methodology section in report

How To Write The Methodology Chapter

The what, why & how explained simply (with examples).

By: Jenna Crossley (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | September 2021 (Updated April 2023)

So, you’ve pinned down your research topic and undertaken a review of the literature – now it’s time to write up the methodology section of your dissertation, thesis or research paper . But what exactly is the methodology chapter all about – and how do you go about writing one? In this post, we’ll unpack the topic, step by step .

Overview: The Methodology Chapter

• The purpose  of the methodology chapter
• Why you need to craft this chapter (really) well
• How to write and structure the chapter
• Methodology chapter example
• Essential takeaways

What (exactly) is the methodology chapter?

The methodology chapter is where you outline the philosophical underpinnings of your research and outline the specific methodological choices you’ve made. The point of the methodology chapter is to tell the reader exactly how you designed your study and, just as importantly, why you did it this way.

Importantly, this chapter should comprehensively describe and justify all the methodological choices you made in your study. For example, the approach you took to your research (i.e., qualitative, quantitative or mixed), who  you collected data from (i.e., your sampling strategy), how you collected your data and, of course, how you analysed it. If that sounds a little intimidating, don’t worry – we’ll explain all these methodological choices in this post .

Why is the methodology chapter important?

The methodology chapter plays two important roles in your dissertation or thesis:

Firstly, it demonstrates your understanding of research theory, which is what earns you marks. A flawed research design or methodology would mean flawed results. So, this chapter is vital as it allows you to show the marker that you know what you’re doing and that your results are credible .

Secondly, the methodology chapter is what helps to make your study replicable. In other words, it allows other researchers to undertake your study using the same methodological approach, and compare their findings to yours. This is very important within academic research, as each study builds on previous studies.

The methodology chapter is also important in that it allows you to identify and discuss any methodological issues or problems you encountered (i.e., research limitations ), and to explain how you mitigated the impacts of these. Every research project has its limitations , so it’s important to acknowledge these openly and highlight your study’s value despite its limitations . Doing so demonstrates your understanding of research design, which will earn you marks. We’ll discuss limitations in a bit more detail later in this post, so stay tuned!

Need a helping hand?

How to write up the methodology chapter

First off, it’s worth noting that the exact structure and contents of the methodology chapter will vary depending on the field of research (e.g., humanities, chemistry or engineering) as well as the university . So, be sure to always check the guidelines provided by your institution for clarity and, if possible, review past dissertations from your university. Here we’re going to discuss a generic structure for a methodology chapter typically found in the sciences.

Before you start writing, it’s always a good idea to draw up a rough outline to guide your writing. Don’t just start writing without knowing what you’ll discuss where. If you do, you’ll likely end up with a disjointed, ill-flowing narrative . You’ll then waste a lot of time rewriting in an attempt to try to stitch all the pieces together. Do yourself a favour and start with the end in mind .

Section 1 – Introduction

As with all chapters in your dissertation or thesis, the methodology chapter should have a brief introduction. In this section, you should remind your readers what the focus of your study is, especially the research aims . As we’ve discussed many times on the blog, your methodology needs to align with your research aims, objectives and research questions. Therefore, it’s useful to frontload this component to remind the reader (and yourself!) what you’re trying to achieve.

In this section, you can also briefly mention how you’ll structure the chapter. This will help orient the reader and provide a bit of a roadmap so that they know what to expect. You don’t need a lot of detail here – just a brief outline will do.

Section 2 – The Methodology

The next section of your chapter is where you’ll present the actual methodology. In this section, you need to detail and justify the key methodological choices you’ve made in a logical, intuitive fashion. Importantly, this is the heart of your methodology chapter, so you need to get specific – don’t hold back on the details here. This is not one of those “less is more” situations.

Let’s take a look at the most common components you’ll likely need to cover. 

Methodological Choice #1 – Research Philosophy

Research philosophy refers to the underlying beliefs (i.e., the worldview) regarding how data about a phenomenon should be gathered , analysed and used . The research philosophy will serve as the core of your study and underpin all of the other research design choices, so it’s critically important that you understand which philosophy you’ll adopt and why you made that choice. If you’re not clear on this, take the time to get clarity before you make any further methodological choices.

While several research philosophies exist, two commonly adopted ones are positivism and interpretivism . These two sit roughly on opposite sides of the research philosophy spectrum.

Positivism states that the researcher can observe reality objectively and that there is only one reality, which exists independently of the observer. As a consequence, it is quite commonly the underlying research philosophy in quantitative studies and is oftentimes the assumed philosophy in the physical sciences.

Contrasted with this, interpretivism , which is often the underlying research philosophy in qualitative studies, assumes that the researcher performs a role in observing the world around them and that reality is unique to each observer . In other words, reality is observed subjectively .

These are just two philosophies (there are many more), but they demonstrate significantly different approaches to research and have a significant impact on all the methodological choices. Therefore, it’s vital that you clearly outline and justify your research philosophy at the beginning of your methodology chapter, as it sets the scene for everything that follows.

Methodological Choice #2 – Research Type

The next thing you would typically discuss in your methodology section is the research type. The starting point for this is to indicate whether the research you conducted is inductive or deductive .

Inductive research takes a bottom-up approach , where the researcher begins with specific observations or data and then draws general conclusions or theories from those observations. Therefore these studies tend to be exploratory in terms of approach.

Conversely , d eductive research takes a top-down approach , where the researcher starts with a theory or hypothesis and then tests it using specific observations or data. Therefore these studies tend to be confirmatory in approach.

Related to this, you’ll need to indicate whether your study adopts a qualitative, quantitative or mixed  approach. As we’ve mentioned, there’s a strong link between this choice and your research philosophy, so make sure that your choices are tightly aligned . When you write this section up, remember to clearly justify your choices, as they form the foundation of your study.

Methodological Choice #3 – Research Strategy

Next, you’ll need to discuss your research strategy (also referred to as a research design ). This methodological choice refers to the broader strategy in terms of how you’ll conduct your research, based on the aims of your study.

Several research strategies exist, including experimental , case studies , ethnography , grounded theory, action research , and phenomenology . Let’s take a look at two of these, experimental and ethnographic, to see how they contrast.

Experimental research makes use of the scientific method , where one group is the control group (in which no variables are manipulated ) and another is the experimental group (in which a specific variable is manipulated). This type of research is undertaken under strict conditions in a controlled, artificial environment (e.g., a laboratory). By having firm control over the environment, experimental research typically allows the researcher to establish causation between variables. Therefore, it can be a good choice if you have research aims that involve identifying causal relationships.

Ethnographic research , on the other hand, involves observing and capturing the experiences and perceptions of participants in their natural environment (for example, at home or in the office). In other words, in an uncontrolled environment.  Naturally, this means that this research strategy would be far less suitable if your research aims involve identifying causation, but it would be very valuable if you’re looking to explore and examine a group culture, for example.

As you can see, the right research strategy will depend largely on your research aims and research questions – in other words, what you’re trying to figure out. Therefore, as with every other methodological choice, it’s essential to justify why you chose the research strategy you did.

Methodological Choice #4 – Time Horizon

The next thing you’ll need to detail in your methodology chapter is the time horizon. There are two options here: cross-sectional and longitudinal . In other words, whether the data for your study were all collected at one point in time (cross-sectional) or at multiple points in time (longitudinal).

The choice you make here depends again on your research aims, objectives and research questions. If, for example, you aim to assess how a specific group of people’s perspectives regarding a topic change over time , you’d likely adopt a longitudinal time horizon.

Another important factor to consider is simply whether you have the time necessary to adopt a longitudinal approach (which could involve collecting data over multiple months or even years). Oftentimes, the time pressures of your degree program will force your hand into adopting a cross-sectional time horizon, so keep this in mind.

Methodological Choice #5 – Sampling Strategy

Next, you’ll need to discuss your sampling strategy . There are two main categories of sampling, probability and non-probability sampling.

Probability sampling involves a random (and therefore representative) selection of participants from a population, whereas non-probability sampling entails selecting participants in a non-random  (and therefore non-representative) manner. For example, selecting participants based on ease of access (this is called a convenience sample).

The right sampling approach depends largely on what you’re trying to achieve in your study. Specifically, whether you trying to develop findings that are generalisable to a population or not. Practicalities and resource constraints also play a large role here, as it can oftentimes be challenging to gain access to a truly random sample. In the video below, we explore some of the most common sampling strategies.

Methodological Choice #6 – Data Collection Method

Next up, you’ll need to explain how you’ll go about collecting the necessary data for your study. Your data collection method (or methods) will depend on the type of data that you plan to collect – in other words, qualitative or quantitative data.

Typically, quantitative research relies on surveys , data generated by lab equipment, analytics software or existing datasets. Qualitative research, on the other hand, often makes use of collection methods such as interviews , focus groups , participant observations, and ethnography.

So, as you can see, there is a tight link between this section and the design choices you outlined in earlier sections. Strong alignment between these sections, as well as your research aims and questions is therefore very important.

Methodological Choice #7 – Data Analysis Methods/Techniques

The final major methodological choice that you need to address is that of analysis techniques . In other words, how you’ll go about analysing your date once you’ve collected it. Here it’s important to be very specific about your analysis methods and/or techniques – don’t leave any room for interpretation. Also, as with all choices in this chapter, you need to justify each choice you make.

What exactly you discuss here will depend largely on the type of study you’re conducting (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). For qualitative studies, common analysis methods include content analysis , thematic analysis and discourse analysis . In the video below, we explain each of these in plain language.

For quantitative studies, you’ll almost always make use of descriptive statistics , and in many cases, you’ll also use inferential statistical techniques (e.g., correlation and regression analysis). In the video below, we unpack some of the core concepts involved in descriptive and inferential statistics.

In this section of your methodology chapter, it’s also important to discuss how you prepared your data for analysis, and what software you used (if any). For example, quantitative data will often require some initial preparation such as removing duplicates or incomplete responses . Similarly, qualitative data will often require transcription and perhaps even translation. As always, remember to state both what you did and why you did it.

Section 3 – The Methodological Limitations

With the key methodological choices outlined and justified, the next step is to discuss the limitations of your design. No research methodology is perfect – there will always be trade-offs between the “ideal” methodology and what’s practical and viable, given your constraints. Therefore, this section of your methodology chapter is where you’ll discuss the trade-offs you had to make, and why these were justified given the context.

Methodological limitations can vary greatly from study to study, ranging from common issues such as time and budget constraints to issues of sample or selection bias . For example, you may find that you didn’t manage to draw in enough respondents to achieve the desired sample size (and therefore, statistically significant results), or your sample may be skewed heavily towards a certain demographic, thereby negatively impacting representativeness .

In this section, it’s important to be critical of the shortcomings of your study. There’s no use trying to hide them (your marker will be aware of them regardless). By being critical, you’ll demonstrate to your marker that you have a strong understanding of research theory, so don’t be shy here. At the same time, don’t beat your study to death . State the limitations, why these were justified, how you mitigated their impacts to the best degree possible, and how your study still provides value despite these limitations .

Section 4 – Concluding Summary

Finally, it’s time to wrap up the methodology chapter with a brief concluding summary. In this section, you’ll want to concisely summarise what you’ve presented in the chapter. Here, it can be a good idea to use a figure to summarise the key decisions, especially if your university recommends using a specific model (for example, Saunders’ Research Onion ).

Importantly, this section needs to be brief – a paragraph or two maximum (it’s a summary, after all). Also, make sure that when you write up your concluding summary, you include only what you’ve already discussed in your chapter; don’t add any new information.

Methodology Chapter Example

In the video below, we walk you through an example of a high-quality research methodology chapter from a dissertation. We also unpack our free methodology chapter template so that you can see how best to structure your chapter.

Wrapping Up

And there you have it – the methodology chapter in a nutshell. As we’ve mentioned, the exact contents and structure of this chapter can vary between universities , so be sure to check in with your institution before you start writing. If possible, try to find dissertations or theses from former students of your specific degree program – this will give you a strong indication of the expectations and norms when it comes to the methodology chapter (and all the other chapters!).

Also, remember the golden rule of the methodology chapter – justify every choice ! Make sure that you clearly explain the “why” for every “what”, and reference credible methodology textbooks or academic sources to back up your justifications.

If you need a helping hand with your research methodology (or any other component of your research), be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through every step of the research journey. Until next time, good luck!

55 Comments

highly appreciated.

This was very helpful!

This was helpful

Thanks ,it is a very useful idea.

Thanks ,it is very useful idea.

Thank you so much, this information is very useful.

Thank you very much. I must say the information presented was succinct, coherent and invaluable. It is well put together and easy to comprehend. I have a great guide to create the research methodology for my dissertation.

Highly clear and useful.

I understand a bit on the explanation above. I want to have some coach but I’m still student and don’t have any budget to hire one. A lot of question I want to ask.

Thank you so much. This concluded my day plan. Thank you so much.

Thanks it was helpful

Great information. It would be great though if you could show us practical examples.

Thanks so much for this information. God bless and be with you

Thank you so so much. Indeed it was helpful

This is EXCELLENT!

I was totally confused by other explanations. Thank you so much!.

justdoing my research now , thanks for the guidance.

Thank uuuu! These contents are really valued for me!

This is powerful …I really like it

Highly useful and clear, thank you so much.

Highly appreciated. Good guide

That was helpful. Thanks

This is very useful.Thank you

Very helpful information. Thank you

This is exactly what I was looking for. The explanation is so detailed and easy to comprehend. Well done and thank you.

Great job. You just summarised everything in the easiest and most comprehensible way possible. Thanks a lot.

Thank you very much for the ideas you have given this will really help me a lot. Thank you and God Bless.

Such great effort …….very grateful thank you

Please accept my sincere gratitude. I have to say that the information that was delivered was congruent, concise, and quite helpful. It is clear and straightforward, making it simple to understand. I am in possession of an excellent manual that will assist me in developing the research methods for my dissertation.

Thank you for your great explanation. It really helped me construct my methodology paper.

thank you for simplifieng the methodoly, It was realy helpful

Very helpful!

Thank you for your great explanation.

The explanation I have been looking for. So clear Thank you

Thank you very much .this was more enlightening.

helped me create the in depth and thorough methodology for my dissertation

Thank you for the great explaination.please construct one methodology for me

I appreciate you for the explanation of methodology. Please construct one methodology on the topic: The effects influencing students dropout among schools for my thesis

This helped me complete my methods section of my dissertation with ease. I have managed to write a thorough and concise methodology!

its so good in deed

wow …what an easy to follow presentation. very invaluable content shared. utmost important.

Peace be upon you, I am Dr. Ahmed Khedr, a former part-time professor at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt. I am currently teaching research methods, and I have been dealing with your esteemed site for several years, and I found that despite my long experience with research methods sites, it is one of the smoothest sites for evaluating the material for students, For this reason, I relied on it a lot in teaching and translated most of what was written into Arabic and published it on my own page on Facebook. Thank you all… Everything I posted on my page is provided with the names of the writers of Grad coach, the title of the article, and the site. My best regards.

A remarkably simple and useful guide, thank you kindly.

I real appriciate your short and remarkable chapter summary

Bravo! Very helpful guide.

Only true experts could provide such helpful, fantastic, and inspiring knowledge about Methodology. Thank you very much! God be with you and us all!

highly appreciate your effort.

This is a very well thought out post. Very informative and a great read.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR SHARING YOUR NICE IDEA

I love you Emma, you are simply amazing with clear explanations with complete information. GradCoach really helped me to do my assignment here in Auckland. Mostly, Emma make it so simple and enjoyable

Thank you very much for this informative and synthesised version.

thank you, It was a very informative presentation, you made it just to the point in a straightforward way .

Help me write a methodology on the topic “challenges faced by family businesses in Ghana

Well articulated, clear, and concise. I got a lot from this writings. Thanks

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.

• Print Friendly

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 6. The Methodology
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The methods section describes actions taken to investigate a research problem and the rationale for the application of specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information applied to understanding the problem, thereby, allowing the reader to critically evaluate a study’s overall validity and reliability. The methodology section of a research paper answers two main questions: How was the data collected or generated? And, how was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and always written in the past tense.

Kallet, Richard H. "How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper." Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004): 1229-1232.

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

You must explain how you obtained and analyzed your results for the following reasons:

• Readers need to know how the data was obtained because the method you chose affects the results and, by extension, how you interpreted their significance in the discussion section of your paper.
• Methodology is crucial for any branch of scholarship because an unreliable method produces unreliable results and, as a consequence, undermines the value of your analysis of the findings.
• In most cases, there are a variety of different methods you can choose to investigate a research problem. The methodology section of your paper should clearly articulate the reasons why you have chosen a particular procedure or technique.
• The reader wants to know that the data was collected or generated in a way that is consistent with accepted practice in the field of study. For example, if you are using a multiple choice questionnaire, readers need to know that it offered your respondents a reasonable range of answers to choose from.
• The method must be appropriate to fulfilling the overall aims of the study. For example, you need to ensure that you have a large enough sample size to be able to generalize and make recommendations based upon the findings.
• The methodology should discuss the problems that were anticipated and the steps you took to prevent them from occurring. For any problems that do arise, you must describe the ways in which they were minimized or why these problems do not impact in any meaningful way your interpretation of the findings.
• In the social and behavioral sciences, it is important to always provide sufficient information to allow other researchers to adopt or replicate your methodology. This information is particularly important when a new method has been developed or an innovative use of an existing method is utilized.

Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Psychology Writing Center. University of Washington; Denscombe, Martyn. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects . 5th edition. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 2014; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Groups of Research Methods

There are two main groups of research methods in the social sciences:

• The e mpirical-analytical group approaches the study of social sciences in a similar manner that researchers study the natural sciences . This type of research focuses on objective knowledge, research questions that can be answered yes or no, and operational definitions of variables to be measured. The empirical-analytical group employs deductive reasoning that uses existing theory as a foundation for formulating hypotheses that need to be tested. This approach is focused on explanation.
• The i nterpretative group of methods is focused on understanding phenomenon in a comprehensive, holistic way . Interpretive methods focus on analytically disclosing the meaning-making practices of human subjects [the why, how, or by what means people do what they do], while showing how those practices arrange so that it can be used to generate observable outcomes. Interpretive methods allow you to recognize your connection to the phenomena under investigation. However, the interpretative group requires careful examination of variables because it focuses more on subjective knowledge.

