimes been criticised for lacking scientific rigour and providing little basis for generalisation (i.e. producing findings that may be transferable to other settings)[ 1 ]. There are several ways to address these concerns, including: the use of theoretical sampling (i.e. drawing on a particular conceptual framework); respondent validation (i.e. participants checking emerging findings and the researcher's interpretation, and providing an opinion as to whether they feel these are accurate); and transparency throughout the research process (see Table ​ Table8 8 )[ 8 , 18 - 21 , 23 , 26 ]. Transparency can be achieved by describing in detail the steps involved in case selection, data collection, the reasons for the particular methods chosen, and the researcher's background and level of involvement (i.e. being explicit about how the researcher has influenced data collection and interpretation). Seeking potential, alternative explanations, and being explicit about how interpretations and conclusions were reached, help readers to judge the trustworthiness of the case study report. Stake provides a critique checklist for a case study report (Table ​ (Table9 9 )[ 8 ].

Potential pitfalls and mitigating actions when undertaking case study research

Stake's checklist for assessing the quality of a case study report[ 8 ]

Conclusions

The case study approach allows, amongst other things, critical events, interventions, policy developments and programme-based service reforms to be studied in detail in a real-life context. It should therefore be considered when an experimental design is either inappropriate to answer the research questions posed or impossible to undertake. Considering the frequency with which implementations of innovations are now taking place in healthcare settings and how well the case study approach lends itself to in-depth, complex health service research, we believe this approach should be more widely considered by researchers. Though inherently challenging, the research case study can, if carefully conceptualised and thoughtfully undertaken and reported, yield powerful insights into many important aspects of health and healthcare delivery.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

AS conceived this article. SC, KC and AR wrote this paper with GH, AA and AS all commenting on various drafts. SC and AS are guarantors.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/100/prepub

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the participants and colleagues who contributed to the individual case studies that we have drawn on. This work received no direct funding, but it has been informed by projects funded by Asthma UK, the NHS Service Delivery Organisation, NHS Connecting for Health Evaluation Programme, and Patient Safety Research Portfolio. We would also like to thank the expert reviewers for their insightful and constructive feedback. Our thanks are also due to Dr. Allison Worth who commented on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

• Yin RK. Case study research, design and method. 4. London: Sage Publications Ltd.; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keen J, Packwood T. Qualitative research; case study evaluation. BMJ. 1995; 311 :444–446. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheikh A, Halani L, Bhopal R, Netuveli G, Partridge M, Car J. et al. Facilitating the Recruitment of Minority Ethnic People into Research: Qualitative Case Study of South Asians and Asthma. PLoS Med. 2009; 6 (10):1–11. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinnock H, Huby G, Powell A, Kielmann T, Price D, Williams S, The process of planning, development and implementation of a General Practitioner with a Special Interest service in Primary Care Organisations in England and Wales: a comparative prospective case study. Report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (NCCSDO) 2008. http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/99-final-report.pdf
• Robertson A, Cresswell K, Takian A, Petrakaki D, Crowe S, Cornford T. et al. Prospective evaluation of the implementation and adoption of NHS Connecting for Health's national electronic health record in secondary care in England: interim findings. BMJ. 2010; 41 :c4564. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearson P, Steven A, Howe A, Sheikh A, Ashcroft D, Smith P. the Patient Safety Education Study Group. Learning about patient safety: organisational context and culture in the education of healthcare professionals. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010; 15 :4–10. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009052. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Harten WH, Casparie TF, Fisscher OA. The evaluation of the introduction of a quality management system: a process-oriented case study in a large rehabilitation hospital. Health Policy. 2002; 60 (1):17–37. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00187-7. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stake RE. The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheikh A, Smeeth L, Ashcroft R. Randomised controlled trials in primary care: scope and application. Br J Gen Pract. 2002; 52 (482):746–51. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King G, Keohane R, Verba S. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doolin B. Information technology as disciplinary technology: being critical in interpretative research on information systems. Journal of Information Technology. 1998; 13 :301–311. doi: 10.1057/jit.1998.8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• George AL, Bennett A. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles M. the Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG) Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implementation Science. 2006; 1 :1–8. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Netuveli G, Hurwitz B, Levy M, Fletcher M, Barnes G, Durham SR, Sheikh A. Ethnic variations in UK asthma frequency, morbidity, and health-service use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2005; 365 (9456):312–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheikh A, Panesar SS, Lasserson T, Netuveli G. Recruitment of ethnic minorities to asthma studies. Thorax. 2004; 59 (7):634. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hellström I, Nolan M, Lundh U. 'We do things together': A case study of 'couplehood' in dementia. Dementia. 2005; 4 :7–22. doi: 10.1177/1471301205049188. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Som CV. Nothing seems to have changed, nothing seems to be changing and perhaps nothing will change in the NHS: doctors' response to clinical governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2005; 18 :463–477. doi: 10.1108/09513550510608903. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001; 322 :1115–1117. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000; 320 :50–52. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mason J. Qualitative researching. London: Sage; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brazier A, Cooke K, Moravan V. Using Mixed Methods for Evaluating an Integrative Approach to Cancer Care: A Case Study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2008; 7 :5–17. doi: 10.1177/1534735407313395. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles MB, Huberman M. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2. CA: Sage Publications Inc.; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Analysing qualitative data. Qualitative research in health care. BMJ. 2000; 320 :114–116. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cresswell KM, Worth A, Sheikh A. Actor-Network Theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010; 10 (1):67. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-10-67. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001; 358 :483–488. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin R. Case study research: design and methods. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin R. Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999; 34 :1209–1224. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. 2. Los Angeles: Sage; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howcroft D, Trauth E. Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research, Theory and Application. Cheltenham, UK: Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blakie N. Approaches to Social Enquiry. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doolin B. Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information system. Info Systems J. 2004; 14 :343–362. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00176.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloomfield BP, Best A. Management consultants: systems development, power and the translation of problems. Sociological Review. 1992; 40 :533–560. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shanks G, Parr A. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems. Naples; 2003. Positivist, single case study research in information systems: A critical analysis. [ Google Scholar ]

Calculation of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) using different methodologies: case study and practical guide

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 28 June 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Anita M. Klukowska 1 , 2 ,
• W. Peter Vandertop 1 ,
• Marc L. Schröder 3 &
• Victor E. Staartjes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1039-2098 4  

39 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Introduction

Establishing thresholds of change that are actually meaningful for the patient in an outcome measurement instrument is paramount. This concept is called the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). We summarize available MCID calculation methods relevant to spine surgery, and outline key considerations, followed by a step-by-step working example of how MCID can be calculated, using publicly available data, to enable the readers to follow the calculations themselves.

Thirteen MCID calculations methods were summarized, including anchor-based methods, distribution-based methods, Reliable Change Index, 30% Reduction from Baseline, Social Comparison Approach and the Delphi method. All methods, except the latter two, were used to calculate MCID for improvement of Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) Symptom Severity of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Numeric Rating Scale for Leg Pain and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire Walking Ability domain were used as anchors.

The MCID for improvement of ZCQ Symptom Severity ranged from 0.8 to 5.1. On average, distribution-based methods yielded lower MCID values, than anchor-based methods. The percentage of patients who achieved the calculated MCID threshold ranged from 9.5% to 61.9%.

Conclusions

MCID calculations are encouraged in spinal research to evaluate treatment success. Anchor-based methods, relying on scales assessing patient preferences, continue to be the “gold-standard” with receiver operating characteristic curve approach being optimal. In their absence, the minimum detectable change approach is acceptable. The provided explanation and step-by-step example of MCID calculations with statistical code and publicly available data can act as guidance in planning future MCID calculation studies.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determining the clinical importance of treatment benefits for interventions for painful orthopedic conditions.

The anchor design of anchor-based method to determine the minimal clinically important difference: a systematic review

Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The notion of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was introduced to establish thresholds of change in an outcome measurement instrument that are actually meaningful for the patient. Jaeschke et al . originally defined it “as the smallest difference in score in the domain of interest which the patient perceives as beneficial and which would mandate, in the absence of troublesome side-effects and excessive cost, a change in the patient’s management” [ 1 ].

In many clinical trials statistical analyses only focuses on intergroup comparisons of raw outcome scores using parametric/non-parametric tests and deriving conclusions based on the p -value. Using the classical threshold of p- value < 0.05 only suggests that the observed effect is unlikely to have occurred by chance, but it does not equate to a change that is clinically meaningful for the patient [ 2 ]. Calculating MCID scores, and using them as thresholds for “treatment success”, ensures that patients’ needs and preferences are considered and allows for comparison of proportion of patients experiencing a clinically relevant improvement among different groups [ 3 ]. Through MCID, clinicians can better understand the impact of an intervention on their patients’ lives, sample size calculations can become more robust and health policy makers may decide which treatments deserve reimbursement [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].

The MCID can be determined from the patient’s perspective, where it is the patient who decides whether a change in their health was meaningful [ 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. This is the most common “gold-standard” approach and one that we will focus on. Occasionally, the clinician’s perspective can also be used to determine MCID. However, MCID for a clinician may not necessarily mean an increase in a patient’s functionality, but rather a change in disease survival or treatment planning [ 10 ]. MCID can also be defined at a societal level, as e.g. improvement in a patient’s functionality significant enough to aid their return to work [ 11 ].