II.  Content

The introduction to your methodology section should begin by restating the research problem and underlying assumptions underpinning your study. This is followed by situating the methods you used to gather, analyze, and process information within the overall “tradition” of your field of study and within the particular research design you have chosen to study the problem. If the method you choose lies outside of the tradition of your field [i.e., your review of the literature demonstrates that the method is not commonly used], provide a justification for how your choice of methods specifically addresses the research problem in ways that have not been utilized in prior studies.

The remainder of your methodology section should describe the following:

• Decisions made in selecting the data you have analyzed or, in the case of qualitative research, the subjects and research setting you have examined,
• Tools and methods used to identify and collect information, and how you identified relevant variables,
• The ways in which you processed the data and the procedures you used to analyze that data, and
• The specific research tools or strategies that you utilized to study the underlying hypothesis and research questions.

In addition, an effectively written methodology section should:

• Introduce the overall methodological approach for investigating your research problem . Is your study qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both (mixed method)? Are you going to take a special approach, such as action research, or a more neutral stance?
• Indicate how the approach fits the overall research design . Your methods for gathering data should have a clear connection to your research problem. In other words, make sure that your methods will actually address the problem. One of the most common deficiencies found in research papers is that the proposed methodology is not suitable to achieving the stated objective of your paper.
• Describe the specific methods of data collection you are going to use , such as, surveys, interviews, questionnaires, observation, archival research. If you are analyzing existing data, such as a data set or archival documents, describe how it was originally created or gathered and by whom. Also be sure to explain how older data is still relevant to investigating the current research problem.
• Explain how you intend to analyze your results . Will you use statistical analysis? Will you use specific theoretical perspectives to help you analyze a text or explain observed behaviors? Describe how you plan to obtain an accurate assessment of relationships, patterns, trends, distributions, and possible contradictions found in the data.
• Provide background and a rationale for methodologies that are unfamiliar for your readers . Very often in the social sciences, research problems and the methods for investigating them require more explanation/rationale than widely accepted rules governing the natural and physical sciences. Be clear and concise in your explanation.
• Provide a justification for subject selection and sampling procedure . For instance, if you propose to conduct interviews, how do you intend to select the sample population? If you are analyzing texts, which texts have you chosen, and why? If you are using statistics, why is this set of data being used? If other data sources exist, explain why the data you chose is most appropriate to addressing the research problem.
• Provide a justification for case study selection . A common method of analyzing research problems in the social sciences is to analyze specific cases. These can be a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis that are either examined as a singular topic of in-depth investigation or multiple topics of investigation studied for the purpose of comparing or contrasting findings. In either method, you should explain why a case or cases were chosen and how they specifically relate to the research problem.
• Describe potential limitations . Are there any practical limitations that could affect your data collection? How will you attempt to control for potential confounding variables and errors? If your methodology may lead to problems you can anticipate, state this openly and show why pursuing this methodology outweighs the risk of these problems cropping up.

NOTE:   Once you have written all of the elements of the methods section, subsequent revisions should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and as logically as possibly. The description of how you prepared to study the research problem, how you gathered the data, and the protocol for analyzing the data should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic. If necessary, consider using appendices for raw data.

ANOTHER NOTE: If you are conducting a qualitative analysis of a research problem , the methodology section generally requires a more elaborate description of the methods used as well as an explanation of the processes applied to gathering and analyzing of data than is generally required for studies using quantitative methods. Because you are the primary instrument for generating the data [e.g., through interviews or observations], the process for collecting that data has a significantly greater impact on producing the findings. Therefore, qualitative research requires a more detailed description of the methods used.

YET ANOTHER NOTE:   If your study involves interviews, observations, or other qualitative techniques involving human subjects , you may be required to obtain approval from the university's Office for the Protection of Research Subjects before beginning your research. This is not a common procedure for most undergraduate level student research assignments. However, i f your professor states you need approval, you must include a statement in your methods section that you received official endorsement and adequate informed consent from the office and that there was a clear assessment and minimization of risks to participants and to the university. This statement informs the reader that your study was conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. In some cases, the approval notice is included as an appendix to your paper.

III.  Problems to Avoid

Irrelevant Detail The methodology section of your paper should be thorough but concise. Do not provide any background information that does not directly help the reader understand why a particular method was chosen, how the data was gathered or obtained, and how the data was analyzed in relation to the research problem [note: analyzed, not interpreted! Save how you interpreted the findings for the discussion section]. With this in mind, the page length of your methods section will generally be less than any other section of your paper except the conclusion.

Unnecessary Explanation of Basic Procedures Remember that you are not writing a how-to guide about a particular method. You should make the assumption that readers possess a basic understanding of how to investigate the research problem on their own and, therefore, you do not have to go into great detail about specific methodological procedures. The focus should be on how you applied a method , not on the mechanics of doing a method. An exception to this rule is if you select an unconventional methodological approach; if this is the case, be sure to explain why this approach was chosen and how it enhances the overall process of discovery.

Problem Blindness It is almost a given that you will encounter problems when collecting or generating your data, or, gaps will exist in existing data or archival materials. Do not ignore these problems or pretend they did not occur. Often, documenting how you overcame obstacles can form an interesting part of the methodology. It demonstrates to the reader that you can provide a cogent rationale for the decisions you made to minimize the impact of any problems that arose.

Literature Review Just as the literature review section of your paper provides an overview of sources you have examined while researching a particular topic, the methodology section should cite any sources that informed your choice and application of a particular method [i.e., the choice of a survey should include any citations to the works you used to help construct the survey].

It’s More than Sources of Information! A description of a research study's method should not be confused with a description of the sources of information. Such a list of sources is useful in and of itself, especially if it is accompanied by an explanation about the selection and use of the sources. The description of the project's methodology complements a list of sources in that it sets forth the organization and interpretation of information emanating from those sources.

Azevedo, L.F. et al. "How to Write a Scientific Paper: Writing the Methods Section." Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia 17 (2011): 232-238; Blair Lorrie. “Choosing a Methodology.” In Writing a Graduate Thesis or Dissertation , Teaching Writing Series. (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2016), pp. 49-72; Butin, Dan W. The Education Dissertation A Guide for Practitioner Scholars . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010; Carter, Susan. Structuring Your Research Thesis . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; Kallet, Richard H. “How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper.” Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004):1229-1232; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. Methods Section. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Rudestam, Kjell Erik and Rae R. Newton. “The Method Chapter: Describing Your Research Plan.” In Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process . (Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 2015), pp. 87-115; What is Interpretive Research. Institute of Public and International Affairs, University of Utah; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Methods and Materials. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College.

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

Don't avoid using a quantitative approach to analyzing your research problem just because you fear the idea of applying statistical designs and tests. A qualitative approach, such as conducting interviews or content analysis of archival texts, can yield exciting new insights about a research problem, but it should not be undertaken simply because you have a disdain for running a simple regression. A well designed quantitative research study can often be accomplished in very clear and direct ways, whereas, a similar study of a qualitative nature usually requires considerable time to analyze large volumes of data and a tremendous burden to create new paths for analysis where previously no path associated with your research problem had existed.

To locate data and statistics, GO HERE .

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

There can be multiple meaning associated with the term "theories" and the term "methods" in social sciences research. A helpful way to delineate between them is to understand "theories" as representing different ways of characterizing the social world when you research it and "methods" as representing different ways of generating and analyzing data about that social world. Framed in this way, all empirical social sciences research involves theories and methods, whether they are stated explicitly or not. However, while theories and methods are often related, it is important that, as a researcher, you deliberately separate them in order to avoid your theories playing a disproportionate role in shaping what outcomes your chosen methods produce.

Introspectively engage in an ongoing dialectic between the application of theories and methods to help enable you to use the outcomes from your methods to interrogate and develop new theories, or ways of framing conceptually the research problem. This is how scholarship grows and branches out into new intellectual territory.

Reynolds, R. Larry. Ways of Knowing. Alternative Microeconomics . Part 1, Chapter 3. Boise State University; The Theory-Method Relationship. S-Cool Revision. United Kingdom.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Methods and the Methodology

Do not confuse the terms "methods" and "methodology." As Schneider notes, a method refers to the technical steps taken to do research . Descriptions of methods usually include defining and stating why you have chosen specific techniques to investigate a research problem, followed by an outline of the procedures you used to systematically select, gather, and process the data [remember to always save the interpretation of data for the discussion section of your paper].

The methodology refers to a discussion of the underlying reasoning why particular methods were used . This discussion includes describing the theoretical concepts that inform the choice of methods to be applied, placing the choice of methods within the more general nature of academic work, and reviewing its relevance to examining the research problem. The methodology section also includes a thorough review of the methods other scholars have used to study the topic.

Bryman, Alan. "Of Methods and Methodology." Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 3 (2008): 159-168; Schneider, Florian. “What's in a Methodology: The Difference between Method, Methodology, and Theory…and How to Get the Balance Right?” PoliticsEastAsia.com. Chinese Department, University of Leiden, Netherlands.

• << Previous: Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Next: Qualitative Methods >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 9:40 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• RMIT Australia
• RMIT Europe
• RMIT Vietnam
• RMIT Global
• RMIT Online
• Alumni & Giving

• What will I do?
• What will I need?
• Who will help me?
• About the institution
• New to university?
• Studying efficiently
• Time management
• Mind mapping
• Note-taking
• Reading skills
• Argument analysis
• Preparing for assessment
• Critical thinking and argument analysis
• Online learning skills
• Starting my first assignment
• Researching your assignment
• What is referencing?
• Understanding citations
• When referencing isn't needed
• Paraphrasing
• Summarising
• Synthesising
• Integrating ideas with reporting words
• Referencing with Easy Cite
• Getting help with referencing
• Acting with academic integrity
• Artificial intelligence tools
• Understanding your audience
• Writing for coursework
• Literature review
• Academic style
• Writing for the workplace
• Spelling tips
• Writing paragraphs
• Writing sentences
• Academic word lists
• Annotated bibliographies
• Artist statement
• Case studies
• Creating effective poster presentations
• Essays, Reports, Reflective Writing
• Law assessments
• Oral presentations
• Reflective writing
• Art and design
• Critical thinking
• Maths and statistics
• Sustainability
• Educators' guide
• Learning Lab content in context
• Latest updates
• Students Alumni & Giving Staff Library

Learning Lab

Getting started at uni, study skills, referencing.

• When referencing isn't needed
• Integrating ideas

Writing and assessments

• Critical reading
• Poster presentations
• Postgraduate report writing

Subject areas

For educators.

• Educators' guide
• Methodology section in a report

Method/Methodology

The method section of a report details how the research was conducted, the research methods used and the reasons for choosing those methods. It should outline:

• the participants and research methods used, e.g. surveys/questionnaire, interviews
• refer to other relevant studies.

The methodology is a step-by-step explanation of the research process. It should be factual and is mainly written in the past tense.

Sample Methodology

The research used a quantitative methodology based on the approach advocated by Williams (2009). This study was conducted by questionnaire and investigated university teaching staff attitudes to the use of mobile phones in tutorials (see Appendix 1). The questionnaire used Likert scales to assess social attitudes (Jones 2007) to student mobile phone use and provided open-ended responses for additional comments. The survey was voluntary and anonymous. A total of 412 questionnaires were distributed online to randomly selected staff from each of the three colleges within the university. The completed questionnaires were returned by email.

• 'Describe' is short for: describing how the research was done.
• 'Refers' is short for: refers to relevant reading/literature.

[Describe: The research used a quantitative methodology based on the approach advocated by Williams (2009).] [Refer: This study was conducted by questionnaire and investigated university teaching staff attitudes to the use of mobile phones in tutorials (see Appendix 1). The questionnaire used Likert scales to assess social attitudes (Jones 2007) to student mobile phone use and provided open-ended responses for additional comments.] [Describes: The survey was voluntary and anonymous. A total of 412 questionnaires were distributed online to randomly selected staff from each of the three colleges within the university. The completed questionnaires were returned by email.]

• Overall structure of a report
• Example of a report
• Report checklist
• Writing a business research report

Still can't find what you need?

The RMIT University Library provides study support , one-on-one consultations and peer mentoring to RMIT students.

• Facebook (opens in a new window)
• Twitter (opens in a new window)
• Instagram (opens in a new window)
• Linkedin (opens in a new window)
• YouTube (opens in a new window)
• Weibo (opens in a new window)
• Copyright © 2024 RMIT University |
• Accessibility |
• Learning Lab feedback |
• Complaints |
• ABN 49 781 030 034 |
• CRICOS provider number: 00122A |
• RTO Code: 3046 |
• Open Universities Australia

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

Published on 25 February 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.

Your research methodology discusses and explains the data collection and analysis methods you used in your research. A key part of your thesis, dissertation, or research paper, the methodology chapter explains what you did and how you did it, allowing readers to evaluate the reliability and validity of your research.

It should include:

• The type of research you conducted
• How you collected and analysed your data
• Any tools or materials you used in the research
• Why you chose these methods
• Your methodology section should generally be written in the past tense .
• Academic style guides in your field may provide detailed guidelines on what to include for different types of studies.
• Your citation style might provide guidelines for your methodology section (e.g., an APA Style methods section ).

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

How to write a research methodology, why is a methods section important, step 1: explain your methodological approach, step 2: describe your data collection methods, step 3: describe your analysis method, step 4: evaluate and justify the methodological choices you made, tips for writing a strong methodology chapter, frequently asked questions about methodology.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Your methods section is your opportunity to share how you conducted your research and why you chose the methods you chose. It’s also the place to show that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated .

It gives your research legitimacy and situates it within your field, and also gives your readers a place to refer to if they have any questions or critiques in other sections.

You can start by introducing your overall approach to your research. You have two options here.

Option 1: Start with your “what”

What research problem or question did you investigate?

• Aim to describe the characteristics of something?
• Explore an under-researched topic?
• Establish a causal relationship?

And what type of data did you need to achieve this aim?

• Quantitative data , qualitative data , or a mix of both?
• Primary data collected yourself, or secondary data collected by someone else?
• Experimental data gathered by controlling and manipulating variables, or descriptive data gathered via observations?

Option 2: Start with your “why”

Depending on your discipline, you can also start with a discussion of the rationale and assumptions underpinning your methodology. In other words, why did you choose these methods for your study?

• Why is this the best way to answer your research question?
• Is this a standard methodology in your field, or does it require justification?
• Were there any ethical considerations involved in your choices?
• What are the criteria for validity and reliability in this type of research ?

Once you have introduced your reader to your methodological approach, you should share full details about your data collection methods .

Quantitative methods

In order to be considered generalisable, you should describe quantitative research methods in enough detail for another researcher to replicate your study.

Here, explain how you operationalised your concepts and measured your variables. Discuss your sampling method or inclusion/exclusion criteria, as well as any tools, procedures, and materials you used to gather your data.

Surveys Describe where, when, and how the survey was conducted.

• How did you design the questionnaire?
• What form did your questions take (e.g., multiple choice, Likert scale )?
• Were your surveys conducted in-person or virtually?
• What sampling method did you use to select participants?
• What was your sample size and response rate?

Experiments Share full details of the tools, techniques, and procedures you used to conduct your experiment.

• How did you design the experiment ?
• How did you recruit participants?
• How did you manipulate and measure the variables ?
• What tools did you use?

Existing data Explain how you gathered and selected the material (such as datasets or archival data) that you used in your analysis.

• Where did you source the material?
• How was the data originally produced?
• What criteria did you use to select material (e.g., date range)?

The survey consisted of 5 multiple-choice questions and 10 questions measured on a 7-point Likert scale.

The goal was to collect survey responses from 350 customers visiting the fitness apparel company’s brick-and-mortar location in Boston on 4–8 July 2022, between 11:00 and 15:00.

Here, a customer was defined as a person who had purchased a product from the company on the day they took the survey. Participants were given 5 minutes to fill in the survey anonymously. In total, 408 customers responded, but not all surveys were fully completed. Due to this, 371 survey results were included in the analysis.

Qualitative methods

In qualitative research , methods are often more flexible and subjective. For this reason, it’s crucial to robustly explain the methodology choices you made.

Be sure to discuss the criteria you used to select your data, the context in which your research was conducted, and the role you played in collecting your data (e.g., were you an active participant, or a passive observer?)

Interviews or focus groups Describe where, when, and how the interviews were conducted.

• How did you find and select participants?
• How many participants took part?
• What form did the interviews take ( structured , semi-structured , or unstructured )?
• How long were the interviews?
• How were they recorded?

Participant observation Describe where, when, and how you conducted the observation or ethnography .

• What group or community did you observe? How long did you spend there?
• How did you gain access to this group? What role did you play in the community?
• How long did you spend conducting the research? Where was it located?
• How did you record your data (e.g., audiovisual recordings, note-taking)?

Existing data Explain how you selected case study materials for your analysis.

• What type of materials did you analyse?
• How did you select them?

In order to gain better insight into possibilities for future improvement of the fitness shop’s product range, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 returning customers.

Here, a returning customer was defined as someone who usually bought products at least twice a week from the store.

Surveys were used to select participants. Interviews were conducted in a small office next to the cash register and lasted approximately 20 minutes each. Answers were recorded by note-taking, and seven interviews were also filmed with consent. One interviewee preferred not to be filmed.

Mixed methods

Mixed methods research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches. If a standalone quantitative or qualitative study is insufficient to answer your research question, mixed methods may be a good fit for you.

Mixed methods are less common than standalone analyses, largely because they require a great deal of effort to pull off successfully. If you choose to pursue mixed methods, it’s especially important to robustly justify your methods here.

Next, you should indicate how you processed and analysed your data. Avoid going into too much detail: you should not start introducing or discussing any of your results at this stage.

In quantitative research , your analysis will be based on numbers. In your methods section, you can include:

• How you prepared the data before analysing it (e.g., checking for missing data , removing outliers , transforming variables)
• Which software you used (e.g., SPSS, Stata or R)
• Which statistical tests you used (e.g., two-tailed t test , simple linear regression )

In qualitative research, your analysis will be based on language, images, and observations (often involving some form of textual analysis ).

Specific methods might include:

• Content analysis : Categorising and discussing the meaning of words, phrases and sentences
• Thematic analysis : Coding and closely examining the data to identify broad themes and patterns
• Discourse analysis : Studying communication and meaning in relation to their social context

Mixed methods combine the above two research methods, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches into one coherent analytical process.

Above all, your methodology section should clearly make the case for why you chose the methods you did. This is especially true if you did not take the most standard approach to your topic. In this case, discuss why other methods were not suitable for your objectives, and show how this approach contributes new knowledge or understanding.

In any case, it should be overwhelmingly clear to your reader that you set yourself up for success in terms of your methodology’s design. Show how your methods should lead to results that are valid and reliable, while leaving the analysis of the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results for your discussion section .

• Quantitative: Lab-based experiments cannot always accurately simulate real-life situations and behaviours, but they are effective for testing causal relationships between variables .
• Qualitative: Unstructured interviews usually produce results that cannot be generalised beyond the sample group , but they provide a more in-depth understanding of participants’ perceptions, motivations, and emotions.
• Mixed methods: Despite issues systematically comparing differing types of data, a solely quantitative study would not sufficiently incorporate the lived experience of each participant, while a solely qualitative study would be insufficiently generalisable.

Remember that your aim is not just to describe your methods, but to show how and why you applied them. Again, it’s critical to demonstrate that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated.

1. Focus on your objectives and research questions

The methodology section should clearly show why your methods suit your objectives  and convince the reader that you chose the best possible approach to answering your problem statement and research questions .

2. Cite relevant sources

Your methodology can be strengthened by referencing existing research in your field. This can help you to:

• Show that you followed established practice for your type of research
• Discuss how you decided on your approach by evaluating existing research
• Present a novel methodological approach to address a gap in the literature

3. Write for your audience

Consider how much information you need to give, and avoid getting too lengthy. If you are using methods that are standard for your discipline, you probably don’t need to give a lot of background or justification.

Regardless, your methodology should be a clear, well-structured text that makes an argument for your approach, not just a list of technical details and procedures.

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research. Developing your methodology involves studying the research methods used in your field and the theories or principles that underpin them, in order to choose the approach that best matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyse data (e.g. interviews, experiments , surveys , statistical tests ).

In a dissertation or scientific paper, the methodology chapter or methods section comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population. Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research.

For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

Statistical sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population. There are various sampling methods you can use to ensure that your sample is representative of the population as a whole.

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. (2022, October 10). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/methodology/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide.

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Here's What You Need to Understand About Research Methodology

Table of Contents

Research methodology involves a systematic and well-structured approach to conducting scholarly or scientific inquiries. Knowing the significance of research methodology and its different components is crucial as it serves as the basis for any study.

Typically, your research topic will start as a broad idea you want to investigate more thoroughly. Once you’ve identified a research problem and created research questions , you must choose the appropriate methodology and frameworks to address those questions effectively.

What is the definition of a research methodology?

Research methodology is the process or the way you intend to execute your study. The methodology section of a research paper outlines how you plan to conduct your study. It covers various steps such as collecting data, statistical analysis, observing participants, and other procedures involved in the research process

The methods section should give a description of the process that will convert your idea into a study. Additionally, the outcomes of your process must provide valid and reliable results resonant with the aims and objectives of your research. This thumb rule holds complete validity, no matter whether your paper has inclinations for qualitative or quantitative usage.

Studying research methods used in related studies can provide helpful insights and direction for your own research. Now easily discover papers related to your topic on SciSpace and utilize our AI research assistant, Copilot , to quickly review the methodologies applied in different papers.

The need for a good research methodology

While deciding on your approach towards your research, the reason or factors you weighed in choosing a particular problem and formulating a research topic need to be validated and explained. A research methodology helps you do exactly that. Moreover, a good research methodology lets you build your argument to validate your research work performed through various data collection methods, analytical methods, and other essential points.

Just imagine it as a strategy documented to provide an overview of what you intend to do.

While undertaking any research writing or performing the research itself, you may get drifted in not something of much importance. In such a case, a research methodology helps you to get back to your outlined work methodology.

A research methodology helps in keeping you accountable for your work. Additionally, it can help you evaluate whether your work is in sync with your original aims and objectives or not. Besides, a good research methodology enables you to navigate your research process smoothly and swiftly while providing effective planning to achieve your desired results.

What is the basic structure of a research methodology?

Usually, you must ensure to include the following stated aspects while deciding over the basic structure of your research methodology:

1. Your research procedure

Explain what research methods you’re going to use. Whether you intend to proceed with quantitative or qualitative, or a composite of both approaches, you need to state that explicitly. The option among the three depends on your research’s aim, objectives, and scope.

2. Provide the rationality behind your chosen approach

Based on logic and reason, let your readers know why you have chosen said research methodologies. Additionally, you have to build strong arguments supporting why your chosen research method is the best way to achieve the desired outcome.

3. Explain your mechanism

The mechanism encompasses the research methods or instruments you will use to develop your research methodology. It usually refers to your data collection methods. You can use interviews, surveys, physical questionnaires, etc., of the many available mechanisms as research methodology instruments. The data collection method is determined by the type of research and whether the data is quantitative data(includes numerical data) or qualitative data (perception, morale, etc.) Moreover, you need to put logical reasoning behind choosing a particular instrument.

4. Significance of outcomes

The results will be available once you have finished experimenting. However, you should also explain how you plan to use the data to interpret the findings. This section also aids in understanding the problem from within, breaking it down into pieces, and viewing the research problem from various perspectives.

5. Reader’s advice

Anything that you feel must be explained to spread more awareness among readers and focus groups must be included and described in detail. You should not just specify your research methodology on the assumption that a reader is aware of the topic.  

All the relevant information that explains and simplifies your research paper must be included in the methodology section. If you are conducting your research in a non-traditional manner, give a logical justification and list its benefits.

6. Explain your sample space

Include information about the sample and sample space in the methodology section. The term "sample" refers to a smaller set of data that a researcher selects or chooses from a larger group of people or focus groups using a predetermined selection method. Let your readers know how you are going to distinguish between relevant and non-relevant samples. How you figured out those exact numbers to back your research methodology, i.e. the sample spacing of instruments, must be discussed thoroughly.

For example, if you are going to conduct a survey or interview, then by what procedure will you select the interviewees (or sample size in case of surveys), and how exactly will the interview or survey be conducted.

7. Challenges and limitations

This part, which is frequently assumed to be unnecessary, is actually very important. The challenges and limitations that your chosen strategy inherently possesses must be specified while you are conducting different types of research.

The importance of a good research methodology

You must have observed that all research papers, dissertations, or theses carry a chapter entirely dedicated to research methodology. This section helps maintain your credibility as a better interpreter of results rather than a manipulator.

A good research methodology always explains the procedure, data collection methods and techniques, aim, and scope of the research. In a research study, it leads to a well-organized, rationality-based approach, while the paper lacking it is often observed as messy or disorganized.

You should pay special attention to validating your chosen way towards the research methodology. This becomes extremely important in case you select an unconventional or a distinct method of execution.

Curating and developing a strong, effective research methodology can assist you in addressing a variety of situations, such as:

• When someone tries to duplicate or expand upon your research after few years.
• If a contradiction or conflict of facts occurs at a later time. This gives you the security you need to deal with these contradictions while still being able to defend your approach.
• Gaining a tactical approach in getting your research completed in time. Just ensure you are using the right approach while drafting your research methodology, and it can help you achieve your desired outcomes. Additionally, it provides a better explanation and understanding of the research question itself.
• Documenting the results so that the final outcome of the research stays as you intended it to be while starting.

Instruments you could use while writing a good research methodology

As a researcher, you must choose which tools or data collection methods that fit best in terms of the relevance of your research. This decision has to be wise.

There exists many research equipments or tools that you can use to carry out your research process. These are classified as:

a. Interviews (One-on-One or a Group)

An interview aimed to get your desired research outcomes can be undertaken in many different ways. For example, you can design your interview as structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. What sets them apart is the degree of formality in the questions. On the other hand, in a group interview, your aim should be to collect more opinions and group perceptions from the focus groups on a certain topic rather than looking out for some formal answers.

In surveys, you are in better control if you specifically draft the questions you seek the response for. For example, you may choose to include free-style questions that can be answered descriptively, or you may provide a multiple-choice type response for questions. Besides, you can also opt to choose both ways, deciding what suits your research process and purpose better.

c. Sample Groups

Similar to the group interviews, here, you can select a group of individuals and assign them a topic to discuss or freely express their opinions over that. You can simultaneously note down the answers and later draft them appropriately, deciding on the relevance of every response.

d. Observations

If your research domain is humanities or sociology, observations are the best-proven method to draw your research methodology. Of course, you can always include studying the spontaneous response of the participants towards a situation or conducting the same but in a more structured manner. A structured observation means putting the participants in a situation at a previously decided time and then studying their responses.

Of all the tools described above, it is you who should wisely choose the instruments and decide what’s the best fit for your research. You must not restrict yourself from multiple methods or a combination of a few instruments if appropriate in drafting a good research methodology.

Types of research methodology

A research methodology exists in various forms. Depending upon their approach, whether centered around words, numbers, or both, methodologies are distinguished as qualitative, quantitative, or an amalgamation of both.

1. Qualitative research methodology

When a research methodology primarily focuses on words and textual data, then it is generally referred to as qualitative research methodology. This type is usually preferred among researchers when the aim and scope of the research are mainly theoretical and explanatory.

The instruments used are observations, interviews, and sample groups. You can use this methodology if you are trying to study human behavior or response in some situations. Generally, qualitative research methodology is widely used in sociology, psychology, and other related domains.

2. Quantitative research methodology

If your research is majorly centered on data, figures, and stats, then analyzing these numerical data is often referred to as quantitative research methodology. You can use quantitative research methodology if your research requires you to validate or justify the obtained results.

In quantitative methods, surveys, tests, experiments, and evaluations of current databases can be advantageously used as instruments If your research involves testing some hypothesis, then use this methodology.

3. Amalgam methodology

As the name suggests, the amalgam methodology uses both quantitative and qualitative approaches. This methodology is used when a part of the research requires you to verify the facts and figures, whereas the other part demands you to discover the theoretical and explanatory nature of the research question.

The instruments for the amalgam methodology require you to conduct interviews and surveys, including tests and experiments. The outcome of this methodology can be insightful and valuable as it provides precise test results in line with theoretical explanations and reasoning.

The amalgam method, makes your work both factual and rational at the same time.

Final words: How to decide which is the best research methodology?

If you have kept your sincerity and awareness intact with the aims and scope of research well enough, you must have got an idea of which research methodology suits your work best.

Before deciding which research methodology answers your research question, you must invest significant time in reading and doing your homework for that. Taking references that yield relevant results should be your first approach to establishing a research methodology.

Moreover, you should never refrain from exploring other options. Before setting your work in stone, you must try all the available options as it explains why the choice of research methodology that you finally make is more appropriate than the other available options.

You should always go for a quantitative research methodology if your research requires gathering large amounts of data, figures, and statistics. This research methodology will provide you with results if your research paper involves the validation of some hypothesis.

Whereas, if  you are looking for more explanations, reasons, opinions, and public perceptions around a theory, you must use qualitative research methodology.The choice of an appropriate research methodology ultimately depends on what you want to achieve through your research.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Research Methodology

1. how to write a research methodology.

You can always provide a separate section for research methodology where you should specify details about the methods and instruments used during the research, discussions on result analysis, including insights into the background information, and conveying the research limitations.

2. What are the types of research methodology?

There generally exists four types of research methodology i.e.

• Observation
• Experimental
• Derivational

3. What is the true meaning of research methodology?

The set of techniques or procedures followed to discover and analyze the information gathered to validate or justify a research outcome is generally called Research Methodology.

4. Where lies the importance of research methodology?

Your research methodology directly reflects the validity of your research outcomes and how well-informed your research work is. Moreover, it can help future researchers cite or refer to your research if they plan to use a similar research methodology.

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Using AI for research: A beginner’s guide

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper

Writing a research paper is both an art and a skill, and knowing how to write the methods section of a research paper is the first crucial step in mastering scientific writing. If, like the majority of early career researchers, you believe that the methods section is the simplest to write and needs little in the way of careful consideration or thought, this article will help you understand it is not 1 .

We have all probably asked our supervisors, coworkers, or search engines “ how to write a methods section of a research paper ” at some point in our scientific careers, so you are not alone if that’s how you ended up here.  Even for seasoned researchers, selecting what to include in the methods section from a wealth of experimental information can occasionally be a source of distress and perplexity.   

Additionally, journal specifications, in some cases, may make it more of a requirement rather than a choice to provide a selective yet descriptive account of the experimental procedure. Hence, knowing these nuances of how to write the methods section of a research paper is critical to its success. The methods section of the research paper is not supposed to be a detailed heavy, dull section that some researchers tend to write; rather, it should be the central component of the study that justifies the validity and reliability of the research.

Are you still unsure of how the methods section of a research paper forms the basis of every investigation? Consider the last article you read but ignore the methods section and concentrate on the other parts of the paper . Now think whether you could repeat the study and be sure of the credibility of the findings despite knowing the literature review and even having the data in front of you. You have the answer!   

Having established the importance of the methods section , the next question is how to write the methods section of a research paper that unifies the overall study. The purpose of the methods section , which was earlier called as Materials and Methods , is to describe how the authors went about answering the “research question” at hand. Here, the objective is to tell a coherent story that gives a detailed account of how the study was conducted, the rationale behind specific experimental procedures, the experimental setup, objects (variables) involved, the research protocol employed, tools utilized to measure, calculations and measurements, and the analysis of the collected data 2 .

In this article, we will take a deep dive into this topic and provide a detailed overview of how to write the methods section of a research paper . For the sake of clarity, we have separated the subject into various sections with corresponding subheadings.  

Table of Contents

What is the methods section of a research paper ?  

The methods section is a fundamental section of any paper since it typically discusses the ‘ what ’, ‘ how ’, ‘ which ’, and ‘ why ’ of the study, which is necessary to arrive at the final conclusions. In a research article, the introduction, which serves to set the foundation for comprehending the background and results is usually followed by the methods section, which precedes the result and discussion sections. The methods section must explicitly state what was done, how it was done, which equipment, tools and techniques were utilized, how were the measurements/calculations taken, and why specific research protocols, software, and analytical methods were employed.  

Why is the methods section important?  

The primary goal of the methods section is to provide pertinent details about the experimental approach so that the reader may put the results in perspective and, if necessary, replicate the findings 3 .  This section offers readers the chance to evaluate the reliability and validity of any study. In short, it also serves as the study’s blueprint, assisting researchers who might be unsure about any other portion in establishing the study’s context and validity. The methods plays a rather crucial role in determining the fate of the article; an incomplete and unreliable methods section can frequently result in early rejections and may lead to numerous rounds of modifications during the publication process. This means that the reviewers also often use methods section to assess the reliability and validity of the research protocol and the data analysis employed to address the research topic. In other words, the purpose of the methods section is to demonstrate the research acumen and subject-matter expertise of the author(s) in their field.  

Structure of methods section of a research paper  

Similar to the research paper, the methods section also follows a defined structure; this may be dictated by the guidelines of a specific journal or can be presented in a chronological or thematic manner based on the study type. When writing the methods section , authors should keep in mind that they are telling a story about how the research was conducted. They should only report relevant information to avoid confusing the reader and include details that would aid in connecting various aspects of the entire research activity together. It is generally advisable to present experiments in the order in which they were conducted. This facilitates the logical flow of the research and allows readers to follow the progression of the study design.   

It is also essential to clearly state the rationale behind each experiment and how the findings of earlier experiments informed the design or interpretation of later experiments. This allows the readers to understand the overall purpose of the study design and the significance of each experiment within that context. However, depending on the particular research question and method, it may make sense to present information in a different order; therefore, authors must select the best structure and strategy for their individual studies.   

In cases where there is a lot of information, divide the sections into subheadings to cover the pertinent details. If the journal guidelines pose restrictions on the word limit , additional important information can be supplied in the supplementary files. A simple rule of thumb for sectioning the method section is to begin by explaining the methodological approach ( what was done ), describing the data collection methods ( how it was done ), providing the analysis method ( how the data was analyzed ), and explaining the rationale for choosing the methodological strategy. This is described in detail in the upcoming sections.    

How to write the methods section of a research paper  

Contrary to widespread assumption, the methods section of a research paper should be prepared once the study is complete to prevent missing any key parameter. Hence, please make sure that all relevant experiments are done before you start writing a methods section . The next step for authors is to look up any applicable academic style manuals or journal-specific standards to ensure that the methods section is formatted correctly. The methods section of a research paper typically constitutes materials and methods; while writing this section, authors usually arrange the information under each category.

The materials category describes the samples, materials, treatments, and instruments, while experimental design, sample preparation, data collection, and data analysis are a part of the method category. According to the nature of the study, authors should include additional subsections within the methods section, such as ethical considerations like the declaration of Helsinki (for studies involving human subjects), demographic information of the participants, and any other crucial information that can affect the output of the study. Simply put, the methods section has two major components: content and format. Here is an easy checklist for you to consider if you are struggling with how to write the methods section of a research paper .   

• Explain the research design, subjects, and sample details  
• Include information on inclusion and exclusion criteria  
• Mention ethical or any other permission required for the study  
• Include information about materials, experimental setup, tools, and software  
• Add details of data collection and analysis methods  
• Incorporate how research biases were avoided or confounding variables were controlled  
• Evaluate and justify the experimental procedure selected to address the research question  
• Provide precise and clear details of each experiment  
• Flowcharts, infographics, or tables can be used to present complex information     
• Use past tense to show that the experiments have been done   
• Follow academic style guides (such as APA or MLA ) to structure the content  
• Citations should be included as per standard protocols in the field  

Now that you know how to write the methods section of a research paper , let’s address another challenge researchers face while writing the methods section —what to include in the methods section .  How much information is too much is not always obvious when it comes to trying to include data in the methods section of a paper. In the next section, we examine this issue and explore potential solutions.   