MCID thresholds are intended to assess an individual’s clinical improvement and ought not to be applied to mean scores of entire groups post-intervention, as doing so may falsely over-estimate treatment effectiveness. It is also noteworthy to mention that obtained MCID values are not treatment-specific but broadly disease category-specific. They rely on a patient’s perception of clinical benefit, which is influenced by their diagnosis and subsequent symptoms, not just treatment modality.

In this study, we summarize available MCID calculation methods and outline key considerations when designing a MCID study, followed by a step-by-step working example of how MCID can be calculated.

Navigating the case study

To illustrate the MCID methods and to enable the reader to follow the practical calculation guide of different MCID values, based on the described methods along the way, a previously published data set of 84 patients, as described in Minetama et al ., was used based on CC0.10 license [ 12 ]. Data can be downloaded at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/vm8rg6rvsw/1 . The statistical R code can be found in Supplementry content  1 including instructions on formatting the data set for MCID calculations The title of different MCID methods in the paper (listed below) and their number correspond to the same title and respective number in the R code. All analyses in this case study were carried out using R version 2023.12 + 402 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna Austria) [ 13 ].

The aim of Minetama et al . was to assess the effectiveness of supervised physical therapy (PT) with unsupervised at-home-exercises (HE) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). The main inclusion criteria were presence of neurogenic intermittent claudication and pain/or numbness in the lower extremities with or without back pain and > 50 years of age; diagnosis of LSS confirmed on MRI and a history of ineffective response to therapy for ≥ 3 months. Patients were then randomized into a 6-week PT or HE programme [ 12 ]. All data was pooled, as a clinically significant benefit for patients is independent of group allocation and because MCID is disease-specific. Therefore, the derived MCID will be applicable to most patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, irrespective of treatment modality. Change scores were calculated by subtracting baseline scores from follow-up scores.

MCID calculation methods

There are multiple approaches to calculate MCID, mainly divided into anchor-based and distribution-based methods (Fig.  1 ) [ 4 , 10 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Before deciding on the method, it needs to be defined whether the calculated MCID will be for improvement or deterioration [ 18 ]. Most commonly, MCID is used to measure improvement (as per Jaeschke et al . definition) [ 1 , 4 , 7 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 ]. The value of MCID for improvement should not be directly applied in reverse to determine whether a decrease in patients' scores signifies a clinically meaningful deterioration – those are two separate concepts [ 18 ]. In addition, the actual MCID value ought to be applied to post-intervention score of an individual patient (not the overall score for the whole group), to determine whether, at follow-up, he or she experienced a change equating to MCID or more, compared to their baseline score. Such patient is then classified as “responders”.

Flow diagram presenting range of Minimum clinically important difference calculation methods stratified into anchor, distribution-based and “other” described in the study. MCID, Minimum Clinically Important Difference; MIC, Minimal Important Change

According to the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) guidelines, the “anchor-based” approach is regarded as the “gold-standard” [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. In this approach, we determine the MCID of a chosen outcome measurement, based on whether a pre-defined MCID (usually derived from another published study) was achieved by an external criterion, known as the anchor, usually another patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) or an objective test of functionality [ 4 , 7 , 8 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 ]. It is best to use scales which allow the patient to rate the specific aspect of their health related to the disease of interest post-intervention compared to baseline on a Likert-type scale. This scale may range, for example, from “much worse”, “somewhat worse”, “about the same”, “somewhat better”, to “much better”, such as the established Global Assessment Rating tool [ 7 , 8 , 24 , 25 ]. Depending on the scale, some studies determine MCID by calculating change scores for patients who only ranked themselves as “somewhat better”, and some only consider patients who ranked themselves as “much better” [ 7 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. This discrepancy is likely an explanation for a range of MCID for a single outcome measure dependent on the methodology. There appears to be no singular “correct” approach. One of the alternatives to the Global assessment rating is the use of the health transition item (HTI) from the SF-36 questionnaire, where patients are asked about their overall health compared to one year ago [ 7 , 30 , 31 ]. Although quick and easy to conduct, the patient’s response may be influenced by comorbid health issues other than those targeted by intervention. Nevertheless, any anchor where the patient is the one to decide what change is clinically meaningful, captures the true essence of the MCID. One should however, be mindful of the not easily addressed recall bias with such anchors – patients at times do not reliably remember their baseline health status [ 32 ]. Moreover, what the above anchors do not consider is, whether the patient would still choose the intervention for the same condition despite experiencing side-effects or cost. That can be addressed through implementing anchors such as the Satisfaction with Results scale described in Copay et al ., who found that MCID values based on the Satisfaction with Results scale were slightly higher than those derived from HTI-SF-36 [ 7 , 33 ].

Other commonly used outcome scales, such as Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), or EQ5D-3L Health-Related Quality of Life, can also act as anchors [ 7 , 14 , 16 , 34 , 35 ]. In such instances, patients complete the “anchor” questionnaire at baseline and post-intervention and the MCID of that anchor is derived from a previous publication [ 12 , 16 , 35 ]. Before deciding on the MCID, full understanding of how it was derived in that previous publication is crucial. Ideally, this should be done for a population similar to our study cohort, with comparable follow-up periods [ 18 , 20 ]. Correlations between the anchor instrument and the investigated outcome measurement instrument must be recorded, and ought to be at least moderate (> 0.05), as that is the best indicator of construct validity (whether both the anchor instrument and outcome instrument represent a similar construct of patient health) [ 18 , 36 ]. If such correlation is not available, the anchor-based MCID credibility instrument is available to aid in assessing construct proximity between the two [ 36 , 37 ].

Once the process for selecting an anchor and classifying “responders” and “non-responders” is established, the MCID can be calculated. The outcome instrument of interest will be defined as an outcome for which we want to calculate the MCID. The first anchor-based method (within-patient change) focuses on the average improvement seen among clear responders in the anchor. The between-patient change anchor-based method additionally subtracts the average improvement seen among non-responders (unchanged and/or worsened) and consequently ends up with a smaller MCID value. Finally, an anchor-based method based on Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis–that can be considered the current “gold standard”- also exists, which effectively looks at the MCID calculation as a sort of diagnostic instrument and aims to improve the discriminatory performance of our MCID threshold. In the following paragraphs, the three anchor-based methods are described in more detail. The R code (Supplementry Content  1 ) enables the reader to follow the text and to calculate MCID for the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) Symptom Severity domain, based on a publicly available dataset [ 12 ].

Choice of outcome measurement instruments for MCID calculation case study

The chosen outcome measurement instrument in this case study for which MCID for improvement will be calculated is ZCQ Symptom Severity domain [ 12 ]. The ZCQ is composed of three subscales: symptom severity (7 questions, score per question ranging from 1 to 5 points); physical function (5 questions, score per question ranging from 1 to 4 points) and patient satisfaction with treatment scale (6 questions, score per question ranging from to 4 points). Higher scores indicate greater disability/worse satisfaction [ 38 ]. To visualize different MCID values, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for Leg Pain (score from 0 “no pain” to 10 “worse possible pain) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) Walking Ability domain are chosen, as they showed high responsiveness in patients with LSS post-operatively [ 39 ].Through 25 questions, the JOABPEQ assesses five distinctive domains: pain-related symptoms, lumbar spine dysfunction, walking ability, impairment in social functioning and psychological disturbances. The score for each domain ranges from 0 to 100 points (higher score indicating better health status) [ 40 ]. The correlation of ZCQ symptom severity with NRS Leg Pain and JOABPEQ Walking Ability domain, is 0.56 and − 0.51, respectively [ 39 ]. For a patient to be classified as a “responder”, using the NRS for Leg pain or JOABPEQ walking ability, the score at 6-week follow-up must have improved by 1.6 points or 20 points, respectively [ 7 , 40 , 41 ].

This publicly available dataset does not report patient satisfaction or any kind of global assessment rating.

To enable calculation of global assessment rating-based MCID methods for educational purposes, despite very limited availability of studies providing MCID for deterioration of JOABPEQ, we decided to stratify patients in this dataset into the three following groups, based on the JOABPEQ Walking Ability as an anchor: likely improved (change score above 20 points according to Kasai et al . ), no significant change (− 20– + 20 points change score), and likely deteriorated (lower than − 20 points change score) [ 41 ]. As obtained MCID values were expected to be negative, all values, for clarity of presentation, were multiplied by − 1, except in Method (IX), where graphical data distribution was shown.

The different methods in detail

Method (i) calculating mcid using “within-patient” score change.

The first method focuses on calculating the change between baseline and post-intervention score of our outcome instrument, for each patient classified as a “responder”. A “responder” is a patient who, at follow-up, has achieved the pre-defined MCID of the anchor (or ranks themselves high enough on Global assessment rating type scale based on our methodology). The MCID is then defined as the mean change in the outcome instrument of interest of those classified as “responders” [ 4 , 7 , 16 , 31 ].

The corresponding R-Code formula is described in Step 5a of Supplementry Content  1 . Calculated within-patient MCID of ZCQ Symptom Severity based on NRS Leg Pain and JOABPEQ Walking Ability domain was 4.4 and 4.2, respectively.

Method (II) calculating MCID using “between-patient” score change

In this approach, the mean change in our outcome instrument is calculated for not only “responders” but also for “non-responders”. “Non-responders” are patients who did not achieve the pre-defined MCID of our anchor or who did not rank themselves high enough (unchanged, or sometimes: unchanged + worsened) on Global Assessment Rating type scale according to our methodology. The minimum clinically important difference of our outcome instrument is then defined as the difference between the mean change scores of “responders” and “non-responders” [ 4 , 7 , 16 , 19 ].