What to include in the methods section of a research paper  

The technical nature of the methods section occasionally makes it harder to present the information clearly and concisely while staying within the study context. Many young researchers tend to veer off subject significantly, and they frequently commit the sin of becoming bogged down in itty bitty details, making the text harder to read and impairing its overall flow. However, the best way to write the methods section is to start with crucial components of the experiments. If you have trouble deciding which elements are essential, think about leaving out those that would make it more challenging to comprehend the context or replicate the results. The top-down approach helps to ensure all relevant information is incorporated and vital information is not lost in technicalities. Next, remember to add details that are significant to assess the validity and reliability of the study. Here is a simple checklist for you to follow ( bonus tip: you can also make a checklist for your own study to avoid missing any critical information while writing the methods section ).  

• Structuring the methods section : Authors should diligently follow journal guidelines and adhere to the specific author instructions provided when writing the methods section . Journals typically have specific guidelines for formatting the methods section ; for example, Frontiers in Plant Sciences advises arranging the materials and methods section by subheading and citing relevant literature. There are several standardized checklists available for different study types in the biomedical field, including CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for randomized clinical trials, PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis) for systematic reviews and meta-analysis, and STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) for cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies. Before starting the methods section , check the checklist available in your field that can function as a guide.     
• Organizing different sections to tell a story : Once you are sure of the format required for structuring the methods section , the next is to present the sections in a logical manner; as mentioned earlier, the sections can be organized according to the chronology or themes. In the chronological arrangement, you should discuss the methods in accordance with how the experiments were carried out. An example of the method section of a research paper of an animal study should first ideally include information about the species, weight, sex, strain, and age. Next, the number of animals, their initial conditions, and their living and housing conditions should also be mentioned. Second, how the groups are assigned and the intervention (drug treatment, stress, or other) given to each group, and finally, the details of tools and techniques used to measure, collect, and analyze the data. Experiments involving animal or human subjects should additionally state an ethics approval statement. It is best to arrange the section using the thematic approach when discussing distinct experiments not following a sequential order.  
• Define and explain the objects and procedure: Experimental procedure should clearly be stated in the methods section . Samples, necessary preparations (samples, treatment, and drug), and methods for manipulation need to be included. All variables (control, dependent, independent, and confounding) must be clearly defined, particularly if the confounding variables can affect the outcome of the study.  
• Match the order of the methods section with the order of results: Though not mandatory, organizing the manuscript in a logical and coherent manner can improve the readability and clarity of the paper. This can be done by following a consistent structure throughout the manuscript; readers can easily navigate through the different sections and understand the methods and results in relation to each other. Using experiment names as headings for both the methods and results sections can also make it simpler for readers to locate specific information and corroborate it if needed.   
• Relevant information must always be included: The methods section should have information on all experiments conducted and their details clearly mentioned. Ask the journal whether there is a way to offer more information in the supplemental files or external repositories if your target journal has strict word limitations. For example, Nature communications encourages authors to deposit their step-by-step protocols in an open-resource depository, Protocol Exchange which allows the protocols to be linked with the manuscript upon publication. Providing access to detailed protocols also helps to increase the transparency and reproducibility of the research.  
• It’s all in the details: The methods section should meticulously list all the materials, tools, instruments, and software used for different experiments. Specify the testing equipment on which data was obtained, together with its manufacturer’s information, location, city, and state or any other stimuli used to manipulate the variables. Provide specifics on the research process you employed; if it was a standard protocol, cite previous studies that also used the protocol.  Include any protocol modifications that were made, as well as any other factors that were taken into account when planning the study or gathering data. Any new or modified techniques should be explained by the authors. Typically, readers evaluate the reliability and validity of the procedures using the cited literature, and a widely accepted checklist helps to support the credibility of the methodology. Note: Authors should include a statement on sample size estimation (if applicable), which is often missed. It enables the reader to determine how many subjects will be required to detect the expected change in the outcome variables within a given confidence interval.  
• Write for the audience: While explaining the details in the methods section , authors should be mindful of their target audience, as some of the rationale or assumptions on which specific procedures are based might not always be obvious to the audience, particularly for a general audience. Therefore, when in doubt, the objective of a procedure should be specified either in relation to the research question or to the entire protocol.  
• Data interpretation and analysis : Information on data processing, statistical testing, levels of significance, and analysis tools and software should be added. Mention if the recommendations and expertise of an experienced statistician were followed. Also, evaluate and justify the preferred statistical method used in the study and its significance.  

What NOT to include in the methods section of a research paper  

To address “ how to write the methods section of a research paper ”, authors should not only pay careful attention to what to include but also what not to include in the methods section of a research paper . Here is a list of do not’s when writing the methods section :  

• Do not elaborate on specifics of standard methods/procedures: You should refrain from adding unnecessary details of experiments and practices that are well established and cited previously.  Instead, simply cite relevant literature or mention if the manufacturer’s protocol was followed.  
• Do not add unnecessary details : Do not include minute details of the experimental procedure and materials/instruments used that are not significant for the outcome of the experiment. For example, there is no need to mention the brand name of the water bath used for incubation.    
• Do not discuss the results: The methods section is not to discuss the results or refer to the tables and figures; save it for the results and discussion section. Also, focus on the methods selected to conduct the study and avoid diverting to other methods or commenting on their pros or cons.  
• Do not make the section bulky : For extensive methods and protocols, provide the essential details and share the rest of the information in the supplemental files. The writing should be clear yet concise to maintain the flow of the section.  

We hope that by this point, you understand how crucial it is to write a thoughtful and precise methods section and the ins and outs of how to write the methods section of a research paper . To restate, the entire purpose of the methods section is to enable others to reproduce the results or verify the research. We sincerely hope that this post has cleared up any confusion and given you a fresh perspective on the methods section .

As a parting gift, we’re leaving you with a handy checklist that will help you understand how to write the methods section of a research paper . Feel free to download this checklist and use or share this with those who you think may benefit from it.  

References  

• Bhattacharya, D. How to write the Methods section of a research paper. Editage Insights, 2018. https://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-write-the-methods-section-of-a-research-paper (2018).
• Kallet, R. H. How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper. Respiratory Care 49, 1229–1232 (2004). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15447808/
• Grindstaff, T. L. & Saliba, S. A. AVOIDING MANUSCRIPT MISTAKES. Int J Sports Phys Ther 7, 518–524 (2012). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474299/

Editage All Access is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Editage All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $14 a month !    

Related Posts

Back to School – Lock-in All Access Pack for a Year at the Best Price

Journal Turnaround Time: Researcher.Life and Scholarly Intelligence Join Hands to Empower Researchers with Publication Time Insights 

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

How to Write a Methods Section for a Psychology Paper

Tips and Examples of an APA Methods Section

Verywell / Brianna Gilmartin 

The methods section of an APA format psychology paper provides the methods and procedures used in a research study or experiment . This part of an APA paper is critical because it allows other researchers to see exactly how you conducted your research.

Method refers to the procedure that was used in a research study. It included a precise description of how the experiments were performed and why particular procedures were selected. While the APA technically refers to this section as the 'method section,' it is also often known as a 'methods section.'

The methods section ensures the experiment's reproducibility and the assessment of alternative methods that might produce different results. It also allows researchers to replicate the experiment and judge the study's validity.

This article discusses how to write a methods section for a psychology paper, including important elements to include and tips that can help.

What to Include in a Method Section

So what exactly do you need to include when writing your method section? You should provide detailed information on the following:

• Research design
• Participants
• Participant behavior

The method section should provide enough information to allow other researchers to replicate your experiment or study.

Components of a Method Section

The method section should utilize subheadings to divide up different subsections. These subsections typically include participants, materials, design, and procedure.

Participants 

In this part of the method section, you should describe the participants in your experiment, including who they were (and any unique features that set them apart from the general population), how many there were, and how they were selected. If you utilized random selection to choose your participants, it should be noted here.

For example: "We randomly selected 100 children from elementary schools near the University of Arizona."

At the very minimum, this part of your method section must convey:

• Basic demographic characteristics of your participants (such as sex, age, ethnicity, or religion)
• The population from which your participants were drawn
• Any restrictions on your pool of participants
• How many participants were assigned to each condition and how they were assigned to each group (i.e., randomly assignment , another selection method, etc.)
• Why participants took part in your research (i.e., the study was advertised at a college or hospital, they received some type of incentive, etc.)

Information about participants helps other researchers understand how your study was performed, how generalizable the result might be, and allows other researchers to replicate the experiment with other populations to see if they might obtain the same results.

In this part of the method section, you should describe the materials, measures, equipment, or stimuli used in the experiment. This may include:

• Testing instruments
• Technical equipment
• Any psychological assessments that were used
• Any special equipment that was used

For example: "Two stories from Sullivan et al.'s (1994) second-order false belief attribution tasks were used to assess children's understanding of second-order beliefs."

For standard equipment such as computers, televisions, and videos, you can simply name the device and not provide further explanation.

Specialized equipment should be given greater detail, especially if it is complex or created for a niche purpose. In some instances, such as if you created a special material or apparatus for your study, you might need to include an illustration of the item in the appendix of your paper.

In this part of your method section, describe the type of design used in the experiment. Specify the variables as well as the levels of these variables. Identify:

• The independent variables
• Dependent variables
• Control variables
• Any extraneous variables that might influence your results.

Also, explain whether your experiment uses a  within-groups  or between-groups design.

For example: "The experiment used a 3x2 between-subjects design. The independent variables were age and understanding of second-order beliefs."

The next part of your method section should detail the procedures used in your experiment. Your procedures should explain:

• What the participants did
• How data was collected
• The order in which steps occurred

For example: "An examiner interviewed children individually at their school in one session that lasted 20 minutes on average. The examiner explained to each child that he or she would be told two short stories and that some questions would be asked after each story. All sessions were videotaped so the data could later be coded."

Keep this subsection concise yet detailed. Explain what you did and how you did it, but do not overwhelm your readers with too much information.

Tips for How to Write a Methods Section

In addition to following the basic structure of an APA method section, there are also certain things you should remember when writing this section of your paper. Consider the following tips when writing this section:

• Use the past tense : Always write the method section in the past tense.
• Be descriptive : Provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate your experiment, but focus on brevity. Avoid unnecessary detail that is not relevant to the outcome of the experiment.
• Use an academic tone : Use formal language and avoid slang or colloquial expressions. Word choice is also important. Refer to the people in your experiment or study as "participants" rather than "subjects."
• Use APA format : Keep a style guide on hand as you write your method section. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association is the official source for APA style.
• Make connections : Read through each section of your paper for agreement with other sections. If you mention procedures in the method section, these elements should be discussed in the results and discussion sections.
• Proofread : Check your paper for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.. typos, grammar problems, and spelling errors. Although a spell checker is a handy tool, there are some errors only you can catch.

After writing a draft of your method section, be sure to get a second opinion. You can often become too close to your work to see errors or lack of clarity. Take a rough draft of your method section to your university's writing lab for additional assistance.

A Word From Verywell

The method section is one of the most important components of your APA format paper. The goal of your paper should be to clearly detail what you did in your experiment. Provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate your study if they wanted.

Finally, if you are writing your paper for a class or for a specific publication, be sure to keep in mind any specific instructions provided by your instructor or by the journal editor. Your instructor may have certain requirements that you need to follow while writing your method section.

Frequently Asked Questions

While the subsections can vary, the three components that should be included are sections on the participants, the materials, and the procedures.

• Describe who the participants were in the study and how they were selected.
• Define and describe the materials that were used including any equipment, tests, or assessments
• Describe how the data was collected

To write your methods section in APA format, describe your participants, materials, study design, and procedures. Keep this section succinct, and always write in the past tense. The main heading of this section should be labeled "Method" and it should be centered, bolded, and capitalized. Each subheading within this section should be bolded, left-aligned and in title case.

The purpose of the methods section is to describe what you did in your experiment. It should be brief, but include enough detail that someone could replicate your experiment based on this information. Your methods section should detail what you did to answer your research question. Describe how the study was conducted, the study design that was used and why it was chosen, and how you collected the data and analyzed the results.

Erdemir F. How to write a materials and methods section of a scientific article ? Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):10-5. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.047

Kallet RH. How to write the methods section of a research paper . Respir Care . 2004;49(10):1229-32. PMID: 15447808.

American Psychological Association.  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association  (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

American Psychological Association. APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards . Published 2020.

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

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Write Research Methodology

Last Updated: May 27, 2024 Approved

This article was co-authored by Alexander Ruiz, M.Ed. and by wikiHow staff writer, Jennifer Mueller, JD . Alexander Ruiz is an Educational Consultant and the Educational Director of Link Educational Institute, a tutoring business based in Claremont, California that provides customizable educational plans, subject and test prep tutoring, and college application consulting. With over a decade and a half of experience in the education industry, Alexander coaches students to increase their self-awareness and emotional intelligence while achieving skills and the goal of achieving skills and higher education. He holds a BA in Psychology from Florida International University and an MA in Education from Georgia Southern University. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. In this case, several readers have written to tell us that this article was helpful to them, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 528,848 times.

The research methodology section of any academic research paper gives you the opportunity to convince your readers that your research is useful and will contribute to your field of study. An effective research methodology is grounded in your overall approach – whether qualitative or quantitative – and adequately describes the methods you used. Justify why you chose those methods over others, then explain how those methods will provide answers to your research questions. [1] X Research source

Describing Your Methods

• In your restatement, include any underlying assumptions that you're making or conditions that you're taking for granted. These assumptions will also inform the research methods you've chosen.
• Generally, state the variables you'll test and the other conditions you're controlling or assuming are equal.

• If you want to research and document measurable social trends, or evaluate the impact of a particular policy on various variables, use a quantitative approach focused on data collection and statistical analysis.
• If you want to evaluate people's views or understanding of a particular issue, choose a more qualitative approach.
• You can also combine the two. For example, you might look primarily at a measurable social trend, but also interview people and get their opinions on how that trend is affecting their lives.

• For example, if you conducted a survey, you would describe the questions included in the survey, where and how the survey was conducted (such as in person, online, over the phone), how many surveys were distributed, and how long your respondents had to complete the survey.
• Include enough detail that your study can be replicated by others in your field, even if they may not get the same results you did. [4] X Research source

• Qualitative research methods typically require more detailed explanation than quantitative methods.
• Basic investigative procedures don't need to be explained in detail. Generally, you can assume that your readers have a general understanding of common research methods that social scientists use, such as surveys or focus groups.

• For example, suppose you conducted a survey and used a couple of other research papers to help construct the questions on your survey. You would mention those as contributing sources.

Justifying Your Choice of Methods

• Describe study participants specifically, and list any inclusion or exclusion criteria you used when forming your group of participants.
• Justify the size of your sample, if applicable, and describe how this affects whether your study can be generalized to larger populations. For example, if you conducted a survey of 30 percent of the student population of a university, you could potentially apply those results to the student body as a whole, but maybe not to students at other universities.

• Reading other research papers is a good way to identify potential problems that commonly arise with various methods. State whether you actually encountered any of these common problems during your research.

• If you encountered any problems as you collected data, explain clearly the steps you took to minimize the effect that problem would have on your results.

• In some cases, this may be as simple as stating that while there were numerous studies using one method, there weren't any using your method, which caused a gap in understanding of the issue.
• For example, there may be multiple papers providing quantitative analysis of a particular social trend. However, none of these papers looked closely at how this trend was affecting the lives of people.

Connecting Your Methods to Your Research Goals

• Depending on your research questions, you may be mixing quantitative and qualitative analysis – just as you could potentially use both approaches. For example, you might do a statistical analysis, and then interpret those statistics through a particular theoretical lens.

• For example, suppose you're researching the effect of college education on family farms in rural America. While you could do interviews of college-educated people who grew up on a family farm, that would not give you a picture of the overall effect. A quantitative approach and statistical analysis would give you a bigger picture.

• If in answering your research questions, your findings have raised other questions that may require further research, state these briefly.
• You can also include here any limitations to your methods, or questions that weren't answered through your research.

• Generalization is more typically used in quantitative research. If you have a well-designed sample, you can statistically apply your results to the larger population your sample belongs to.

Template to Write Research Methodology

Community Q&A

• Organize your methodology section chronologically, starting with how you prepared to conduct your research methods, how you gathered data, and how you analyzed that data. [13] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Write your research methodology section in past tense, unless you're submitting the methodology section before the research described has been carried out. [14] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Discuss your plans in detail with your advisor or supervisor before committing to a particular methodology. They can help identify possible flaws in your study. [15] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ http://expertjournals.com/how-to-write-a-research-methodology-for-your-academic-article/
• ↑ http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/methodology
• ↑ https://www.skillsyouneed.com/learn/dissertation-methodology.html
• ↑ https://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4245/05Chap%204_Research%20methodology%20and%20design.pdf
• ↑ https://elc.polyu.edu.hk/FYP/html/method.htm

About This Article

To write a research methodology, start with a section that outlines the problems or questions you'll be studying, including your hypotheses or whatever it is you're setting out to prove. Then, briefly explain why you chose to use either a qualitative or quantitative approach for your study. Next, go over when and where you conducted your research and what parameters you used to ensure you were objective. Finally, cite any sources you used to decide on the methodology for your research. To learn how to justify your choice of methods in your research methodology, scroll down! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prof. Dr. Ahmed Askar

Apr 18, 2020

Did this article help you?

M. Mahmood Shah Khan

Mar 17, 2020

Shimola Makondo

Jul 20, 2019

Zain Sharif Mohammed Alnadhery

Jan 7, 2019

Lundi Dukashe

Feb 17, 2020

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Academic writing
• How to write a lab report

How To Write A Lab Report | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Published on May 20, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on July 23, 2023.

A lab report conveys the aim, methods, results, and conclusions of a scientific experiment. The main purpose of a lab report is to demonstrate your understanding of the scientific method by performing and evaluating a hands-on lab experiment. This type of assignment is usually shorter than a research paper .

Lab reports are commonly used in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. This article focuses on how to structure and write a lab report.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Structuring a lab report, introduction, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about lab reports.

The sections of a lab report can vary between scientific fields and course requirements, but they usually contain the purpose, methods, and findings of a lab experiment .

Each section of a lab report has its own purpose.