The corresponding R-Code formula is described in Step 5b of Supplementry content  1 . Calculated between-patient MCID of ZCQ Symptom Severity based on NRS Leg Pain and JOABPEQ Walking Ability domain was 3.5 and 2.8, respectively.

Method (III) calculating MCID using the ROC analysis

Here the MCID is derived through ROC analysis to identify the “threshold” score of our outcome instrument that best discriminates between “responders” and “non-responders” of the anchor [ 4 , 7 , 16 , 19 , 27 ]. To understand ROC, one must familiarize oneself with the concept of sensitivity and specificity. In ROC analysis, sensitivity is defined as the ability of the test to correctly detect “true positives”, which in this context refers to patients who have achieved a clinically meaningful change.

“False negative” would be a patient, who was classified as “non-responder” but is really a “responder”. Specificity is defined as the ability of a test to correctly detect a “true negative” result- a patient who did not achieve a clinically meaningful change – a “non-responder” [ 25 ].

A “false positive” would be a patient, who was classified as a “responder” but who was a “non-responder”. Values for sensitivity and specificity range from 0 to 1. Sensitivity of 1 means that the test can detect 100% of “true positives”’ (“responders”), while specificity of 1 reflects the ability to detect 100% of “true negatives” (“non-responders”). It is unclear what the minimum sensitivity and specificity should be for a “gold-standard” MCID, which is why the most established approach is to opt for a MCID threshold that maximizes both sensitivity and specificity at the same time, which can be done using ROC analysis [ 4 , 7 , 25 , 31 , 42 ]. During ROC analysis, the “closest-to-(0,1)-criterion” (the top left most point of the curve) or the Youden index are the two methods to automatically determine the optimal threshold point [ 43 ].

When conducting the ROC analysis, the Area under the curve (AUC) is also determined–a measure of how well the MCID threshold discriminates responders and non-responders in general. Values in AUC can range 0–1. An AUC of 0.5 signifies that the score discriminates no better than random chance, whereas a value of 1 means that the score perfectly discriminates between responders and non-responders. In the literature, an AUC of 0.7 and 0.8 is deemed fair (acceptable), while ≥ 0.8 to < 0.9 is considered good and values ≥ 0.9 are considered excellent [ 44 ]. Calculating the AUC provides a rough estimate of how well the chosen MCID threshold performs. The corresponding R-Code formula is described in Step 5c of Supplementry content  1 . Statistical package pROC was used. The calculated MCID of ZCQ symptom severity based on NRS Leg Pain and JOABPEQ Walking Ability domain was for both 1.5.

Calculation of MCID through distribution-based methods

Calculation of MCID using the distribution-based approach focuses on statistical properties of the dataset [ 7 , 14 , 16 , 27 , 45 ]. Those methods are objective, easy to calculate, and in some cases, yield values close to anchor-based MCID. The advantage of this approach is that it does not rely on any external criterion or require additional studies on previously established MCIDs or other validated “gold standard” questionnaires for the specific disease in each clinical setting. However, it fails to include the patient’s perspective of a clinically meaningful change, which will be discussed later in this study. In this sense, distribution-based methods focus on finding MCID thresholds that enable mathematical distinction of what is considered a changed vs. unchanged score, whereas anchor-based methods focus on finding MCID thresholds which represent a patient-centered, meaningful improvement.

Method (IV) calculating MCID through Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

The standard error of measurement conceptualizes the reliability of the outcome measure, by determining how repeated measurements of an outcome may differ from the “true score”. Greater SEM equates to lower reliability, which is suggestive of meaningful inconsistencies in the values produced by the outcome instrument despite similar measuring conditions. Hence, it has been theorized that 1 SEM is equal to MCID, because a change score ≥ 1 SEM, is unlikely to be due to measurement error and therefore is also more likely to be clinically meaningful [ 46 , 47 ]. The following formula is used: [ 1 , 7 , 35 , 46 , 48 ].

The ICC, also called reliability coefficient, signifies level of agreement or consistency between measurements taken on different occasions or by different raters [ 49 ]. There are various ways of calculating the ICC depending on the used model with values < 0.5, 0.5– 0.75, 0.75–0.9 and > 0.90 indicating poor, moderate, good and excellent reliability, respectively [ 49 ]. While a value of 1 × SEM is probably the most established way to calculate MCID, in the literature, a range of multiplication factors for SEM-based MCID have been used, including 1.96 SEM or even 2.77 SEM to identify a more specific threshold for improvement [ 48 , 50 ]. The corresponding R-Code formula is described in Step 6a of Supplementry Content  1 . The chosen ZCQ Symptom Severity ICC was 0.81 [ 51 ]. The SEM-based MCID was 1.9.

Method (V) calculating MCID through Effect Size (ES)

Effect size (ES) is a standardized measure of the strength of the relationship or difference between two variables [ 52 ]. It is described by Cohen et al . as “degree to which the null hypothesis (there is no difference between the two groups) is false”. It allows for direct comparison of different instruments with different units between studies. There are multiple forms to calculate ES, but for the purpose of MCID calculations, the ES represents the number of SDs by which the post-intervention score has changed from baseline score. It is calculated based on the following formula incorporating the average change score divided by the SD of the baseline score: [ 52 ].

According to Cohen et al . 0.2 is considered small ES, 0.5 is moderate ES and 0.8 or more is large ES [ 53 ]. Most commonly, a change score with an ES of 0.2 is considered equivalent to MCID [ 7 , 16 , 31 , 54 , 55 , 56 ]. Using this method, we are basically identifying the mean change score (in this case reflecting the MCID) that equates to an ES of 0.2: [ 7 , 55 ].

Practically, if a patient experienced small improvement in an outcome measure post intervention, the ES will be smaller than for a patient who experienced a large improvement in outcomes measure. The corresponding R-Code formula is described in Step 6b of Supplementry Content  1 . The ES-based MCID was 0.9.

Method (VI) calculating MCID through Standardized Response Mean (SRM)

The Standardized Response Mean (SRM) aims to gauge the responsiveness of an outcome similarly to ES. Initially described by Cohen et al . as a derivative of ES assessing differences of paired observations in a single sample, later renamed as SRM, it is also considered an “index of responsiveness” [ 38 , 53 ]. However, the denominator is SD of the change scores–not the SD of the baseline scores–while the numerator remains the average change score from baseline to follow-up: [ 10 , 45 , 57 , 58 , 59 ].

Similarly, to Cohen’s rule of interpreting ES, it has been theorized that responsiveness can be considered low if SRM is 0.2–0.5, moderate if > 0.5–0.8 and large if > 0.8 [ 58 , 59 , 60 ]. Again, a change score equating to SRM of 0.2 (although SRM of 1/3 or 0.5 were also proposed) can be considered MCID, although studies have used the overall SRM as MCID as well [ 45 , 54 , 56 , 61 ]. However, since SRM is a standardized index, similarly to ES, the aim of the SRM-based method ought to be to identify a change score that indicates responsiveness of 0.2: [ 61 ].

Similar to the ES-based method, the SRM-based approach for calculating the MCID is not commonly used in in spine surgery studies [ 14 ]. It is a measure of responsiveness, which is the ability to detect change over time in a construct to be measured by the instrument, and ought to be therefore calculated for the study-specific change score rather than extrapolated as a “universal” MCID threshold to other studies. The corresponding R-Code formula is described in Step 6c of Supplementry Content  1 . The SRM-based MCID was 0.8.

The limitation of using Method (V) and (VI) in MCID calculations will be later described in Discussion.

Method (VII) calculating MCID through SD

Standard Deviation represents the average spread of individual data points around the mean value of the outcome measure. Norman et al . found in their review of studies using MCID in health-related quality of life instruments that most studies had an average ES of 0.5, which equated to clinically meaningful change score of 0.5 × SD of baseline score [ 7 , 16 ,  30 ].

The corresponding R-Code formula is described in Step 6d of Supplementry content  1 . The SD-based MCID was 2.1.

Method (VIII) calculating MCID through 95% Minimum Detectable Change (MDC)

The MDC is defined as the minimal change below which there is a 95% chance that it is due to measurement error of the outcome measurement instrument: [ 7 , 61 ].

Usually, value corresponding to z is the desired level of confidence, which for 95% confidence level is 1.96. Although MDC–like all distribution-based methods–does not consider whether a change is clinically meaningful, the calculated MCID should be at least the same or greater than MDC to enable distinguishing true mathematical change from measurement noise. The 95% MDC calculation, is the most common distribution-based approach in spinal surgery, and it appears to most closely resemble anchor-derived MCID values, as demonstrated by Copay et al . [ 7 , 14 , 62 ]. The corresponding R-Code formula is described in Step 6e of Supplementry Content  1 . The 95% MDC was 5.1.

Method (IX) calculating MCID through Reliable Change Index

Another less frequently applied method through which “responders and “non-responders” can be classified but which does not rely on an external criterion is the Reliable Change Index (RCI), also called the Jacobson–Truax index [ 63 , 64 ]. It indicates whether an individual change score is statistically significantly greater than a change in score that could have occurred due to random measurement error alone [ 63 ].