• Title: expresses the topic of your study
• Abstract : summarizes your research aims, methods, results, and conclusions
• Introduction: establishes the context needed to understand the topic
• Method: describes the materials and procedures used in the experiment
• Results: reports all descriptive and inferential statistical analyses
• Discussion: interprets and evaluates results and identifies limitations
• Conclusion: sums up the main findings of your experiment
• References: list of all sources cited using a specific style (e.g. APA )
• Appendices : contains lengthy materials, procedures, tables or figures

Although most lab reports contain these sections, some sections can be omitted or combined with others. For example, some lab reports contain a brief section on research aims instead of an introduction, and a separate conclusion is not always required.

If you’re not sure, it’s best to check your lab report requirements with your instructor.

Check for common mistakes

Use the best grammar checker available to check for common mistakes in your text.

Fix mistakes for free

Your title provides the first impression of your lab report – effective titles communicate the topic and/or the findings of your study in specific terms.

Create a title that directly conveys the main focus or purpose of your study. It doesn’t need to be creative or thought-provoking, but it should be informative.

• The effects of varying nitrogen levels on tomato plant height.
• Testing the universality of the McGurk effect.
• Comparing the viscosity of common liquids found in kitchens.

An abstract condenses a lab report into a brief overview of about 150–300 words. It should provide readers with a compact version of the research aims, the methods and materials used, the main results, and the final conclusion.

Think of it as a way of giving readers a preview of your full lab report. Write the abstract last, in the past tense, after you’ve drafted all the other sections of your report, so you’ll be able to succinctly summarize each section.

To write a lab report abstract, use these guiding questions:

• What is the wider context of your study?
• What research question were you trying to answer?
• How did you perform the experiment?
• What did your results show?
• How did you interpret your results?
• What is the importance of your findings?

Nitrogen is a necessary nutrient for high quality plants. Tomatoes, one of the most consumed fruits worldwide, rely on nitrogen for healthy leaves and stems to grow fruit. This experiment tested whether nitrogen levels affected tomato plant height in a controlled setting. It was expected that higher levels of nitrogen fertilizer would yield taller tomato plants.

Levels of nitrogen fertilizer were varied between three groups of tomato plants. The control group did not receive any nitrogen fertilizer, while one experimental group received low levels of nitrogen fertilizer, and a second experimental group received high levels of nitrogen fertilizer. All plants were grown from seeds, and heights were measured 50 days into the experiment.

The effects of nitrogen levels on plant height were tested between groups using an ANOVA. The plants with the highest level of nitrogen fertilizer were the tallest, while the plants with low levels of nitrogen exceeded the control group plants in height. In line with expectations and previous findings, the effects of nitrogen levels on plant height were statistically significant. This study strengthens the importance of nitrogen for tomato plants.

Your lab report introduction should set the scene for your experiment. One way to write your introduction is with a funnel (an inverted triangle) structure:

• Start with the broad, general research topic
• Narrow your topic down your specific study focus
• End with a clear research question

Begin by providing background information on your research topic and explaining why it’s important in a broad real-world or theoretical context. Describe relevant previous research on your topic and note how your study may confirm it or expand it, or fill a gap in the research field.

This lab experiment builds on previous research from Haque, Paul, and Sarker (2011), who demonstrated that tomato plant yield increased at higher levels of nitrogen. However, the present research focuses on plant height as a growth indicator and uses a lab-controlled setting instead.

Next, go into detail on the theoretical basis for your study and describe any directly relevant laws or equations that you’ll be using. State your main research aims and expectations by outlining your hypotheses .

Based on the importance of nitrogen for tomato plants, the primary hypothesis was that the plants with the high levels of nitrogen would grow the tallest. The secondary hypothesis was that plants with low levels of nitrogen would grow taller than plants with no nitrogen.

Your introduction doesn’t need to be long, but you may need to organize it into a few paragraphs or with subheadings such as “Research Context” or “Research Aims.”

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

A lab report Method section details the steps you took to gather and analyze data. Give enough detail so that others can follow or evaluate your procedures. Write this section in the past tense. If you need to include any long lists of procedural steps or materials, place them in the Appendices section but refer to them in the text here.

You should describe your experimental design, your subjects, materials, and specific procedures used for data collection and analysis.

Experimental design

Briefly note whether your experiment is a within-subjects  or between-subjects design, and describe how your sample units were assigned to conditions if relevant.

A between-subjects design with three groups of tomato plants was used. The control group did not receive any nitrogen fertilizer. The first experimental group received a low level of nitrogen fertilizer, while the second experimental group received a high level of nitrogen fertilizer.

Describe human subjects in terms of demographic characteristics, and animal or plant subjects in terms of genetic background. Note the total number of subjects as well as the number of subjects per condition or per group. You should also state how you recruited subjects for your study.

List the equipment or materials you used to gather data and state the model names for any specialized equipment.

List of materials

35 Tomato seeds

15 plant pots (15 cm tall)

Light lamps (50,000 lux)

Nitrogen fertilizer

Measuring tape

Describe your experimental settings and conditions in detail. You can provide labelled diagrams or images of the exact set-up necessary for experimental equipment. State how extraneous variables were controlled through restriction or by fixing them at a certain level (e.g., keeping the lab at room temperature).

Light levels were fixed throughout the experiment, and the plants were exposed to 12 hours of light a day. Temperature was restricted to between 23 and 25℃. The pH and carbon levels of the soil were also held constant throughout the experiment as these variables could influence plant height. The plants were grown in rooms free of insects or other pests, and they were spaced out adequately.

Your experimental procedure should describe the exact steps you took to gather data in chronological order. You’ll need to provide enough information so that someone else can replicate your procedure, but you should also be concise. Place detailed information in the appendices where appropriate.

In a lab experiment, you’ll often closely follow a lab manual to gather data. Some instructors will allow you to simply reference the manual and state whether you changed any steps based on practical considerations. Other instructors may want you to rewrite the lab manual procedures as complete sentences in coherent paragraphs, while noting any changes to the steps that you applied in practice.

If you’re performing extensive data analysis, be sure to state your planned analysis methods as well. This includes the types of tests you’ll perform and any programs or software you’ll use for calculations (if relevant).

First, tomato seeds were sown in wooden flats containing soil about 2 cm below the surface. Each seed was kept 3-5 cm apart. The flats were covered to keep the soil moist until germination. The seedlings were removed and transplanted to pots 8 days later, with a maximum of 2 plants to a pot. Each pot was watered once a day to keep the soil moist.

The nitrogen fertilizer treatment was applied to the plant pots 12 days after transplantation. The control group received no treatment, while the first experimental group received a low concentration, and the second experimental group received a high concentration. There were 5 pots in each group, and each plant pot was labelled to indicate the group the plants belonged to.

50 days after the start of the experiment, plant height was measured for all plants. A measuring tape was used to record the length of the plant from ground level to the top of the tallest leaf.

In your results section, you should report the results of any statistical analysis procedures that you undertook. You should clearly state how the results of statistical tests support or refute your initial hypotheses.

The main results to report include:

• any descriptive statistics
• statistical test results
• the significance of the test results
• estimates of standard error or confidence intervals

The mean heights of the plants in the control group, low nitrogen group, and high nitrogen groups were 20.3, 25.1, and 29.6 cm respectively. A one-way ANOVA was applied to calculate the effect of nitrogen fertilizer level on plant height. The results demonstrated statistically significant ( p = .03) height differences between groups.

Next, post-hoc tests were performed to assess the primary and secondary hypotheses. In support of the primary hypothesis, the high nitrogen group plants were significantly taller than the low nitrogen group and the control group plants. Similarly, the results supported the secondary hypothesis: the low nitrogen plants were taller than the control group plants.

These results can be reported in the text or in tables and figures. Use text for highlighting a few key results, but present large sets of numbers in tables, or show relationships between variables with graphs.

You should also include sample calculations in the Results section for complex experiments. For each sample calculation, provide a brief description of what it does and use clear symbols. Present your raw data in the Appendices section and refer to it to highlight any outliers or trends.

The Discussion section will help demonstrate your understanding of the experimental process and your critical thinking skills.

In this section, you can:

• Interpret your results
• Compare your findings with your expectations
• Identify any sources of experimental error
• Explain any unexpected results
• Suggest possible improvements for further studies

Interpreting your results involves clarifying how your results help you answer your main research question. Report whether your results support your hypotheses.

• Did you measure what you sought out to measure?
• Were your analysis procedures appropriate for this type of data?

Compare your findings with other research and explain any key differences in findings.

• Are your results in line with those from previous studies or your classmates’ results? Why or why not?

An effective Discussion section will also highlight the strengths and limitations of a study.

• Did you have high internal validity or reliability?
• How did you establish these aspects of your study?

When describing limitations, use specific examples. For example, if random error contributed substantially to the measurements in your study, state the particular sources of error (e.g., imprecise apparatus) and explain ways to improve them.

The results support the hypothesis that nitrogen levels affect plant height, with increasing levels producing taller plants. These statistically significant results are taken together with previous research to support the importance of nitrogen as a nutrient for tomato plant growth.

However, unlike previous studies, this study focused on plant height as an indicator of plant growth in the present experiment. Importantly, plant height may not always reflect plant health or fruit yield, so measuring other indicators would have strengthened the study findings.

Another limitation of the study is the plant height measurement technique, as the measuring tape was not suitable for plants with extreme curvature. Future studies may focus on measuring plant height in different ways.

The main strengths of this study were the controls for extraneous variables, such as pH and carbon levels of the soil. All other factors that could affect plant height were tightly controlled to isolate the effects of nitrogen levels, resulting in high internal validity for this study.

Your conclusion should be the final section of your lab report. Here, you’ll summarize the findings of your experiment, with a brief overview of the strengths and limitations, and implications of your study for further research.

Some lab reports may omit a Conclusion section because it overlaps with the Discussion section, but you should check with your instructor before doing so.

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

A lab report conveys the aim, methods, results, and conclusions of a scientific experiment . Lab reports are commonly assigned in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

The purpose of a lab report is to demonstrate your understanding of the scientific method with a hands-on lab experiment. Course instructors will often provide you with an experimental design and procedure. Your task is to write up how you actually performed the experiment and evaluate the outcome.

In contrast, a research paper requires you to independently develop an original argument. It involves more in-depth research and interpretation of sources and data.

A lab report is usually shorter than a research paper.

The sections of a lab report can vary between scientific fields and course requirements, but it usually contains the following:

• Abstract: summarizes your research aims, methods, results, and conclusions
• References: list of all sources cited using a specific style (e.g. APA)
• Appendices: contains lengthy materials, procedures, tables or figures

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

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.

Bhandari, P. (2023, July 23). How To Write A Lab Report | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 4, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/lab-report/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, how to write an apa methods section, how to write an apa results section, what is your plagiarism score.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Dissertation Methodology – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

Dissertation Methodology – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

• Table of Contents

Dissertation Methodology

In any research, the methodology chapter is one of the key components of your dissertation. It provides a detailed description of the methods you used to conduct your research and helps readers understand how you obtained your data and how you plan to analyze it. This section is crucial for replicating the study and validating its results.

Here are the basic elements that are typically included in a dissertation methodology:

• Introduction : This section should explain the importance and goals of your research .
• Research Design : Outline your research approach and why it’s appropriate for your study. You might be conducting an experimental research, a qualitative research, a quantitative research, or a mixed-methods research.
• Data Collection : This section should detail the methods you used to collect your data. Did you use surveys, interviews, observations, etc.? Why did you choose these methods? You should also include who your participants were, how you recruited them, and any ethical considerations.
• Data Analysis : Explain how you intend to analyze the data you collected. This could include statistical analysis, thematic analysis, content analysis, etc., depending on the nature of your study.
• Reliability and Validity : Discuss how you’ve ensured the reliability and validity of your study. For instance, you could discuss measures taken to reduce bias, how you ensured that your measures accurately capture what they were intended to, or how you will handle any limitations in your study.
• Ethical Considerations : This is where you state how you have considered ethical issues related to your research, how you have protected the participants’ rights, and how you have complied with the relevant ethical guidelines.
• Limitations : Acknowledge any limitations of your methodology, including any biases and constraints that might have affected your study.
• Summary : Recap the key points of your methodology chapter, highlighting the overall approach and rationalization of your research.

Types of Dissertation Methodology

The type of methodology you choose for your dissertation will depend on the nature of your research question and the field you’re working in. Here are some of the most common types of methodologies used in dissertations:

Experimental Research

This involves creating an experiment that will test your hypothesis. You’ll need to design an experiment, manipulate variables, collect data, and analyze that data to draw conclusions. This is commonly used in fields like psychology, biology, and physics.

Survey Research

This type of research involves gathering data from a large number of participants using tools like questionnaires or surveys. It can be used to collect a large amount of data and is often used in fields like sociology, marketing, and public health.

Qualitative Research

This type of research is used to explore complex phenomena that can’t be easily quantified. Methods include interviews, focus groups, and observations. This methodology is common in fields like anthropology, sociology, and education.

Quantitative Research

Quantitative research uses numerical data to answer research questions. This can include statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques. It’s common in fields like economics, psychology, and health sciences.

Case Study Research

This type of research involves in-depth investigation of a particular case, such as an individual, group, or event. This methodology is often used in psychology, social sciences, and business.

Mixed Methods Research

This combines qualitative and quantitative research methods in a single study. It’s used to answer more complex research questions and is becoming more popular in fields like social sciences, health sciences, and education.

Action Research

This type of research involves taking action and then reflecting upon the results. This cycle of action-reflection-action continues throughout the study. It’s often used in fields like education and organizational development.

Longitudinal Research

This type of research involves studying the same group of individuals over an extended period of time. This could involve surveys, observations, or experiments. It’s common in fields like psychology, sociology, and medicine.

Ethnographic Research

This type of research involves the in-depth study of people and cultures. Researchers immerse themselves in the culture they’re studying to collect data. This is often used in fields like anthropology and social sciences.

Structure of Dissertation Methodology

The structure of a dissertation methodology can vary depending on your field of study, the nature of your research, and the guidelines of your institution. However, a standard structure typically includes the following elements:

• Introduction : Briefly introduce your overall approach to the research. Explain what you plan to explore and why it’s important.
• Research Design/Approach : Describe your overall research design. This can be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Explain the rationale behind your chosen design and why it is suitable for your research questions or hypotheses.
• Data Collection Methods : Detail the methods you used to collect your data. You should include what type of data you collected, how you collected it, and why you chose this method. If relevant, you can also include information about your sample population, such as how many people participated, how they were chosen, and any relevant demographic information.
• Data Analysis Methods : Explain how you plan to analyze your collected data. This will depend on the nature of your data. For example, if you collected quantitative data, you might discuss statistical analysis techniques. If you collected qualitative data, you might discuss coding strategies, thematic analysis, or narrative analysis.
• Reliability and Validity : Discuss how you’ve ensured the reliability and validity of your research. This might include steps you took to reduce bias or increase the accuracy of your measurements.
• Ethical Considerations : If relevant, discuss any ethical issues associated with your research. This might include how you obtained informed consent from participants, how you ensured participants’ privacy and confidentiality, or any potential conflicts of interest.
• Limitations : Acknowledge any limitations in your research methodology. This could include potential sources of bias, difficulties with data collection, or limitations in your analysis methods.
• Summary/Conclusion : Briefly summarize the key points of your methodology, emphasizing how it helps answer your research questions or hypotheses.

How to Write Dissertation Methodology

Writing a dissertation methodology requires you to be clear and precise about the way you’ve carried out your research. It’s an opportunity to convince your readers of the appropriateness and reliability of your approach to your research question. Here is a basic guideline on how to write your methodology section:

1. Introduction

Start your methodology section by restating your research question(s) or objective(s). This ensures your methodology directly ties into the aim of your research.

2. Approach

Identify your overall approach: qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Explain why you have chosen this approach.

• Qualitative methods are typically used for exploratory research and involve collecting non-numerical data. This might involve interviews, observations, or analysis of texts.
• Quantitative methods are used for research that relies on numerical data. This might involve surveys, experiments, or statistical analysis.
• Mixed methods use a combination of both qualitative and quantitative research methods.

3. Research Design

Describe the overall design of your research. This could involve explaining the type of study (e.g., case study, ethnography, experimental research, etc.), how you’ve defined and measured your variables, and any control measures you’ve implemented.

4. Data Collection

Explain in detail how you collected your data.

• If you’ve used qualitative methods, you might detail how you selected participants for interviews or focus groups, how you conducted observations, or how you analyzed existing texts.
• If you’ve used quantitative methods, you might detail how you designed your survey or experiment, how you collected responses, and how you ensured your data is reliable and valid.

5. Data Analysis

Describe how you analyzed your data.

• If you’re doing qualitative research, this might involve thematic analysis, discourse analysis, or grounded theory.
• If you’re doing quantitative research, you might be conducting statistical tests, regression analysis, or factor analysis.

Discuss any ethical issues related to your research. This might involve explaining how you obtained informed consent, how you’re protecting participants’ privacy, or how you’re managing any potential harms to participants.

7. Reliability and Validity

Discuss the steps you’ve taken to ensure the reliability and validity of your data.

• Reliability refers to the consistency of your measurements, and you might discuss how you’ve piloted your instruments or used standardized measures.
• Validity refers to the accuracy of your measurements, and you might discuss how you’ve ensured your measures reflect the concepts they’re supposed to measure.

8. Limitations

Every study has its limitations. Discuss the potential weaknesses of your chosen methods and explain any obstacles you faced in your research.

9. Conclusion

Summarize the key points of your methodology, emphasizing how it helps to address your research question or objective.

Example of Dissertation Methodology

An Example of Dissertation Methodology is as follows:

Chapter 3: Methodology

• Introduction

This chapter details the methodology adopted in this research. The study aimed to explore the relationship between stress and productivity in the workplace. A mixed-methods research design was used to collect and analyze data.

Research Design

This study adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research problem. The rationale for this approach is that while quantitative data can provide a broad overview of the relationships between variables, qualitative data can provide deeper insights into the nuances of these relationships.

Data Collection Methods

Quantitative Data Collection : An online self-report questionnaire was used to collect data from participants. The questionnaire consisted of two standardized scales: the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) to measure stress levels and the Individual Work Productivity Questionnaire (IWPQ) to measure productivity. The sample consisted of 200 office workers randomly selected from various companies in the city.

Qualitative Data Collection : Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants chosen from the initial sample. The interview guide included questions about participants’ experiences with stress and how they perceived its impact on their productivity.

Data Analysis Methods

Quantitative Data Analysis : Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the survey data. Pearson’s correlation was used to examine the relationship between stress and productivity.

Qualitative Data Analysis : Interviews were transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis using NVivo software. This process allowed for identifying and analyzing patterns and themes regarding the impact of stress on productivity.

Reliability and Validity

To ensure reliability and validity, standardized measures with good psychometric properties were used. In qualitative data analysis, triangulation was employed by having two researchers independently analyze the data and then compare findings.

Ethical Considerations

All participants provided informed consent prior to their involvement in the study. They were informed about the purpose of the study, their rights as participants, and the confidentiality of their responses.

Limitations

The main limitation of this study is its reliance on self-report measures, which can be subject to biases such as social desirability bias. Moreover, the sample was drawn from a single city, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.

Where to Write Dissertation Methodology

In a dissertation or thesis, the Methodology section usually follows the Literature Review. This placement allows the Methodology to build upon the theoretical framework and existing research outlined in the Literature Review, and precedes the Results or Findings section. Here’s a basic outline of how most dissertations are structured:

• Acknowledgements
• Literature Review (or it may be interspersed throughout the dissertation)
• Methodology
• Results/Findings
• References/Bibliography

In the Methodology chapter, you will discuss the research design, data collection methods, data analysis methods, and any ethical considerations pertaining to your study. This allows your readers to understand how your research was conducted and how you arrived at your results.

Advantages of Dissertation Methodology

The dissertation methodology section plays an important role in a dissertation for several reasons. Here are some of the advantages of having a well-crafted methodology section in your dissertation:

• Clarifies Your Research Approach : The methodology section explains how you plan to tackle your research question, providing a clear plan for data collection and analysis.
• Enables Replication : A detailed methodology allows other researchers to replicate your study. Replication is an important aspect of scientific research because it provides validation of the study’s results.
• Demonstrates Rigor : A well-written methodology shows that you’ve thought critically about your research methods and have chosen the most appropriate ones for your research question. This adds credibility to your study.
• Enhances Transparency : Detailing your methods allows readers to understand the steps you took in your research. This increases the transparency of your study and allows readers to evaluate potential biases or limitations.
• Helps in Addressing Research Limitations : In your methodology section, you can acknowledge and explain the limitations of your research. This is important as it shows you understand that no research method is perfect and there are always potential weaknesses.
• Facilitates Peer Review : A detailed methodology helps peer reviewers assess the soundness of your research design. This is an important part of the publication process if you aim to publish your dissertation in a peer-reviewed journal.
• Establishes the Validity and Reliability : Your methodology section should also include a discussion of the steps you took to ensure the validity and reliability of your measurements, which is crucial for establishing the overall quality of your research.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Thesis Statement – Examples, Writing Guide

Thesis Outline – Example, Template and Writing...

Implications in Research – Types, Examples and...

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Informed Consent in Research – Types, Templates...

Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and...

We Trust in Human Precision

20,000+ Professional Language Experts Ready to Help. Expertise in a variety of Niches.

API Solutions

• API Pricing
• Cost estimate
• Customer loyalty program
• Educational Discount
• Non-Profit Discount
• Green Initiative Discount1

Value-Driven Pricing

Unmatched expertise at affordable rates tailored for your needs. Our services empower you to boost your productivity.

• Special Discounts
• Enterprise transcription solutions
• Enterprise translation solutions
• Transcription/Caption API
• AI Transcription Proofreading API

Trusted by Global Leaders

GoTranscript is the chosen service for top media organizations, universities, and Fortune 50 companies.

GoTranscript

One of the Largest Online Transcription and Translation Agencies in the World. Founded in 2005.

Speaker 1: There are three things that are so important to put inside your research methodology, but it all starts with this, your research questions. So when you're coming up with your methodology, you have to think about your research question and ultimately the methodology in one word is the design that you're using to answer that research question. That is the most important thing. So once you've got a research question, you have to be so clear on what you are answering and then you'll be able to go on and say, well, I'm going to use these techniques, this analysis, this data to answer this research question. So the research question is the first important thing and then you can look at the methodology. Let's put that in a different color. So that's methodology, yeah. Now, method and methodology are very, very different from each other. Well, not very different, but they're different from each other. So methodology is the framework or the design of your experiment. It's the big umbrella that sits over everything that's saying I'm going to use this sort of approach and underneath that are three things, one of them being the method. The method is essentially the tools that you are going to use to answer that research question. So do not get confused. Methodology and method, they're two very different things. So methodology is the design. All right, what am I going to do? Is the, let's put this in a different color. Okay, is the design of your experiment or it's the kind of framework that you're going to use to answer any questions and then underneath methodology, you've got three things. The first one, let's choose a different color, let's go crazy, let's go blue. So we've got the method, okay. So this is, that is meant to be a one, the method comes in two primary flavors. The first flavor is qualitative. The second flavor is quantitative or you can have a mix of both flavors, lovely. So the first one is qualitative. Qualitative, what is the quality that you're looking for? So now this means that quite often, you don't need to have like a determined outcome. You're looking at how people feel or how something exists. You want to look at why something is a certain way. You also want to sort of explore a little bit more. This qualitative thing answers the who, the what, the how, the why and maybe even the where. So this is the sort of experiment where you're going to go out and you're going to sort of use techniques like focus groups. You're going to question people. You're going to have a look at people's responses. You may inject yourself into a certain environment and just absorb what's going on. You don't necessarily need a hardcore hypothesis because this is more exploratory, okay. The second one versus method is quantitative. That's way better. Okay, quantitative means that you're looking for the amount of something. Now in my field in the sciences, we are all about the quantitative. How much can I improve something by? How much is something changing? How much is there in the world? How much can I make this thing happen? That is what we're measuring and this is really good if you have a hypothesis that you need to test. Therefore, you're creating a controlled experiment and you're testing various things to see how much something, the quantity of that change. So this is something that we did all the time in the STEM field and qualitative quite often is in the social sciences, the humanities, but you can have a blended approach. So you can blend these together in a mixer like that. So you can blend these together and essentially just sort of like create your own thing where you are taking, for example, a questionnaire someone's filled out, quite a qualitative way of doing experiments, but you're using statistical analysis to extract terms or you're asking people a questionnaire where it's like one to five and then you're using that one to five scale to create numbers, to create a quantity of a certain aspect of your study. So those are the two massive flavors. You've got quantitative and qualitative or you could blend them together like some people do. Now the second thing people need to get from your research methodology section is the data collection. The data collection is so very important because what people need to get from reading your research methodology, so are you going out and asking people questions? Is it a survey? Are you doing one-on-one interviews? Are you doing a controlled experiment where you're only changing one variable and measuring something else? That was my experience from the science and chemistry background that I'm in. So are you collecting data yourself or are you going out and using data that's already out there to formulate your own research methodology? Now that is very, very important. This is about reproducibility. This is the kind of little bits of detail that people need if they want to reproduce your experiment. So what are you doing? How are you doing it? Where are you going to get this information? Are you creating it yourself? That is the data collection information that needs to be in your research methodology so someone can then just do the same thing that you've just done so that they can reproduce your results which arguably in science, reproducibility isn't one of our strong points. I'll be absolutely honest with you there. And then the last thing people need, let's choose a different color. Ooh, purple, nice. And the last thing people need when you're writing a research methodology is your analysis. Analysis. Okay, analysis is where you just have to describe what you're doing with the data. How did you decide whether or not something was to be included? Did you get rid of outliers, for example? Or how are you using statistical software or particular statistical analysis to get your results? Those are very important. Once again, this is about making sure someone can do exactly what you've just done by using the techniques you've used. So if you're doing any sort of statistical analysis, you need to make sure you include the details. In qualitative experiments, you may just be looking at the themes that have come out. You may be looking at pictures or images. You may also just be looking at how you can group responses from essays and come up with themes that can get together. So we're either looking here at, say, statistics or we're looking at things like, what did I say? Oh, themes. And so really, you're just sort of saying to someone, yeah, look, I collected this data. This is how I kind of sorted it out in my mind, either using numbers with statistics or looking at themes and collecting them together. And then we take our conclusions from the analysis that we've created. So this is all about making sure someone can just follow through all of your work and do exactly what you've just done. So you also need to include here any software. So if you've used any software, you need to also say in here. So what sort of packages have you used? Have you used R? Have you used other sort of AI to generate groups and themes together? Because that's a very popular thing these days. And that's essentially the three things that need to be in your methodology. You've got your method, whether or not you're using qualitative or quantitative. You've got your data collection, how you've actually got the data. In my thesis, which looks like this, all of my sort of methodology was based around the different techniques that I would be using for data collection. So I've got dynamic light scattering. What else have I got? No, come on now. You can do better than this. I've got differential scanning calorimetry. I've got thermogravimetric analysis. I've got transmission electron microscopy. I've got atomic force microscopy. You get the idea. But that was my data analysis. And under each one of those techniques, I made sure that I had the statistical software that I used and any sort of like image processing stuff I used for getting information out of my collected data. So that's very important. Those are the three things that need to be in a methodology section when you're writing it. And the last thing is limitations. Limitations are so very important because what you're saying is I use these techniques, but it doesn't answer certain aspects of this question as well as I would hoped. But you do have to argue in there that the techniques that you are using are better than other ones out there and you can cite other bits of literature. So that's the methodology section. Now you're armed with everything you need to know to go away and write it up. And if you like this video, go check out this one where I talk about how to write a masterpiece systematic literature review with AI. Go check it out.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Americans’ Experiences With Local Crime News

Methodology, table of contents.

• What Americans see – and want to see – in local crime news
• Sources of local crime news, and how local TV news consumers stand out
• Americans’ varying perceptions of local crime news
• How different demographic groups experience local crime news
• Where Americans get news about local crime
• Where Americans go first for information about a local crime
• Americans’ interest in different aspects of crime news
• Ease of finding local crime news
• Perceptions of accuracy of local crime news
• Are sources viewed as exaggerating or underplaying local crime?
• Perceptions of fairness of local crime news depending on race
• Which Americans are more likely to feel afraid after seeing crime news?
• Americans’ responses to hearing news about local crime
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have internet access at home are provided with a tablet and wireless internet connection. Interviews are conducted in both English and Spanish. The panel is being managed by Ipsos.

Data in this report is drawn from ATP Wave 141, conducted from Jan. 22 to 28, 2024, and includes an oversample of non-Hispanic Asian adults, non-Hispanic Black men and Hispanic men in order to provide more precise estimates of the opinions and experiences of these smaller demographic subgroups. These oversampled groups are weighted back to reflect their correct proportions in the population. A total of 5,146 panelists responded out of 5,604 who were sampled, for a response rate of 92%. The cumulative response rate accounting for nonresponse to the recruitment surveys and attrition is 3%. The break-off rate among panelists who logged on to the survey and completed at least one item is 1%. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 5,146 respondents is plus or minus 1.7 percentage points.

This is a Pew Research Center report from the Pew-Knight Initiative, a research program funded jointly by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Find related reports online at https://www.pewresearch.org/pew-knight/ .

Panel recruitment

The ATP was created in 2014, with the first cohort of panelists invited to join the panel at the end of a large, national, landline and cellphone random-digit-dial survey that was conducted in both English and Spanish. Two additional recruitments were conducted using the same method in 2015 and 2017, respectively. Across these three surveys, a total of 19,718 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 9,942 (50%) agreed to participate.

In August 2018, the ATP switched from telephone to address-based sampling (ABS) recruitment. A study cover letter and a pre-incentive are mailed to a stratified, random sample of households selected from the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. This Postal Service file has been estimated to cover as much as 98% of the population, although some studies suggest that the coverage could be in the low 90% range. 1

Within each sampled household, the adult with the next birthday is asked to participate. Other details of the ABS recruitment protocol have changed over time but are available upon request. 2

We have recruited a national sample of U.S. adults to the ATP approximately once per year since 2014. In some years, the recruitment has included additional efforts (known as an “oversample”) to boost sample size with underrepresented groups. For example, Hispanic adults, Black adults and Asian adults were oversampled in 2019, 2022 and 2023, respectively.

Across the six address-based recruitments, a total of 23,862 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 20,917 agreed to join the panel and completed an initial profile survey. Of the 30,859 individuals who have ever joined the ATP, 11,927 remained active panelists and continued to receive survey invitations at the time this survey was conducted.

The American Trends Panel never uses breakout routers or chains that direct respondents to additional surveys.

Sample design

The overall target population for this survey was noninstitutionalized persons ages 18 and older living in the U.S., including Alaska and Hawaii. It featured a stratified random sample from the ATP in which Hispanic men, non-Hispanic Black men and non-Hispanic Asian adults were selected with certainty. The remaining panelists were sampled at rates designed to ensure that the share of respondents in each stratum is proportional to its share of the U.S. adult population to the greatest extent possible. Respondent weights are adjusted to account for differential probabilities of selection as described in the Weighting section below.

Questionnaire development and testing

The questionnaire was developed by Pew Research Center in consultation with Ipsos. The web program was rigorously tested on both PC and mobile devices by the Ipsos project management team and Pew Research Center researchers. The Ipsos project management team also populated test data that was analyzed in SPSS to ensure the logic and randomizations were working as intended before launching the survey.

All respondents were offered a post-paid incentive for their participation. Respondents could choose to receive the post-paid incentive in the form of a check or a gift code to Amazon.com or could choose to decline the incentive. Incentive amounts ranged from $5 to $20 depending on whether the respondent belongs to a part of the population that is harder or easier to reach. Differential incentive amounts were designed to increase panel survey participation among groups that traditionally have low survey response propensities.

Data collection protocol

The data collection field period for this survey was Jan. 22 to Jan. 28, 2024. Postcard notifications were mailed to a subset of ATP panelists with a known residential address on Jan. 22. 3

Invitations were sent out in two separate launches: soft launch and full launch. Sixty panelists were included in the soft launch, which began with an initial invitation sent on Jan. 22. The ATP panelists chosen for the initial soft launch were known responders who had completed previous ATP surveys within one day of receiving their invitation. All remaining English- and Spanish-speaking sampled panelists were included in the full launch and were sent an invitation on Jan. 23.

All panelists with an email address received an email invitation and up to two email reminders if they did not respond to the survey. All ATP panelists who consented to SMS messages received an SMS invitation and up to two SMS reminders.

Data quality checks

To ensure high-quality data, the Center’s researchers performed data quality checks to identify any respondents showing clear patterns of satisficing. This includes checking for whether respondents left questions blank at very high rates or always selected the first or last answer presented. As a result of this checking, three ATP respondents were removed from the survey dataset prior to weighting and analysis.

The ATP data is weighted in a multistep process that accounts for multiple stages of sampling and nonresponse that occur at different points in the survey process. First, each panelist begins with a base weight that reflects their probability of selection for their initial recruitment survey. These weights are then rescaled and adjusted to account for changes in the design of ATP recruitment surveys from year to year. Finally, the weights are calibrated to align with the population benchmarks in the accompanying table to correct for nonresponse to recruitment surveys and panel attrition. If only a subsample of panelists was invited to participate in the wave, this weight is adjusted to account for any differential probabilities of selection.

Among the panelists who completed the survey, this weight is then calibrated again to align with the population benchmarks identified in the accompanying table and trimmed at the 2nd and 98th percentiles to reduce the loss in precision stemming from variance in the weights. This trimming is performed separately among non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, Hispanic and all other respondents. Sampling errors and tests of statistical significance take into account the effect of weighting.

The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey.

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request. In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

Dispositions and response rates

• AAPOR Task Force on Address-based Sampling. 2016. “ AAPOR Report: Address-based Sampling .” ↩
• Email [email protected] . ↩
• Postcard notifications are sent to 1) panelists who have been provided with a tablet to take ATP surveys, 2) panelists who were recruited within the last two years, and 3) panelists recruited prior to the last two years who opt to continue receiving postcard notifications. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Disasters & Accidents

The link between local news coverage and Americans’ perceptions of crime

Americans’ changing relationship with local news, how americans get local political news, introducing the pew-knight initiative, audiences are declining for traditional news media in the u.s. – with some exceptions, most popular, report materials.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Open access
• Published: 28 August 2024

The design, implementation, and evaluation of a blended (in-person and virtual) Clinical Competency Examination for final-year nursing students

• Rita Mojtahedzadeh 1 ,
• Tahereh Toulabi 2 , 3 &
• Aeen Mohammadi 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  936 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

Introduction

Studies have reported different results of evaluation methods of clinical competency tests. Therefore, this study aimed to design, implement, and evaluate a blended (in-person and virtual) Competency Examination for final-year Nursing Students.

This interventional study was conducted in two semesters of 2020–2021 using an educational action research method in the nursing and midwifery faculty. Thirteen faculty members and 84 final-year nursing students were included in the study using a census method. Eight programs and related activities were designed and conducted during the examination process. Students completed the Spielberger Anxiety Inventory before the examination, and both faculty members and students completed the Acceptance and Satisfaction questionnaire.

The results of the analysis of focused group discussions and reflections indicated that the virtual CCE was not capable of adequately assessing clinical skills. Therefore, it was decided that the CCE for final-year nursing students would be conducted using a blended method. The activities required for performing the examination were designed and implemented based on action plans. Anxiety and satisfaction were also evaluated as outcomes of the study. There was no statistically significant difference in overt, covert, and overall anxiety scores between the in-person and virtual sections of the examination ( p  > 0.05). The mean (SD) acceptance and satisfaction scores for students in virtual, in-person, and blended sections were 25.49 (4.73), 27.60 (4.70), and 25.57 (4.97), respectively, out of 30 points, in which there was a significant increase in the in-person section compared to the other sections. ( p  = 0.008). The mean acceptance and satisfaction scores for faculty members were 30.31 (4.47) in the virtual, 29.86 (3.94) in the in-person, and 30.00 (4.16) out of 33 in the blended, and there was no significant difference between the three sections ( p  = 0.864).