In theory, a patient can be considered to experience a statistically reliably identifiable improvement ( p  < 0.05), if the individual RCI is > 1.96. Again, it does not reflect whether the change is clinically meaningful for the patient but rather that the change should not be attributed to measurement error alone and likely has a component of true score change. Therefore, this method is discouraged in MCID calculations as it relies on statistical properties of the sample and not patient preferences–as all distribution-based methods do [ 65 ]. In the example of Bolton et al . who focused on the Bournemouth Questionnaire in patients with neck pain, RCI was subsequently used to discriminate between “responders” and “non-responders”. The ROC analysis approach was then used to determine the MCID [ 64 ]. The corresponding R-Code formula is described in Step 6f of Supplementry Content  1 . Again, pROC package was used. The ROC-derived MCID was 2.5.

Other methods

Method (x) calculating mcid through anchor-based minimal important change (mic) distribution model.

In theory, combining anchor- and distribution-based methods could yield superior results. Some suggestions include averaging the values of various methods, simply combining two different methods (i.e. both an anchor-based criterion such as ROC-based MCID from patient satisfaction and 95% MDC-based MCID have to both be met to consider a patient as having achieved MCID) [ 25 ]. In 2007, de Vet et al . introduced a new visual method of MCID calculations that does not only combine but also integrates both anchor- and distribution-based calculations [ 25 ]. In addition, their method allows the calculation of both MCID for improvement and for deterioration, as these can differ.

In short form, using an anchor, patients were divided into three “importantly improved”, “not importantly changed” and “importantly deteriorated” groups (Fig.  2 ) . Then distribution expressed in percentiles of patients who “importantly improved”, “importantly deteriorated” and “not importantly changed” were plotted on a graph. This is the anchor-based part of the approach, ensuring that MCID thresholds chosen have clinical value.

Distribution of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire Symptom Severity change scores for patients categorized as experiencing “important improvement”, “no important change” or “important deterioration” in JOABPEQ walking ability as an anchor (Method (X)). For ZCQ Symptom Severity score to improve, the actual value must decrease explaining the negative values in the model. ROC , Receiver Operating Characteristic; ZCQ , Zurich Claudication Questionnaire; JOABPEQ , Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire

The second part of the approach is then entirely focused on the group of patients determined by the anchor to be “unchanged”, and can be either distribution- or anchor-based:

In the first and more anchor-based method, the ROC-based method described in Method (III) is applied to find the threshold for improvement (by finding the ROC-based threshold point that optimizes sensitivity and specificity of identifying improved vs unchanged patients) or for deterioration (by finding the ROC-based threshold point that optimizes sensitivity and specificity of identifying deteriorated vs unchanged patients). For example, the threshold for improvement is found by combining the improved and unchanged groups, and then testing out different thresholds for discriminating those two groups from each other. The optimal point on the resulting ROC curve based on the closest-to-(0,1)-criterion is then found.

In the second method, which is distribution-based, the upper 95% (for improvement) and lower 95% (for deterioration) limits are found based solely on the group of patients determined to be unchanged. The following formula is used (instead, subtracting instead of adding the 1.645 × SD for deterioration or improvement, respectively): [ 25 ]

The corresponding R-Code formula can be found under Step 7a in Supplementry Content  1 . The model is presented in Fig.  2 . The 95% upper limit and 95% lower limit was 4.1 and − 7.2 respectively. The ROC-derived MCID using RCI was − 2.5 (important improvement vs unchanged) and − 0.5 (important deterioration vs unchanged). For the purpose of the model, MCID values were not multiplied by − 1 but remained in original form.

Method (XI) calculating MCID as 30% Reduction from Baseline

In recent years, a simple 30% reduction from baseline values has been introduced as an alternative to MCID calculations [ 66 ]. It has been speculated that absolute-point changes are difficult to interpret and have limited value in context of “ceiling” and “floor” effects (i.e. values that are on the extreme spectra of the measurement scale) [ 4 ]. To overcome this, Khan et al . found that 30% reduction in PROMs has similar effectiveness as traditional anchored or distribution-based methods in detecting patients with clinically meaningful differences post lumbar spine surgery [ 15 ]. The corresponding R-Code formula can be found under Step 7b in Supplementry Content  1 .

Method (XII) Calculating MCID through Delphi method

The Delphi Method is a systemic approach using the collective opinion of experts to establish a consensus regarding a medical issue [ 67 ]. It has mostly been used to develop best practice guidelines [ 68 ]. However, it can also be used to aid MCID determination [ 69 ]. The method focuses on distributing questionnaires or surveys to panel of members. The anonymized answers are grouped together and shared again with the expert panel in subsequent rounds. This allows the experts to reflect on their opinions and consider strengths and weaknesses of the others response. The process is repeated until consensus is reached. Ensuring anonymity, this prevents any potential bias linked to a specific participant’s concern about their own opinion being viewed or influenced by other personal factors [ 67 ].

Method (XIII) calculating MCID through Social Comparison Approach

The final approach is asking patients to compare themselves to other patients, which requires time and resources [ 70 ]. In a study by Redelmeier et al . patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a rehabilitation program were organized into small groups and observed each other at multiple occasions [ 70 ]. Additionally, each patient was paired with another participant and had a one-to-one interview with them discussing different aspects of their health. Finally, each patient anonymously rated themselves against their partner on a scale “much better”, “somewhat better”, “a little bit better”, “about the same”, “a little bit worse” “somewhat worse” and “much worse”. MCID was then calculated based on the mean change score of patients who graded themselves as “a little bit better” (MCID for improvement) or a “little bit worse” (MCID for deterioration), like in the within-patient change and between-patient change method described in Method (I) and (II) [ 70 ].

Substantial Clinical Benefit

Over the years, it has been noted that MCID calculations based either purely on distribution-based method or only group of patients rating themselves as “somewhat better” or “slightly better” does not necessarily constitute a change that patients would consider beneficial enough “to mandate, in the absence of troublesome side effects and excessive cost, to undergo the treatment again” [ 3 , 24 ]. Therefore, the concept of substantial clinical benefit (SCB) has been introduced as a way of identifying a threshold of clinical success of intervention rather than a “floor” value for improvement- that is MCID [ 24 ]. For example, in Carreon et al ., ROC derived SCB “thresholds” were defined as a change score with equal sensitivity and specificity to distinguish “much better” from “somewhat better” patients post cervical spinal fusion [ 71 ]. Glassman et al . on the other hand used ROC derived SCB thresholds to discriminate between “much better” and “about the same” patients following lumbar spinal fusion. The authors stress that SCB and MCID are indeed separate entities, and one should not be used to derive the other [ 24 ]. Thus, while the methods to derive SCB and MCID thresholds can be carried out similarly based on anchors, the ultimate goal of applying SCB versus MCID is different.

Using the various methods explained above, overall, MCID for improvement for ZCQ Symptoms Severity domain ranged from 0.8 to 5.1 (Table  1 ). Here, the readers obtained results can be checked for correctness. On average distribution-based MCID values were lower than anchor-based MCID values. Within distribution-based approach, method (VIII) “Minimum detectable change” resulted in MCID of 5.1, which exceeded the MCID’s derived using the “gold-standard” anchor-based approaches. The average MCID based on anchor of NRS Leg pain and JOABPEQ walking ability was 3.1 and 2.8, respectively. Dependent on methods used, percentage of responders to HE and PT intervention fell within range of 9.5% for “30% Reduction from Baseline” method to 61.9% using ES- and SRM-based method (Table  2 ). Method (X) is graphically presented in Fig.  2 .

As demonstrated above, the MCID is dependent upon the methodology and the chosen anchor, highlighting the necessity for careful preparation in MCID calculations. The lowest MCID of 0.8 was calculated for Method (VI) being SRM. Logically, if a patient on average had a baseline ZCQ Symptom Severity score of 23.2, an improvement of 0.8 is unlikely to be clinically meaningful, even if rounded up. It rather informs on the measurement error property of our instrument as explained by COSMIN. Additionally, the distribution-based methods rely on statistical properties of the sample, which varies from cohort to cohort making it only generalizable to patient groups with similar SD but not applicable to others with a different spread of data [ 52 ]. Not surprisingly, anchor-based methods considering patient preferences yielded on average higher MCID values than distribution-based methods, which again varied from anchor to anchor. The mean MCID for improvement calculated for NPRS Leg Pain was 3.1, while for JOABPEQ Walking Ability it was 2.8—such similar values prove the importance of selecting responsive anchors with at least moderate correlations. Despite assessing different aspects of LSS disease, the MCID remained comparable in this specific case.

Interestingly, Method (VIII) MDC yielded the highest value of 5.1, exceeding the “gold-standard” ROC-derived MCID. This suggests that, in this example, using this ROC-derived MCID in clinical practice would be illogical, as the value falls within the measurement error determined by MDC. Here it would be appropriate to choose MDC approach as the MCID. Interestingly, ROC-derived MCID values based on Global Assessment Rating like stratification of patients based on their JOABPEQ Walking Ability (Method X) yielded higher MCID, than in Method (III). This may be attributed to a more a balanced distribution of “responders” and “non-responders” (only unchanged patients) in Method (X), unlike in the latter (Method III) where patients were strictly categorized into “responders” and “non-responders” (including both deteriorated and unchanged). This further highlights the importance of using global assessment rating type scales in determining the extent of clinical benefit.

Although ES-based (Method (V)) and SRM-based (Method (VI)) MCID calculations have been described in the literature, ES and SRM were originally created to quantify the strength of relationship between scores of two samples (in case of ES) and change score of paired observations in one sample (in case of SRM) [ 53 , 58 , 59 ]. They do offer an alternative to MCID calculations. However, verification with other MCID calculation methods, ideally anchor-based, is strongly recommended. As seen in this case study and other MCID’s derived similarly, they often result small estimates [ 7 , 55 ]. There is also no consensus regarding the choice of SD of Change Score vs. SD of Baseline Score as denominator. Additionally, whether the calculated MCID (mean change score) should represent value, such as the ES is 0.2 indicating small effect, or value should be 0.5 suggesting moderate effect is currently arbitrary and often relies on the researcher’s preference [ 53 , 55 , 59 ]. Both ES and SRM can be used to assess whether the overall change score observed in single study is suggestive of a clinically meaningful benefit in that specific cohort or in case of SRM, whether the outcome measure is responsive. However, it is our perspective that extending such value as “MCID” from one study to another is not recommended.

One can argue whether there is even a place for distribution-based methods in MCID calculations. They ultimately fail to provide an MCID value that meets the original definition of Jaeschke et al . “of smallest change in the outcome that the patient would identify as important”. At no point are patients asked about what constitutes a meaningful change for them, and the value is derived from statistical properties of the sample solely [ 1 ]. Nevertheless, conduction of studies on MCID implementing scales such as Global Assessment Rating is time-consuming and performing studies for each patient outcome and each disease is likely not feasible. Distribution-based methods still have some merit in that they–like the 95% MDC method—can help distinguish measurement noise and inaccuracy from true change. Even if anchor-based methods should probably be used to define MCID thresholds, they ought to be supported by a calculation of MDC so that it can be decided whether the chosen threshold makes sense mathematically (i.e., can reliably be distinguished from measurement inaccuracies) as seen in our case study.

Calculating MCID for different diagnoses

Previously, MCID thresholds for outcome measurement instruments were calculated for generic populations, such as patients suffering from low back pain. More recently, MCID values for commonly used PROMs in spine surgery, such as ODI, RMDQ or NRS have been calculated for more narrowly defined diagnoses, such as lumbar disc herniation (LDH) or LSS. The question arises as to whether a separate MCID is needed for all the different spinal conditions. In general, establishing an MCID specific to these patient groups is only recommended if these patient’s perception of meaningful change is different from that of low back pain in general. Importantly, again, the MCID should not be treatment-specific, but rather broadly disease specific. Therefore, it is advisable to use MCID based on patients who had the most similar disease characteristics to our cohort. For example, an MCID for NRS Back Pain based on study group composed of different types of lumbar degenerative disease, may in some cases, be applied to study cohort composed solely of patients with LDH. However, no such extrapolation should be performed for populations with back pain secondary to malignancy, due to a totally different pathogenesis and associated symptoms that may influence the ability to detect a clinically meaningful change in the above NRS Back Pain such as fatigue or anorexia.

Study cohort characteristics that influence MCID

Regardless of robust methodology, it can be expected that it is impossible to obtain the same MCID on different occasions even in the same population due to the inherent subjectivity of what is perceived as “clinically beneficial” and day-to-day symptom fluctuation. However, it was found that patients who have worse baseline scores, reflecting e.g., more advanced disease, require greater overall change at follow-up to report it as clinically meaningful [ 72 ]. One should also be mindful of “regression to the mean” where extremely high or low-scoring patients then subsequently score closer to baseline at second measurement [ 73 ]. Therefore, adequate cohort characteristics need to be presented, for the readers to judge how generalizable the MCID may be to their study cohort. If a patient pre-operatively experiences NRS Leg Pain of 1, and the MCID is 1.6, they cannot achieve MCID at all, as the maximum possible change score is smaller than the MCID threshold (“floor effect”). A similar situation can occur with patients closer to the higher end of the scale (“ceiling effect”). The general rule is, that if at least 15% of the study cohort has the highest or lowest possible score for a given outcome instrument, one can expect significant “ceiling/floor effects” [ 50 ]. One way to overcome this, is through transferring absolute MCID scores to percentage change scores [ 4 , 45 ]. However, percentage change scores only account for high baseline scores, if high baseline scores indicate larger disability (as seen with ODI) and have a possibility of larger change. If a high score in an instruments reflects better health status (as seen in in SF-36), than percentage change scores will increase the association with baseline score [ 4 ]. In general, it is important to consider which patient to exclude from certain analyses when applying MCID: For example, patients without relevant disease preoperatively (for example, those exhibiting so-called “patient-accepted symptom states”, PASS) should probably be excluded altogether when reporting the percentage of patients achieving MCID [ 74 ].

Establishing reliable thresholds for MCID is key in clinical research and forms the basis of patient-centered treatment evaluations when using patient-reported outcome measures or objective functional tests. Calculation of MCID thresholds can be achieved using a variety of different methods, each yielding completely different results, as is demonstrated in this practical guide. Generally, anchor-based methods relying on scales assessing patient preferences/satisfaction or global assessment ratings continue to be the “gold-standard” approach- the most common being ROC analysis. In the absence of appropriate anchors, the distribution-based MCID based on the 95% MDC approach is acceptable, as it appears to yield the most similar results compared to anchor-based approaches. Moreover, we recommend using it as a supplement to any anchor-based MCID thresholds to check if they can reliably distinguish true change from measurement inaccuracies. The explanation provided in this practical guide with step-by-step examples along with public data and statistical code can add as guidance for future studies calculating MCID thresholds.

Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Concato J, Hartigan JA (2016) P values: from suggestion to superstition. J Investig Med 64:1166. https://doi.org/10.1136/jim-2016-000206

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zannikos S, Lee L, Smith HE (2014) Minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit: Does one size fit all diagnoses and patients? Semin Spine Surg 26:8–11. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semss.2013.07.004

Article   Google Scholar  

Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD et al (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7:541–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lanario J, Hyland M, Menzies-Gow A et al (2020) Is the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) fit for purpose? a planned study using the SAQ. Euro Respirat J. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2020.2241

Neely JG, Karni RJ, Engel SH, Fraley PL, Nussenbaum B, Paniello RC (2007) Practical guides to understanding sample size and minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 136(1):14–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2006.11.001

Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR et al (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry disability index, medical outcomes study questionnaire short form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:968–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006

Andersson EI, Lin CC, Smeets RJ (2010) Performance tests in people with chronic low back pain: responsiveness and minimal clinically important change. Spine 35(26):E1559-1563. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cea12e

Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective. Part 1: the core outcome measures index in clinical practice. Euro Spine J 18:367–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0942-8

Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR (2003) Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 56:395–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1

Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG (2010) Testing minimal clinically important difference: consensus or conundrum? Spine J 10:321–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2009.10.015

Minetama M, Kawakami M, Teraguchi M et al (2019) Supervised physical therapy vs. home exercise for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial. Spine J 19:1310–1318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2019.04.009

R Core Team (2021) R A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

Chung AS, Copay AG, Olmscheid N, Campbell D, Walker JB, Chutkan N (2017) Minimum clinically important difference: current trends in the spine literature. Spine 42(14):1096–1105. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001990

Khan I, Pennings JS, Devin CJ, Asher AM, Oleisky ER, Bydon M, Asher AL, Archer KR (2021) Clinically meaningful improvement following cervical spine surgery: 30% reduction versus absolute point-change MCID values. Spine 46(11):717–725. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003887

Gautschi OP, Stienen MN, Corniola MV et al (2016) Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in the timed up and go test after surgery for lumbar degenerative disc disease. Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001320

Kulkarni AV (2006) Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the hydrocephalus outcome questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 59:176–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.011

Wang Y, Devji T, Qasim A et al (2022) A systematic survey identified methodological issues in studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences in patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 142:144–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.028

Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN et al (2013) Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 18:154–160. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.10.SPINE12312

Carrasco-Labra A, Devji T, Qasim A et al (2021) Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: a systematic survey. J Clin Epidemiol 133:61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.024

Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM et al (2018) COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 27:1147–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC et al (2018) COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 27:1171–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4

Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A et al (2018) COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res 27:1159–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0

Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH et al (2008) Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:1839–1847. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.01095

de Vet HCW, Ostelo RWJG, Terwee CB et al (2007) Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 16:131–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9109-9

Solberg T, Johnsen LG, Nygaard ØP, Grotle M (2013) Can we define success criteria for lumbar disc surgery? Acta Orthop 84:196–201. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2013.786634

Power JD, Perruccio AV, Canizares M et al (2023) Determining minimal clinically important difference estimates following surgery for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine: analysis of the Canadian spine outcomes and research network (CSORN) registry. The Spine Journal 23:1323–1333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2023.05.001

Asher AL, Kerezoudis P, Mummaneni PV et al (2018) Defining the minimum clinically important difference for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: insights from the quality outcomes database. Neurosurg Focus 44:E2. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.10.FOCUS17554

Cleland JA, Whitman JM, Houser JL et al (2012) Psychometric properties of selected tests in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 12:921–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.05.004

Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW (2003) Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41:582–592. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C

Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN et al (2012) Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance. J Neurosurg Spine 16:471–478. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.1.SPINE11842

Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG, Chou R (2012) What does/should the minimum clinically important difference measure?: a reconsideration of its clinical value in evaluating efficacy of lumbar fusion surgery. Clin J Pain 28:387. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e3182327f20

Lloyd H, Jenkinson C, Hadi M et al (2014) Patient reports of the outcomes of treatment: a structured review of approaches. Health Qual Life Outcomes 12:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-5

Beighley A, Zhang A, Huang B et al (2022) Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery: a systematic review. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 13:378–389. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_101_22