Evaluating nursing students’ clinical competency using a blended method was implemented and solved the problem of students’ graduation. Therefore, it is suggested that the blended method be used instead of traditional in-person or entirely virtual exams in epidemics or based on conditions, facilities, and human resources. Also, the use of patient simulation, virtual reality, and the development of necessary virtual and in-person training infrastructure for students is recommended for future research. Furthermore, considering that the acceptance of traditional in-person exams among students is higher, it is necessary to develop virtual teaching strategies.

Peer Review reports

The primary mission of the nursing profession is to educate competent, capable, and qualified nurses with the necessary knowledge and skills to provide quality nursing care to preserve and improve the community’s health [ 1 ]. Clinical education is one of the most essential and fundamental components of nursing education, in which students gain clinical experience by interacting with actual patients and addressing real problems. Therefore, assessing clinical skills is very challenging. The main goal of educational evaluation is to improve, ensure, and enhance the quality of the academic program. In this regard, evaluating learners’ performance is one of the critical and sensitive aspects of the teaching and learning process. It is considered one of the fundamental elements of the educational program [ 2 ]. The study area is educational evaluation.

Various methods are used to evaluate nursing students. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a valid and reliable method for assessing clinical competence [ 1 , 2 ]. In the last twenty years, the use of OSCE has increased significantly in evaluating medical and paramedical students to overcome the limitations of traditional practical evaluation systems [ 3 , 4 ]. The advantages of this method include providing rapid feedback, uniformity for all examinees, and providing conditions close to reality. However, the time-consuming nature and the need for a lot of personnel and equipment are some disadvantages of OSCE [ 5 , 6 ]. Additionally, some studies have shown that this method is anxiety-provoking for some students and, due to time constraints, being observed by the evaluator and other factors can cause dissatisfaction among students [ 7 , 8 ].

However, some studies have also reported that this method is not only not associated with high levels of stress among students [ 9 ] but also has higher satisfaction than traditional evaluation methods [ 4 ]. In addition, during the COVID-19 pandemic, problems such as overcrowding and student quarantine during the exam have arisen. Therefore, reducing time and costs, eliminating or reducing the tiring quarantine time, optimizing the exam, utilizing all facilities for simulating the clinical environment, using innovative methods for conducting the exam, reducing stress, increasing satisfaction, and ultimately preventing the transmission of COVID-19 are significant problems that need to be further investigated.

Studies show that using virtual space as an alternative solution is strongly felt [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. In the fall of 2009, following the outbreak of H1N1, educational classes in the United States were held virtually [ 13 ]. Also, in 2005, during Hurricane Katrina, 27 universities in the Gulf of Texas used emergency virtual education and evaluation [ 14 ].

One of the challenges faced by healthcare providers in Iran, like most countries in the world, especially during the COVID-19 outbreak, was the shortage of nursing staff [ 15 , 16 ]. Also, in evaluating and conducting CCE for final-year students and subsequent job seekers in the Clinical Skills Center, problems such as student overcrowding and the need for quarantine during the implementation of OSCE existed. This problem has been reported not only for us but also in other countries [ 17 ]. The intelligent use of technology can solve many of these problems. Therefore, almost all educational institutions have quickly started changing their policies’ paradigms to introduce online teaching and evaluation methods [ 18 , 19 ].

During the COVID-19 pandemic, for the first time, this exam was held virtually in our school. However, feedback from professors and students and the experiences of researchers have shown that the virtual exam can only partially evaluate clinical and practical skills in some stations, such as basic skills, resuscitation, and pediatrics [ 20 ].

Additionally, using OSCE in skills assessment facilitates the evaluation of psychological-motor knowledge and attitudes and helps identify strengths and weaknesses [ 21 ]. Clinical competency is a combination of theoretical knowledge and clinical skills. Therefore, using an effective blended method focusing on the quality and safety of healthcare that measures students’ clinical skills and theoretical expertise more accurately in both in-person and virtual environments is essential. The participation of students, professors, managers, education and training staff, and the Clinical Skills Center was necessary to achieve this important and inevitable goal. Therefore, the Clinical Competency Examination (CCE) for nursing students in our nursing and midwifery school was held in the form of an educational action research process to design, implement, and evaluate a blended method. Implementing this process during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it was impossible to hold an utterly in-person exam, helped improve the quality of the exam and address its limitations and weaknesses while providing the necessary evaluation for students.

The innovation of this research lies in evaluating the clinical competency of final-year nursing students using a blended method that focuses on clinical and practical aspects. In the searches conducted, only a few studies have been done on virtual exams and simulations, and a similar study using a blended method was not found.

The research investigates the scientific and clinical abilities of nursing students through the clinical competency exam. This exam, traditionally administered in person, is a crucial milestone for final-year nursing students, marking their readiness for graduation. However, the unforeseen circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting restrictions rendered in-person exams impractical in 2020. This necessitated a swift and significant transition to an online format, a decision that has profound implications for the future of nursing education. While the adoption of online assessment was a necessary step to ensure student graduation and address the nursing workforce shortage during the pandemic, it was not without its challenges. The accurate assessment of clinical skills, such as dressing and CPR, proved to be a significant hurdle. This underscored the urgent need for a change in the exam format, prompting a deeper exploration of innovative solutions.

To address these problems, the research was conducted collaboratively with stakeholders, considering the context and necessity for change in exam administration. Employing an Action Research (AR) approach, a blend of online and in-person exam modalities was adopted. Necessary changes were implemented through a cyclic process involving problem identification, program design, implementation, reflection, and continuous evaluation.

The research began by posing the following questions:

What are the problems of conducting the CCE for final-year nursing students during COVID-19?

How can these problems be addressed?

What are the solutions and suggestions from the involved stakeholders?

How can the CCE be designed, implemented, and evaluated?

What is the impact of exam type on student anxiety and satisfaction?

These questions guided the research in exploring the complexities of administering the CCE amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and in devising practical solutions to ensure the validity and reliability of the assessment while meeting stakeholders’ needs.

Materials and methods

Research setting, expert panel members, job analysis, and role delineation.

This action research was conducted at the Nursing and Midwifery School of Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, with a history of approximately 40 years. The school accommodates 500 undergraduate and graduate nursing students across six specialized fields, with 84 students enrolled in their final year of undergraduate studies. Additionally, the school employs 26 full-time faculty members in nursing education departments.

An expert panel was assembled, consisting of faculty members specializing in various areas, including medical-surgical nursing, psychiatric nursing, community health nursing, pediatric nursing, and intensive care nursing. The panel also included educational department managers and the examination department supervisor. Through focused group discussions, the panel identified and examined issues regarding the exam format, and members proposed various solutions. Subsequently, after analyzing the proposed solutions and drawing upon the panel members’ experiences, specific roles for each member were delineated.

Sampling and participant selection

Given the nature of the research, purposive sampling was employed, ensuring that all individuals involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the exam participated in this study.

The participants in this study included final-year nursing students, faculty members, clinical skills center experts, the dean of the school, the educational deputy, group managers, and the exam department head. However, in the outcome evaluation phase, 13 faculty members participated in-person and virtually (26 times), and 84 final-year nursing students enrolled in the study using a census method in two semesters of 2020–2021 completed the questionnaires, including 37 females and 47 males. In addition, three male and ten female faculty members participated in this study; of this number, 2 were instructors, and 11 were assistant professors.

Data collection tools

In order to enhance the validity and credibility of the study and thoroughly examine the results, this study utilized a triangulation method consisting of demographic information, focus group discussions, the Spielberger Anxiety Scale questionnaire, and an Acceptance and Satisfaction Questionnaire.

Demographic information

A questionnaire was used to gather demographic information from both students and faculty members. For students, this included age, gender, and place of residence, while for faculty members, it included age, gender, field of study, and employment status.

Focus group discussion

Multiple focused group discussions were conducted with the participation of professors, administrators, experts, and students. These discussions were held through various platforms such as WhatsApp Skype, and in-person meetings while adhering to health protocols. The researcher guided the talks toward the research objectives and raised fundamental questions, such as describing the strengths and weaknesses of the previous exam, determining how to conduct the CCE considering the COVID-19 situation, deciding on virtual and in-person stations, specifying the evaluation checklists for stations, and explaining the weighting and scoring of each station.

Spielberger anxiety scale questionnaire

This study used the Spielberger Anxiety Questionnaire to measure students’ overt and covert anxiety levels. This questionnaire is an internationally standardized tool known as the STAI questionnaire that measures both overt (state) and covert (trait) anxiety [ 22 ]. The state anxiety scale (Form Y-1 of STAI) comprises twenty statements that assess the individual’s feelings at the moment of responding. The trait anxiety scale (Form Y-2 of STAI) also includes twenty statements that measure individuals’ general and typical feelings. The scores of each of the two scales ranged from 20 to 80 in the current study. The reliability coefficient of the test for the apparent and hidden anxiety scales, based on Cronbach’s alpha, was confirmed to be 0.9084 and 0.9025, respectively [ 23 , 24 ]. Furthermore, in the present study, Cronbach’s alpha value for the total anxiety questionnaire, overt anxiety, and covert anxiety scales were 0.935, 0.921, and 0.760, respectively.

Acceptance and satisfaction questionnaire

The Acceptability and Satisfaction Questionnaire for Clinical Competency Test was developed by Farajpour et al. (2012). The student questionnaire consists of ten questions, and the professor questionnaire consists of eleven questions, using a four-point Likert scale. Experts have confirmed the validity of these questionnaires, and their Cronbach’s alpha coefficients have been determined to be 0.85 and 0.87 for the professor and student questionnaires, respectively [ 6 ]. In the current study, ten medical education experts also confirmed the validity of the questionnaires. Regarding internal reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the student satisfaction questionnaire for both virtual and in-person sections were 0.76 and 0.87, respectively. The professor satisfaction questionnaires were 0.84 and 0.87, respectively. An online platform was used to collect data for the virtual exam.

Data analysis and rigor of study

Qualitative data analysis was conducted using the method proposed by Graneheim and Lundman. Additionally, the criteria established by Lincoln and Guba (1985) were employed to confirm the rigor and validity of the data, including credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability [ 26 ].

In this research, data synthesis was performed by combining the collected data with various tools and methods. The findings of this study were reviewed and confirmed by participants, supervisors, mentors, and experts in qualitative research, reflecting their opinions on the alignment of findings with their experiences and perspectives on clinical competence examinations. Therefore, the member check method was used to validate credibility.

Moreover, efforts were made in this study to provide a comprehensive description of the research steps, create a suitable context for implementation, assess the views of others, and ensure the transferability of the results.

Furthermore, researchers’ interest in identifying and describing problems, reflecting, designing, implementing, and evaluating clinical competence examinations, along with the engagement of stakeholders in these examinations, was ensured by the researchers’ long-term engagement of over 25 years with the environment and stakeholders, seeking their opinions and considering their ideas and views. These factors contributed to ensuring confirmability.

In this research, by reflecting the results to the participants and making revisions by the researchers, problem clarification and solution presentation, design, implementation, and evaluation of operational programs with stakeholder participation and continuous presence were attempted to prevent biases, assumptions, and research hypotheses, and to confirm dependability.

Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 21, and descriptive statistical tests (absolute and relative frequency, mean, and standard deviation) and inferential tests (paired t-test, independent t-test, and analysis of variance) were used. The significance level was set at 0.05. Parametric tests were used based on the normality of the data according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical test.

Given that conducting the CCE for final-year nursing students required the active participation of managers, faculty members, staff, and students, and to answer the research question “How can the CCE for final-year nursing students be conducted?” and achieve the research objective of “designing, implementing, and evaluating the clinical competency exam,” the action research method was employed.

The present study was conducted based on the Dickens & Watkins model. There are four primary stages (Fig.  1 ) in the cyclical action research process: reflect, plan, act, observe, and then reflect to continue through the cycle [ 27 ].

The cyclical process of action research [ 27 ]

Stage 1: Reflection

Identification of the problem.

According to the educational regulations, final semester nursing students must complete the clinical competency exam. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the critical situation in most provinces, inter-city travel restrictions, and insufficient dormitory space, conducting the CCE in-person was not feasible.

This exam was conducted virtually at our institution. However, based on the reflections from experts, researchers have found that virtual exams can only partially assess clinical and practical skills in certain stations, such as basic skills, resuscitation, and pediatrics. Furthermore, utilizing Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in skills assessment facilitates the evaluation of psychomotor skills, knowledge, and attitudes, aiding in identifying strengths and weaknesses.

P3, “Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the critical situation in most provinces, inter-city travel restrictions, and insufficient dormitory space, conducting the CCE in-person is not feasible.”

Stage 2: Planning

Based on the reflections gathered from the participants, the exam was designed using a blended approach (combining in-person and virtual components) as per the schedule outlined in Fig.  2 . All planned activities for the blended CCE for final-year nursing students were executed over two semesters.

P5, “Taking the exam virtually might seem easier for us and the students, but in my opinion, it’s not realistic. For instance, performing wound dressing or airway management is very practical, and it’s not possible to assess students with a virtual scenario. We need to see them in person.”

P6"I believe it’s better to conduct those activities that are highly practical in person, but for those involving communication skills like report writing, professional ethics, etc., we can opt for virtual assessment.”

Design and implementation of the blended CCE

Stage 3: Act

Cce implementation steps.

The CCE was conducted based on the flowchart in Fig.  3 and the following steps:

Steps for conducting the CCE for final-year nursing students using a blended method

Step 1: Designing the framework for conducting the blended Clinical Competency Examination

The panelists were guided to design the blended exam in focused group sessions and virtual panels based on the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) model [ 28 ]. Initially, needs assessment and opinion polling were conducted, followed by the operational planning of the exam, including the design of the blueprint table (Table  1 ), determination of station types (in-person or virtual), designing question stems in the form of scenarios, creating checklists and station procedure guides by expert panel groups based on participant analysis, and the development of exam implementation guidelines with participant input [ 27 ]. The design, execution, and evaluation were as follows:

In-person and virtual meetings with professors were held to determine the exam schedule, deadlines for submitting checklists, decision-making regarding the virtual or in-person nature of stations based on the type of skill (practical, communication), and presenting problems and solutions. Based on the decisions, primary skill stations, as well as cardiac and pediatric resuscitation stations, were held in person. In contrast, virtual stations for health, nursing ethics, nursing reports, nursing diagnosis, physical examinations, and psychiatric nursing were held.

News about the exam was communicated to students through the college website and text messages. Then, an online orientation session was held on Skype with students regarding the need assessment of pre-exam educational workshops, virtual and in-person exam standards, how to use exam software, how to conduct virtual exams, explaining the necessary infrastructure for participating in the exam by students, completing anxiety and satisfaction questionnaires, rules and regulations, how to deal with rejected individuals, and exam testing and Q&A. Additionally, a pre-exam in-person orientation session was held.

To inform students about the entire educational process, the resources and educational content recommended by the professors, including PDF files, photos and videos, instructions, and links, were shared through a virtual group on the social media messenger, and scientific information was also, questions were asked and answered through this platform.

Correspondence and necessary coordination were made with the university clinical skills center to conduct in-person workshops and exams.

Following the Test-centered approach, the Angoff Modified method [ 29 , 30 ] was used to determine the scoring criteria for each station by panelists tasked with assigning scores.

Additionally, in establishing standards for this blended CCE for fourth-year nursing students, for whom graduation was a prerequisite, the panelists, as experienced clinical educators familiar with the performance and future roles of these students and the assessment method of the blended exam, were involved [ 29 , 30 ](Table 1 ).

Step 2: Preparing the necessary infrastructure for conducting the exam

Software infrastructure.

The pre- and post-virtual exam questions, scenarios, and questionnaires were uploaded using online software.

The exam was conducted on a trial basis in multiple sessions with the participation of several faculty members, and any issues were addressed. Students were authenticated to enter the exam environment via email and personal information verification. The questions for each station were designed and entered into the software by the respective station instructors and the examination coordinator, who facilitated the exam. The questions were formatted as clinical scenarios, images, descriptive questions, and multiple-choice questions, emphasizing the clinical and practical aspects. This software had various features for administering different types of exams and various question formats, including multiple-choice, descriptive, scenario-based, image-based, video-based, matching, Excel output, and graphical and descriptive statistical analyses. It also had automatic questionnaire completion, notification emails, score addition to questionnaires, prevention of multiple answer submissions, and the ability to upload files up to 4 gigabytes. Student authentication was based on national identification numbers and student IDs, serving as user IDs and passwords. Students could enter the exam environment using their email and multi-level personal information verification. If the information did not match, individuals could not access the exam environment.

Checklists and questionnaires

A student list was prepared, and checklists for the in-person exam and anxiety and satisfaction questionnaires were reproduced.

Empowerment workshops for professors and education staff

Educational needs of faculty members and academic staff include conducting clinical competency exams using the OSCE method; simulating and evaluating OSCE exams; designing standardized questions, checklists, and scenarios; innovative approaches in clinical evaluations; designing physical spaces and setting up stations; and assessing ethics and professional commitment in clinical competency exams.

Student empowerment programs

According to the students’ needs assessment results, in-person workshops on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and airway management and online workshops were held on health, pediatrics, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ethics, nursing diagnosis, and report writing through Skype messenger. In addition, vaccination notes, psychiatric nursing, and educational files on clinical examinations and basic skills were recorded by instructors and made available to students via virtual groups.

Step 3: CCE implementation

The CCE was held in two parts, in-person and virtual.

In-person exam

The OSCE method was used for this section of the exam. The basic skills station exam included dressing and injections, and the CPR and pediatrics stations were conducted in person. The students were divided into two groups of 21 each semester, and the exam was held in two shifts. While adhering to quarantine protocols, the students performed the procedures for seven minutes at each station, and instructors evaluated them using a checklist. An additional minute was allotted for transitioning to the next station.

Virtual exam

The professional ethics, nursing diagnosis, nursing report, health, psychiatric nursing, and physical examination stations were conducted virtually after the in-person exam. This exam was made available to students via a primary and a secondary link in a virtual space at the scheduled time. Students were first verified, and after the specified time elapsed, the ability to respond to inactive questions and submitted answers was sent. During the exam, full support was provided by the examination center.