Ogura Y, Ogura K, Kobayashi Y et al (2020) Minimum clinically important difference of major patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 196:105966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105966

Wang Y, Devji T, Carrasco-Labra A et al (2023) An extension minimal important difference credibility item addressing construct proximity is a reliable alternative to the correlation item. J Clin Epidemiol 157:46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.001

Devji T, Carrasco-Labra A, Qasim A et al (2020) Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study. BMJ 369:m1714. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1714

Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang MH et al (1996) Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:796

Fujimori T, Ikegami D, Sugiura T, Sakaura H (2022) Responsiveness of the Zurich claudication questionnaire, the Oswestry disability index, the Japanese orthopaedic association back pain evaluation questionnaire, the 8-item short form health survey, and the Euroqol 5 dimensions 5 level in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 31:1399–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07236-5

Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M et al (2009) JOA back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ)/ JOA cervical myelopathy evaluation questionnaire (JOACMEQ) the report on the development of revised versions April 16, 2007: the subcommittee of the clinical outcome committee of the Japanese orthopaedic association on low back pain and cervical myelopathy evaluation. J Orthop Sci 14:348–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-009-1337-8

Kasai Y, Fukui M, Takahashi K et al (2017) Verification of the sensitivity of functional scores for treatment results–substantial clinical benefit thresholds for the Japanese orthopaedic association back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ). J Orthop Sci 22:665–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2017.02.012

Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Anderson PA, Resnick DK (2011) A diagnostic classification for lumbar spine registry development. Spine J 11:1108–1116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2011.11.016

Perkins NJ, Schisterman EF (2006) The inconsistency of “optimal” cutpoints obtained using two criteria based on the receiver operating characteristic curve. Am J Epidemiol 163:670–675. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj063

Nahm FS (2022) Receiver operating characteristic curve: overview and practical use for clinicians. Korean J Anesthesiol 75:25–36. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.21209

Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Angst J (2017) The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies. J Clin Epidemiol 82:128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.11.016

Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD (1999) Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52:861–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00071-2

Wolinsky FD, Wan GJ, Tierney WM (1998) Changes in the SF-36 in 12 months in a clinical sample of disadvantaged older adults. Med Care 36:1589–1598

Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD (1999) Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 37:469–478. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199905000-00006

Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15:155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4:293–307

Hara N, Matsudaira K, Masuda K et al (2016) Psychometric assessment of the Japanese version of the Zurich claudication questionnaire (ZCQ): reliability and validity. PLoS ONE 11:e0160183. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160183

Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27:S178–S189. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015

Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. L Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

Franceschini M, Boffa A, Pignotti E et al (2023) The minimal clinically important difference changes greatly based on the different calculation methods. Am J Sports Med 51:1067–1073. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465231152484

Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML et al (1999) Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the health utilities index mark II. Pharmacoeconomics 15:141–155. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199915020-00003

Wright A, Hannon J, Hegedus EJ, Kavchak AE (2012) Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther 20:160–166. https://doi.org/10.1179/2042618612Y.0000000001

Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN (1995) Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol 48:1369–1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(95)00054-2

Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MGS (1990) Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 28:632–642

Middel B, Van Sonderen E (2002) Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integr care. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.65

Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J (2008) Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61:102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012

Woaye-Hune P, Hardouin J-B, Lehur P-A et al (2020) Practical issues encountered while determining minimal clinically important difference in patient-reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 18:156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01398-w

Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau D et al (2012) Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease. J Neurosurg Spine 16:61–67. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.8.SPINE1194

Jacobson NS, Truax P (1991) Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 59:12–19

Bolton JE (2004) Sensitivity and specificity of outcome measures in patients with neck pain: detecting clinically significant improvement. Spine 29(21):2410–2417. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000143080.74061.25

Blampied NM (2022) Reliable change and the reliable change index: Still useful after all these years? Cogn Behav Ther 15:e50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1754470X22000484

Asher AM, Oleisky ER, Pennings JS et al (2020) Measuring clinically relevant improvement after lumbar spine surgery: Is it time for something new? Spine J 20:847–856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.01.010

Barrett D, Heale R (2020) What are Delphi studies? Evid Based Nurs 23:68–69. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2020-103303

Droeghaag R, Schuermans VNE, Hermans SMM et al (2021) Evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery: study protocol for a Delphi consensus. BMJ Open 11:e052988. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052988

Henderson EJ, Morgan GS, Amin J et al (2019) The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for a falls intervention in Parkinson’s: a delphi study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 61:106–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2018.11.008

Redelmeier DA, Guyatt GH, Goldstein RS (1996) Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques. J Clin Epidemiol 49:1215–1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00206-5

Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ, Anderson PA (2010) Neck disability index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J 10:469–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.007

Wang Y-C, Hart DL, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE (2011) Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement. Phys Ther 91:675–688. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20100229

Tenan MS, Simon JE, Robins RJ et al (2021) Anchored minimal clinically important difference metrics: considerations for bias and regression to the mean. J Athl Train 56:1042–1049. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-0368.20

Staartjes VE, Stumpo V, Ricciardi L et al (2022) FUSE-ML: development and external validation of a clinical prediction model for mid-term outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease. Eur Spine J 31:2629–2638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07135-9

Download references

Open access funding provided by University of Zurich. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Anita M. Klukowska & W. Peter Vandertop

Department of Neurosurgery, University Clinical Hospital of Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland

Anita M. Klukowska

Department of Neurosurgery, Park Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Marc L. Schröder

Machine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience and Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Victor E. Staartjes

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victor E. Staartjes .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that the article and its content were composed in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (TXT 6 KB)

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Klukowska, A.M., Vandertop, W.P., Schröder, M.L. et al. Calculation of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) using different methodologies: case study and practical guide. Eur Spine J (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08369-5

Download citation

Received : 03 May 2024

Revised : 17 May 2024

Accepted : 10 June 2024

Published : 28 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08369-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Minimum clinically important difference
• Anchor-based methods
• Distribution-based methods
• Change scores
• Clinical outcomes
• Spine surgery
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 27 June 2011

The case study approach

• Sarah Crowe 1 ,
• Kathrin Cresswell 2 ,
• Ann Robertson 2 ,
• Guro Huby 3 ,
• Anthony Avery 1 &
• Aziz Sheikh 2  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  11 , Article number:  100 ( 2011 ) Cite this article

788k Accesses

1063 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

The case study approach allows in-depth, multi-faceted explorations of complex issues in their real-life settings. The value of the case study approach is well recognised in the fields of business, law and policy, but somewhat less so in health services research. Based on our experiences of conducting several health-related case studies, we reflect on the different types of case study design, the specific research questions this approach can help answer, the data sources that tend to be used, and the particular advantages and disadvantages of employing this methodological approach. The paper concludes with key pointers to aid those designing and appraising proposals for conducting case study research, and a checklist to help readers assess the quality of case study reports.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The case study approach is particularly useful to employ when there is a need to obtain an in-depth appreciation of an issue, event or phenomenon of interest, in its natural real-life context. Our aim in writing this piece is to provide insights into when to consider employing this approach and an overview of key methodological considerations in relation to the design, planning, analysis, interpretation and reporting of case studies.

The illustrative 'grand round', 'case report' and 'case series' have a long tradition in clinical practice and research. Presenting detailed critiques, typically of one or more patients, aims to provide insights into aspects of the clinical case and, in doing so, illustrate broader lessons that may be learnt. In research, the conceptually-related case study approach can be used, for example, to describe in detail a patient's episode of care, explore professional attitudes to and experiences of a new policy initiative or service development or more generally to 'investigate contemporary phenomena within its real-life context' [ 1 ]. Based on our experiences of conducting a range of case studies, we reflect on when to consider using this approach, discuss the key steps involved and illustrate, with examples, some of the practical challenges of attaining an in-depth understanding of a 'case' as an integrated whole. In keeping with previously published work, we acknowledge the importance of theory to underpin the design, selection, conduct and interpretation of case studies[ 2 ]. In so doing, we make passing reference to the different epistemological approaches used in case study research by key theoreticians and methodologists in this field of enquiry.

This paper is structured around the following main questions: What is a case study? What are case studies used for? How are case studies conducted? What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided? We draw in particular on four of our own recently published examples of case studies (see Tables 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 ) and those of others to illustrate our discussion[ 3 – 7 ].

What is a case study?

A case study is a research approach that is used to generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context. It is an established research design that is used extensively in a wide variety of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. A case study can be defined in a variety of ways (Table 5 ), the central tenet being the need to explore an event or phenomenon in depth and in its natural context. It is for this reason sometimes referred to as a "naturalistic" design; this is in contrast to an "experimental" design (such as a randomised controlled trial) in which the investigator seeks to exert control over and manipulate the variable(s) of interest.

Stake's work has been particularly influential in defining the case study approach to scientific enquiry. He has helpfully characterised three main types of case study: intrinsic , instrumental and collective [ 8 ]. An intrinsic case study is typically undertaken to learn about a unique phenomenon. The researcher should define the uniqueness of the phenomenon, which distinguishes it from all others. In contrast, the instrumental case study uses a particular case (some of which may be better than others) to gain a broader appreciation of an issue or phenomenon. The collective case study involves studying multiple cases simultaneously or sequentially in an attempt to generate a still broader appreciation of a particular issue.

These are however not necessarily mutually exclusive categories. In the first of our examples (Table 1 ), we undertook an intrinsic case study to investigate the issue of recruitment of minority ethnic people into the specific context of asthma research studies, but it developed into a instrumental case study through seeking to understand the issue of recruitment of these marginalised populations more generally, generating a number of the findings that are potentially transferable to other disease contexts[ 3 ]. In contrast, the other three examples (see Tables 2 , 3 and 4 ) employed collective case study designs to study the introduction of workforce reconfiguration in primary care, the implementation of electronic health records into hospitals, and to understand the ways in which healthcare students learn about patient safety considerations[ 4 – 6 ]. Although our study focusing on the introduction of General Practitioners with Specialist Interests (Table 2 ) was explicitly collective in design (four contrasting primary care organisations were studied), is was also instrumental in that this particular professional group was studied as an exemplar of the more general phenomenon of workforce redesign[ 4 ].

What are case studies used for?

According to Yin, case studies can be used to explain, describe or explore events or phenomena in the everyday contexts in which they occur[ 1 ]. These can, for example, help to understand and explain causal links and pathways resulting from a new policy initiative or service development (see Tables 2 and 3 , for example)[ 1 ]. In contrast to experimental designs, which seek to test a specific hypothesis through deliberately manipulating the environment (like, for example, in a randomised controlled trial giving a new drug to randomly selected individuals and then comparing outcomes with controls),[ 9 ] the case study approach lends itself well to capturing information on more explanatory ' how ', 'what' and ' why ' questions, such as ' how is the intervention being implemented and received on the ground?'. The case study approach can offer additional insights into what gaps exist in its delivery or why one implementation strategy might be chosen over another. This in turn can help develop or refine theory, as shown in our study of the teaching of patient safety in undergraduate curricula (Table 4 )[ 6 , 10 ]. Key questions to consider when selecting the most appropriate study design are whether it is desirable or indeed possible to undertake a formal experimental investigation in which individuals and/or organisations are allocated to an intervention or control arm? Or whether the wish is to obtain a more naturalistic understanding of an issue? The former is ideally studied using a controlled experimental design, whereas the latter is more appropriately studied using a case study design.

Case studies may be approached in different ways depending on the epistemological standpoint of the researcher, that is, whether they take a critical (questioning one's own and others' assumptions), interpretivist (trying to understand individual and shared social meanings) or positivist approach (orientating towards the criteria of natural sciences, such as focusing on generalisability considerations) (Table 6 ). Whilst such a schema can be conceptually helpful, it may be appropriate to draw on more than one approach in any case study, particularly in the context of conducting health services research. Doolin has, for example, noted that in the context of undertaking interpretative case studies, researchers can usefully draw on a critical, reflective perspective which seeks to take into account the wider social and political environment that has shaped the case[ 11 ].

How are case studies conducted?

Here, we focus on the main stages of research activity when planning and undertaking a case study; the crucial stages are: defining the case; selecting the case(s); collecting and analysing the data; interpreting data; and reporting the findings.

Defining the case

Carefully formulated research question(s), informed by the existing literature and a prior appreciation of the theoretical issues and setting(s), are all important in appropriately and succinctly defining the case[ 8 , 12 ]. Crucially, each case should have a pre-defined boundary which clarifies the nature and time period covered by the case study (i.e. its scope, beginning and end), the relevant social group, organisation or geographical area of interest to the investigator, the types of evidence to be collected, and the priorities for data collection and analysis (see Table 7 )[ 1 ]. A theory driven approach to defining the case may help generate knowledge that is potentially transferable to a range of clinical contexts and behaviours; using theory is also likely to result in a more informed appreciation of, for example, how and why interventions have succeeded or failed[ 13 ].

For example, in our evaluation of the introduction of electronic health records in English hospitals (Table 3 ), we defined our cases as the NHS Trusts that were receiving the new technology[ 5 ]. Our focus was on how the technology was being implemented. However, if the primary research interest had been on the social and organisational dimensions of implementation, we might have defined our case differently as a grouping of healthcare professionals (e.g. doctors and/or nurses). The precise beginning and end of the case may however prove difficult to define. Pursuing this same example, when does the process of implementation and adoption of an electronic health record system really begin or end? Such judgements will inevitably be influenced by a range of factors, including the research question, theory of interest, the scope and richness of the gathered data and the resources available to the research team.

Selecting the case(s)

The decision on how to select the case(s) to study is a very important one that merits some reflection. In an intrinsic case study, the case is selected on its own merits[ 8 ]. The case is selected not because it is representative of other cases, but because of its uniqueness, which is of genuine interest to the researchers. This was, for example, the case in our study of the recruitment of minority ethnic participants into asthma research (Table 1 ) as our earlier work had demonstrated the marginalisation of minority ethnic people with asthma, despite evidence of disproportionate asthma morbidity[ 14 , 15 ]. In another example of an intrinsic case study, Hellstrom et al.[ 16 ] studied an elderly married couple living with dementia to explore how dementia had impacted on their understanding of home, their everyday life and their relationships.

For an instrumental case study, selecting a "typical" case can work well[ 8 ]. In contrast to the intrinsic case study, the particular case which is chosen is of less importance than selecting a case that allows the researcher to investigate an issue or phenomenon. For example, in order to gain an understanding of doctors' responses to health policy initiatives, Som undertook an instrumental case study interviewing clinicians who had a range of responsibilities for clinical governance in one NHS acute hospital trust[ 17 ]. Sampling a "deviant" or "atypical" case may however prove even more informative, potentially enabling the researcher to identify causal processes, generate hypotheses and develop theory.

In collective or multiple case studies, a number of cases are carefully selected. This offers the advantage of allowing comparisons to be made across several cases and/or replication. Choosing a "typical" case may enable the findings to be generalised to theory (i.e. analytical generalisation) or to test theory by replicating the findings in a second or even a third case (i.e. replication logic)[ 1 ]. Yin suggests two or three literal replications (i.e. predicting similar results) if the theory is straightforward and five or more if the theory is more subtle. However, critics might argue that selecting 'cases' in this way is insufficiently reflexive and ill-suited to the complexities of contemporary healthcare organisations.

The selected case study site(s) should allow the research team access to the group of individuals, the organisation, the processes or whatever else constitutes the chosen unit of analysis for the study. Access is therefore a central consideration; the researcher needs to come to know the case study site(s) well and to work cooperatively with them. Selected cases need to be not only interesting but also hospitable to the inquiry [ 8 ] if they are to be informative and answer the research question(s). Case study sites may also be pre-selected for the researcher, with decisions being influenced by key stakeholders. For example, our selection of case study sites in the evaluation of the implementation and adoption of electronic health record systems (see Table 3 ) was heavily influenced by NHS Connecting for Health, the government agency that was responsible for overseeing the National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT)[ 5 ]. This prominent stakeholder had already selected the NHS sites (through a competitive bidding process) to be early adopters of the electronic health record systems and had negotiated contracts that detailed the deployment timelines.

It is also important to consider in advance the likely burden and risks associated with participation for those who (or the site(s) which) comprise the case study. Of particular importance is the obligation for the researcher to think through the ethical implications of the study (e.g. the risk of inadvertently breaching anonymity or confidentiality) and to ensure that potential participants/participating sites are provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice about joining the study. The outcome of providing this information might be that the emotive burden associated with participation, or the organisational disruption associated with supporting the fieldwork, is considered so high that the individuals or sites decide against participation.

In our example of evaluating implementations of electronic health record systems, given the restricted number of early adopter sites available to us, we sought purposively to select a diverse range of implementation cases among those that were available[ 5 ]. We chose a mixture of teaching, non-teaching and Foundation Trust hospitals, and examples of each of the three electronic health record systems procured centrally by the NPfIT. At one recruited site, it quickly became apparent that access was problematic because of competing demands on that organisation. Recognising the importance of full access and co-operative working for generating rich data, the research team decided not to pursue work at that site and instead to focus on other recruited sites.

Collecting the data

In order to develop a thorough understanding of the case, the case study approach usually involves the collection of multiple sources of evidence, using a range of quantitative (e.g. questionnaires, audits and analysis of routinely collected healthcare data) and more commonly qualitative techniques (e.g. interviews, focus groups and observations). The use of multiple sources of data (data triangulation) has been advocated as a way of increasing the internal validity of a study (i.e. the extent to which the method is appropriate to answer the research question)[ 8 , 18 – 21 ]. An underlying assumption is that data collected in different ways should lead to similar conclusions, and approaching the same issue from different angles can help develop a holistic picture of the phenomenon (Table 2 )[ 4 ].

Brazier and colleagues used a mixed-methods case study approach to investigate the impact of a cancer care programme[ 22 ]. Here, quantitative measures were collected with questionnaires before, and five months after, the start of the intervention which did not yield any statistically significant results. Qualitative interviews with patients however helped provide an insight into potentially beneficial process-related aspects of the programme, such as greater, perceived patient involvement in care. The authors reported how this case study approach provided a number of contextual factors likely to influence the effectiveness of the intervention and which were not likely to have been obtained from quantitative methods alone.

In collective or multiple case studies, data collection needs to be flexible enough to allow a detailed description of each individual case to be developed (e.g. the nature of different cancer care programmes), before considering the emerging similarities and differences in cross-case comparisons (e.g. to explore why one programme is more effective than another). It is important that data sources from different cases are, where possible, broadly comparable for this purpose even though they may vary in nature and depth.

Analysing, interpreting and reporting case studies

Making sense and offering a coherent interpretation of the typically disparate sources of data (whether qualitative alone or together with quantitative) is far from straightforward. Repeated reviewing and sorting of the voluminous and detail-rich data are integral to the process of analysis. In collective case studies, it is helpful to analyse data relating to the individual component cases first, before making comparisons across cases. Attention needs to be paid to variations within each case and, where relevant, the relationship between different causes, effects and outcomes[ 23 ]. Data will need to be organised and coded to allow the key issues, both derived from the literature and emerging from the dataset, to be easily retrieved at a later stage. An initial coding frame can help capture these issues and can be applied systematically to the whole dataset with the aid of a qualitative data analysis software package.

The Framework approach is a practical approach, comprising of five stages (familiarisation; identifying a thematic framework; indexing; charting; mapping and interpretation) , to managing and analysing large datasets particularly if time is limited, as was the case in our study of recruitment of South Asians into asthma research (Table 1 )[ 3 , 24 ]. Theoretical frameworks may also play an important role in integrating different sources of data and examining emerging themes. For example, we drew on a socio-technical framework to help explain the connections between different elements - technology; people; and the organisational settings within which they worked - in our study of the introduction of electronic health record systems (Table 3 )[ 5 ]. Our study of patient safety in undergraduate curricula drew on an evaluation-based approach to design and analysis, which emphasised the importance of the academic, organisational and practice contexts through which students learn (Table 4 )[ 6 ].

Case study findings can have implications both for theory development and theory testing. They may establish, strengthen or weaken historical explanations of a case and, in certain circumstances, allow theoretical (as opposed to statistical) generalisation beyond the particular cases studied[ 12 ]. These theoretical lenses should not, however, constitute a strait-jacket and the cases should not be "forced to fit" the particular theoretical framework that is being employed.

When reporting findings, it is important to provide the reader with enough contextual information to understand the processes that were followed and how the conclusions were reached. In a collective case study, researchers may choose to present the findings from individual cases separately before amalgamating across cases. Care must be taken to ensure the anonymity of both case sites and individual participants (if agreed in advance) by allocating appropriate codes or withholding descriptors. In the example given in Table 3 , we decided against providing detailed information on the NHS sites and individual participants in order to avoid the risk of inadvertent disclosure of identities[ 5 , 25 ].

What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided?

The case study approach is, as with all research, not without its limitations. When investigating the formal and informal ways undergraduate students learn about patient safety (Table 4 ), for example, we rapidly accumulated a large quantity of data. The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted on the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources. This highlights a more general point of the importance of avoiding the temptation to collect as much data as possible; adequate time also needs to be set aside for data analysis and interpretation of what are often highly complex datasets.

Case study research has sometimes been criticised for lacking scientific rigour and providing little basis for generalisation (i.e. producing findings that may be transferable to other settings)[ 1 ]. There are several ways to address these concerns, including: the use of theoretical sampling (i.e. drawing on a particular conceptual framework); respondent validation (i.e. participants checking emerging findings and the researcher's interpretation, and providing an opinion as to whether they feel these are accurate); and transparency throughout the research process (see Table 8 )[ 8 , 18 – 21 , 23 , 26 ]. Transparency can be achieved by describing in detail the steps involved in case selection, data collection, the reasons for the particular methods chosen, and the researcher's background and level of involvement (i.e. being explicit about how the researcher has influenced data collection and interpretation). Seeking potential, alternative explanations, and being explicit about how interpretations and conclusions were reached, help readers to judge the trustworthiness of the case study report. Stake provides a critique checklist for a case study report (Table 9 )[ 8 ].

Conclusions

The case study approach allows, amongst other things, critical events, interventions, policy developments and programme-based service reforms to be studied in detail in a real-life context. It should therefore be considered when an experimental design is either inappropriate to answer the research questions posed or impossible to undertake. Considering the frequency with which implementations of innovations are now taking place in healthcare settings and how well the case study approach lends itself to in-depth, complex health service research, we believe this approach should be more widely considered by researchers. Though inherently challenging, the research case study can, if carefully conceptualised and thoughtfully undertaken and reported, yield powerful insights into many important aspects of health and healthcare delivery.

Yin RK: Case study research, design and method. 2009, London: Sage Publications Ltd., 4

Google Scholar  

Keen J, Packwood T: Qualitative research; case study evaluation. BMJ. 1995, 311: 444-446.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sheikh A, Halani L, Bhopal R, Netuveli G, Partridge M, Car J, et al: Facilitating the Recruitment of Minority Ethnic People into Research: Qualitative Case Study of South Asians and Asthma. PLoS Med. 2009, 6 (10): 1-11.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pinnock H, Huby G, Powell A, Kielmann T, Price D, Williams S, et al: The process of planning, development and implementation of a General Practitioner with a Special Interest service in Primary Care Organisations in England and Wales: a comparative prospective case study. Report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (NCCSDO). 2008, [ http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/99-final-report.pdf ]

Robertson A, Cresswell K, Takian A, Petrakaki D, Crowe S, Cornford T, et al: Prospective evaluation of the implementation and adoption of NHS Connecting for Health's national electronic health record in secondary care in England: interim findings. BMJ. 2010, 41: c4564-

Pearson P, Steven A, Howe A, Sheikh A, Ashcroft D, Smith P, the Patient Safety Education Study Group: Learning about patient safety: organisational context and culture in the education of healthcare professionals. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010, 15: 4-10. 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009052.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

van Harten WH, Casparie TF, Fisscher OA: The evaluation of the introduction of a quality management system: a process-oriented case study in a large rehabilitation hospital. Health Policy. 2002, 60 (1): 17-37. 10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00187-7.

Stake RE: The art of case study research. 1995, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Sheikh A, Smeeth L, Ashcroft R: Randomised controlled trials in primary care: scope and application. Br J Gen Pract. 2002, 52 (482): 746-51.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

King G, Keohane R, Verba S: Designing Social Inquiry. 1996, Princeton: Princeton University Press

Doolin B: Information technology as disciplinary technology: being critical in interpretative research on information systems. Journal of Information Technology. 1998, 13: 301-311. 10.1057/jit.1998.8.

George AL, Bennett A: Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. 2005, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Eccles M, the Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG): Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implementation Science. 2006, 1: 1-8. 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Netuveli G, Hurwitz B, Levy M, Fletcher M, Barnes G, Durham SR, Sheikh A: Ethnic variations in UK asthma frequency, morbidity, and health-service use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2005, 365 (9456): 312-7.

Sheikh A, Panesar SS, Lasserson T, Netuveli G: Recruitment of ethnic minorities to asthma studies. Thorax. 2004, 59 (7): 634-

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hellström I, Nolan M, Lundh U: 'We do things together': A case study of 'couplehood' in dementia. Dementia. 2005, 4: 7-22. 10.1177/1471301205049188.

Som CV: Nothing seems to have changed, nothing seems to be changing and perhaps nothing will change in the NHS: doctors' response to clinical governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2005, 18: 463-477. 10.1108/09513550510608903.

Lincoln Y, Guba E: Naturalistic inquiry. 1985, Newbury Park: Sage Publications

Barbour RS: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?. BMJ. 2001, 322: 1115-1117. 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115.

Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000, 320: 50-52. 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50.

Mason J: Qualitative researching. 2002, London: Sage

Brazier A, Cooke K, Moravan V: Using Mixed Methods for Evaluating an Integrative Approach to Cancer Care: A Case Study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2008, 7: 5-17. 10.1177/1534735407313395.

Miles MB, Huberman M: Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 1994, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2

Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Analysing qualitative data. Qualitative research in health care. BMJ. 2000, 320: 114-116. 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114.

Cresswell KM, Worth A, Sheikh A: Actor-Network Theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010, 10 (1): 67-10.1186/1472-6947-10-67.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Malterud K: Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001, 358: 483-488. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yin R: Case study research: design and methods. 1994, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, 2

Yin R: Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999, 34: 1209-1224.

Green J, Thorogood N: Qualitative methods for health research. 2009, Los Angeles: Sage, 2

Howcroft D, Trauth E: Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research, Theory and Application. 2005, Cheltenham, UK: Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar

Book   Google Scholar  

Blakie N: Approaches to Social Enquiry. 1993, Cambridge: Polity Press

Doolin B: Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information system. Info Systems J. 2004, 14: 343-362. 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00176.x.

Bloomfield BP, Best A: Management consultants: systems development, power and the translation of problems. Sociological Review. 1992, 40: 533-560.

Shanks G, Parr A: Positivist, single case study research in information systems: A critical analysis. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems. 2003, Naples

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/100/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the participants and colleagues who contributed to the individual case studies that we have drawn on. This work received no direct funding, but it has been informed by projects funded by Asthma UK, the NHS Service Delivery Organisation, NHS Connecting for Health Evaluation Programme, and Patient Safety Research Portfolio. We would also like to thank the expert reviewers for their insightful and constructive feedback. Our thanks are also due to Dr. Allison Worth who commented on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Primary Care, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Sarah Crowe & Anthony Avery

Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Kathrin Cresswell, Ann Robertson & Aziz Sheikh

School of Health in Social Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Crowe .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

AS conceived this article. SC, KC and AR wrote this paper with GH, AA and AS all commenting on various drafts. SC and AS are guarantors.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A. et al. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 11 , 100 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Download citation

Received : 29 November 2010

Accepted : 27 June 2011

Published : 27 June 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Case Study Approach
• Electronic Health Record System
• Case Study Design
• Case Study Site
• Case Study Report

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]