The examination coordinator conducted the entire virtual exam process. The exam results were announced 48 h after the exam. A passing grade was considered to be a score higher than 60% in all stations. Students who failed in various stations were given the opportunity for remediation based on faculty feedback, either through additional study or participation in educational workshops. Subsequent exams were held one week apart from the initial exam. It was stipulated that students who failed in more than half of the stations would be evaluated in the following semester. If they failed in more than three sessions at a station, a decision would be made by the faculty’s educational council. However, no students met these situations.

Step 4: Evaluation

The evaluation of the exam was conducted by examiners using a checklist, and the results were announced as pass or fail.

Stage 4: Observation / evaluation

In this study, both process and outcome evaluations were conducted:

Process evaluation

All programs and activities implemented during the test design and administration process were evaluated in the process evaluation. This evaluation was based on operational program control and reflections received from participants through group discussion sessions and virtual groups.

Sample reflections received from faculty members, managers, experts, and students through group discussions and social messaging platforms after the changes:

P7: “The implementation of the blended virtual exam, in the conditions of the COVID-19 crisis where the possibility of holding in-person exams was not fully available, in my opinion, was able to improve the quality of exam administration and address the limitations and weaknesses of the exam entirely virtually.”

P5: “In my opinion, this blended method was able to better evaluate students in terms of clinical readiness for entering clinical practice.”

Outcomes evaluation

The study outcomes were student anxiety, student acceptance and satisfaction, and faculty acceptance and satisfaction. Before the start of the in-person and virtual exams, the Spielberger Anxiety Questionnaire was provided to students. Additionally, immediately after the exam, students and instructors completed the acceptance and satisfaction questionnaire for the relevant section. After the exam, students and instructors completed the acceptance and satisfaction questionnaire again for the entire exam process, including feasibility, satisfaction with its implementation, and educational impact.

Design framework and implementation for the blended Clinical Competency Examination

The exam was planned using a blended method (part in-person, part virtual) according to the Fig.  2 schedule, and all planned programs for the blended CCE for final-year nursing students were implemented in two semesters.

Evaluation results

In this study, 84 final-year nursing students participated, including 37 females (44.05%) and 47 males (55.95%). Among them, 28 (33.3%) were dormitory residents, and 56 (66.7%) were non-dormitory residents.

In this study, both process and outcome evaluations were conducted.

All programs and activities implemented during the test design and administration process were evaluated in the process evaluation (Table  2 ). This evaluation was based on operational program control and reflections received from participants through group discussion sessions and virtual groups on social media.

Anxiety and satisfaction were examined and evaluated as study outcomes, and the results are presented below.

The paired t-test results in Table  3 showed no statistically significant difference in overt anxiety ( p  = 0.56), covert anxiety ( p  = 0.13), and total anxiety scores ( p  = 0.167) between the in-person and virtual sections before the blended Clinical Competency Examination.

However, the mean (SD) of overt anxiety in persons in males and females was 49.27 (11.16) and 43.63 (13.60), respectively, and this difference was statistically significant ( p  = 0.03). Also, the mean (SD) of overt virtual anxiety in males and females was 45.70 (11.88) and 51.00 (9.51), respectively, and this difference was statistically significant ( p  = 0.03). However, there was no significant difference between males and females regarding covert anxiety in the person ( p  = 0.94) and virtual ( p  = 0.60) sections. In addition, the highest percentage of overt anxiety was apparent in the virtual section among women (15.40%) and the in-person section among men (21.28%) and was prevalent at a moderate to high level.

According to Table  4 , One-way analysis of variance showed a significant difference between the virtual, in-person, and blended sections in terms of acceptance and satisfaction scores.

The results of the One-way analysis of variance showed that the mean (SD) acceptance and satisfaction scores of nursing students of the CCE in virtual, in-person, and blended sections were 25.49 (4.73), 27.60 (4.70), and 25.57 (4.97) out of 30, respectively. There was a significant difference between the three sections ( p  = 0.008).

In addition, 3 (7.23%) male and 10 (76.3%) female faculty members participated in this study; of this number, 2 (15.38%) were instructors, and 11 (84.62%) were assistant professors. Moreover, they were between 29 and 50 years old, with a mean (SD) of 41.37 (6.27). Furthermore, they had 4 to 20 years of work experience with a mean and standard deviation of 13.22(4.43).

The results of the analysis of variance showed that the mean (SD) acceptance and satisfaction scores of faculty members of the CCE in virtual, in-person, and blended sections were 30.31 (4.47), 29.86 (3.94), and 30.00 (4.16) out of 33, respectively. There was no significant difference between the three sections ( p  = 0.864).

This action research study showed that the blended CCE for nursing students is feasible and, depending on the conditions and objectives, evaluation stations can be designed and implemented virtually or in person.

The blended exam, combining in-person and virtual elements, managed to address some of the weaknesses of entirely virtual exams conducted in previous terms due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the pandemic conditions, the possibility of performing all in-person stations was not feasible due to the risk of students and evaluators contracting the virus, as well as the need for prolonged quarantine. Additionally, to meet the staffing needs of hospitals, nursing students needed to graduate. By implementing the blended exam idea and conducting in-person evaluations at clinical stations, the assessment of nursing students’ clinical competence was brought closer to reality compared to the entirely virtual method.

Furthermore, the need for human resources, station setup costs, and time spent was less than the entirely in-person method. Therefore, in pandemics or conditions where sufficient financial resources and human resources are not available, the blended approach can be utilized.

Additionally, the evaluation results showed that students’ total and overt anxiety in both virtual and in-person sections of the blended CCE did not differ significantly. However, the overt anxiety of female students in the virtual section and male students in the in-person section was considerably higher. Nevertheless, students’ covert anxiety related to personal characteristics did not differ in virtual and in-person exam sections. However, students’ acceptance and satisfaction in the in-person section were higher than in the virtual and blended sections, with a significant difference. The acceptance and satisfaction of faculty members from the CCE in in-person, virtual, and blended sections were the same and relatively high.

A blended CCE nursing competency exam was not found in the literature review. However, recent studies, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, have designed and implemented this exam using virtual OSCE. Previously, the CCE was held in-person or through traditional OSCE methods.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, nursing schools worldwide faced difficulties administering clinical competency exams for students. The virtual simulation was used to evaluate clinical competency and develop nursing students’ clinical skills in the United States, including standard videos, home videos, and clinical scenarios. Additionally, an online virtual simulation program was designed to assess the clinical competency of senior nursing students in Hong Kong as a potential alternative to traditional clinical training [ 31 ].

A traditional in-person OSCE was also redesigned and developed through a virtual conferencing platform for nursing students at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. Survey findings showed that most professors and students considered virtual OSCE a highly effective tool for evaluating communication skills, obtaining a medical history, making differential diagnoses, and managing patients. However, professors noted that evaluating examination techniques in a virtual environment is challenging [ 32 ].

However, Biranvand reported that less than half of the nursing students believed the in-person OSCE was stressful [ 33 ]. At the same time, the results of another study showed that 96.2% of nursing students perceived the exam as anxiety-provoking [ 1 ]. Students believe that the stress of this exam is primarily related to exam time, complexity, and the execution of techniques, as well as confusion about exam methods [ 7 ]. In contrast to previous research results, in a study conducted in Egypt, 75% of students reported that the OSCE method has less stress than other examination methods [ 9 ]. However, there has yet to be a consensus across studies on the causes and extent of anxiety-provoking in the OSCE exam. In a study, the researchers found that in addition to the factors mentioned above, the evaluator’s presence could also be a cause of stress [ 34 ]. Another survey study showed that students perceived the OSCE method as more stressful than the traditional method, mainly due to the large number of stations, exam items, and time constraints [ 7 ]. Another study in Egypt, which designed two stages of the OSCE exam for 75 nursing students, found that 65.6% of students reported that the second stage exam was stressful due to the problem-solving station. In contrast, only 38.9% of participants considered the first-stage exam stressful [ 35 ]. Given that various studies have reported anxiety as one of the disadvantages of the OSCE exam, in this study, one of the outcomes evaluated was the anxiety of final-year nursing students. There was no significant difference in total anxiety and overt anxiety between students in the in-person and virtual sections of the blended Clinical Competency Examination. The overt anxiety was higher in male students in the in-person part and female students in the virtual section, which may be due to their personality traits, but further research is needed to confirm this. Moreover, since students’ total and overt anxiety in the in-person and virtual sections of the exam are the same in resource and workforce shortages or pandemics, the blended CCE is suggested as a suitable alternative to the traditional OSCE test. However, for generalization of the results, it is recommended that future studies consider three intervention groups, where all OSCE stations are conducted virtually in the first group, in-person in the second group, and a blend of in-person and virtual in the third group. Furthermore, the results of the study by Rafati et al. showed that the use of the OSCE clinical competency exam using the OSCE method is acceptable, valid, and reliable for assessing nursing skills, as 50% of the students were delighted, and 34.6% were relatively satisfied with the OSCE clinical competency exam. Additionally, 57.7% of the students believed the exam revealed learning weaknesses [ 1 ]. Another survey study showed that despite higher anxiety about the OSCE exam, students thought that this exam provides equal opportunities for everyone, is less complicated than the traditional method, and encourages the active participation of students [ 7 ]. In another study on maternal and infant care, 95% of the students believed the traditional exam only evaluates memory or practical skills. In contrast, the OSCE exam assesses knowledge, understanding, cognitive and analytical skills, communication, and emotional skills. They believed that explicit evaluation goals, appropriate implementation guidelines, appropriate scheduling, wearing uniforms, equipping the workroom, evaluating many skills, and providing fast feedback are among the advantages of this exam [ 36 ]. Moreover, in a survey study, most students were satisfied with the clinical environment offered by the OSCE CCE using the OSCE method, which is close to reality and involves a hypothetical patient in necessary situations that increase work safety. On the other hand, factors such as the scheduling of stations and time constraints have led to dissatisfaction among students [ 37 ].

Furthermore, another study showed that virtual simulations effectively improve students’ skills in tracheostomy suctioning, triage concepts, evaluation, life-saving interventions, clinical reasoning skills, clinical judgment skills, intravenous catheterization skills, role-based nursing care, individual readiness, critical thinking, reducing anxiety levels, and increasing confidence in the laboratory, clinical nursing education, interactive communication, and health evaluation skills. In addition to knowledge and skills, new findings indicate that virtual simulations can increase confidence, change attitudes and behaviors, and be an innovative, flexible, and hopeful approach for new nurses and nursing students [ 38 ].

Various studies have evaluated the satisfaction of students and faculty members with the OSCE Clinical Competency Examination. In this study, one of the evaluated outcomes was the acceptability and satisfaction of students and faculty members with implementing the CCE in blended, virtual, and in-person sections, which was relatively high and consistent with other studies. One crucial factor that influenced the satisfaction of this study was the provision of virtual justification sessions for students and coordination sessions with faculty members. Social messaging groups were formed through virtual and in-person communication, instructions were explained, expectations and tasks were clarified, and questions were answered. Students and faculty members could access the required information with minimal presence in medical education centers and time and cost constraints. Moreover, with the blended evaluation, the researcher’s communication with participants was more accessible. The written guidelines and uploaded educational content of the workshops enabled students to save the desired topics and review them later if needed. Students had easy access to scientific and up-to-date information, and the application of social messengers and Skype allowed for sending photos and videos, conducting workshops, and questions and answering questions. However, the clinical workshops and examinations were held in-person to ensure accuracy. The virtual part of the examination was conducted through online software, and questions focused on each station’s clinical and practical aspects. Students answered various questions, including multiple-choice, descriptive, scenario, picture, and puzzle questions, within a specified time. The blended examination evaluated clinical competency and did not delay these individuals’ entry into the job market. Moreover, during the severe human resource shortage faced by the healthcare system, the examination allowed several nurses to enter the country’s healthcare system. The blended examination can substitute in-person examination in pandemic and non-pandemic situations, saving facilities, equipment, and human resources. The results of this study can also serve as a model to guide other nursing departments that require appropriate planning and arrangements for Conducting Clinical Competency Examinations in blended formats. This examination can also be developed to evaluate students’ clinical performance.

One of the practical limitations of the study was the possibility that participants might need to complete the questionnaires accurately or be concerned about losing marks. Therefore, in a virtual session before the in-person exam, the objectives and importance of the study were explained. Participants were assured that it would not affect their evaluation and that they should not worry about losing marks. Additionally, active participation from all nursing students, faculty members, and staff was necessary for implementing this plan, achieved through prior coordination, virtual meetings, virtual group formation, and continuous reflection of results, creating the motivation for continued collaboration and participation.

Among other limitations of this study included the use of the Spielberger Anxiety Questionnaire to measure students’ anxiety. It is suggested that future studies use a dedicated anxiety questionnaire designed explicitly for pre-exam anxiety measurement. Another limitation of the current research was its implementation in nursing and midwifery faculty. Therefore, it is recommended that similar studies be conducted in nursing and midwifery faculties of other universities, as well as in related fields, and over multiple consecutive semesters. Additionally, for more precise effectiveness assessment, intervention studies in three separate virtual, in-person, and hybrid groups using electronic checklists are proposed. Furthermore, it is recommended that students be evaluated in terms of other dimensions and variables such as awareness, clinical skill acquisition, self-confidence, and self-efficacy.

Conducting in-person Clinical Competency Examination (CCE) during critical situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, is challenging. Instead of virtual exams, blended evaluation is a feasible approach to overcome the shortages of virtual ones and closely mimic in-person scenarios. Using a blended method in pandemics or resource shortages, it is possible to design, implement, and evaluate stations that evaluate basic and advanced clinical skills in in-person section, as well as stations that focus on communication, reporting, nursing diagnosis, professional ethics, mental health, and community health based on scenarios in a virtual section, and replace traditional OSCE exams. Furthermore, the use of patient simulators, virtual reality, virtual practice, and the development of virtual and in-person training infrastructure to improve the quality of clinical education and evaluation and obtain the necessary clinical competencies for students is recommended. Also, since few studies have been conducted using the blended method, it is suggested that future research be conducted in three intervention groups, over longer semesters, based on clinical evaluation models and influential on other outcomes such as awareness and clinical skill acquisition self-efficacy, confidence, obtained grades, and estimation of material and human resources costs. This approach reduced the need for physical space for in-person exams, ensuring participant quarantine and health safety with higher quality. Additionally, a more accurate assessment of nursing students’ practical abilities was achieved compared to a solely virtual exam.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Rafati F, Pilevarzade M, Kiani A. Designing, implementing and evaluating once to assess nursing students’ clinical competence in Jiroft faculty of nursing and midwifery. Nurs Midwifery J. 2020;18(2):118–28.

Google Scholar  

Sadeghi T, Ravari A, Shahabinejad M, Hallakoei M, Shafiee M, Khodadadi H. Performing of OSCE method in nursing students of Rafsanjan University of Medical science before entering the clinical field in the year 2010: a process for quality improvement. Community Health J. 2012;6(1):1–8.

Ali GA, Mehdi AY, Ali HA. Objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) as an assessment tool for clinical skills in Sohag University: nursing students’ perspective. J Environ Stud. 2012;8(1):59–69.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bolourchifard F, Neishabouri M, Ashktorab T, Nasrollahzadeh S. Satisfaction of nursing students with two clinical evaluation methods: objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and practical examination of clinical competence. Adv Nurs Midwifery. 2010;19(66):38–42.

Noohi E, Motesadi M, Haghdoost A. Clinical teachers’ viewpoints towards Objective Structured Clinical examination in Kerman University of Medical Science. Iran J Med Educ. 2008;8(1):113–20.

Reza Masouleh S, Zare A, Chehrzad M, Atrkarruoshan Z. Comparing two methods of evaluation, objective structured practical examination and traditional examination, on the satisfaction of students in Shahid Beheshti faculty of nursing and midwifery. J Holist Nurs Midwifery. 2008;18(1):22–30.

Bagheri M, Sadeghineajad Forotagheh M, Shaghayee Fallah M. The comparison of stressors in the assessment of basic clinical skills with traditional method and OSCE in nursing students. Life Sci J. 2012;9(4):1748–52.

Eldarir SH, El Sebaae HA, El Feky HA, Hussein HA, El Fadil NA, El Shaeer IH. An introduction of OSCE versus the traditional method in nursing education: Faculty capacity building and students’ perspectives. J Am Sci. 2010;6(12):1002–14.

Al-Zeftawy AM, Khaton SE. Student evaluation of an OSCE in Community Health nursing clinical course at Faculty of nursing, Tanta University. J Nurs Health Sci. 2016;5(4):68–76.

Hayter M, Jackson D. Pre-registration undergraduate nurses and the COVID-19 pandemic: students or workers? J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(17–18):3115–6.

Bayham J, Fenichel EP. Impact of school closures for COVID-19 on the US health-care workforce and net mortality: a modeling study. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(5):e271–8.

Murphy MPA. COVID-19 and emergency eLearning: consequences of the securitization of higher education for post-pandemic pedagogy. Contemp Secur Policy. 2020;41(3):492–505.

Allen IE, Seaman J. Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009.

Meyer KA, Wilson JL. The role of Online Learning in the emergency plans of Flagship Institutions. Online J Distance Learn Adm. 2011;14(1):110–8.

Kursumovic E, Lennane S, Cook TM. Deaths in healthcare workers due to COVID-19: the need for robust data and analysis. Anaesthesia. 2020;75(8):989–92.

Malekshahi Beiranvand F, Hatami Varzaneh A. Health care workers challenges during coronavirus outbreak: the qualitative study. J Res Behav Sci. 2020;18(2):180–90.

Boursicot K, Kemp S, Ong TH, Wijaya L, Goh SH, Freeman K, Curran I. Conducting a high-stakes OSCE in a COVID-19 environment. MedEdPublish. 2020;9:285–89.

Atwa H, Shehata MH, Al-Ansari A, Kumar A, Jaradat A, Ahmed J, Deifalla A, Online. Face-to-Face, or blended learning? Faculty and Medical Students’ perceptions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-method study. Front Med. 2022;9:791352.

Chan MMK, Yu DS, Lam VS, Wong JY. Online clinical training in the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin Teach. 2020;17(4):445–6.

Toulabi T, Yarahmadi S. Conducting a clinical competency test for nursing students in a virtual method during the Covid-19 pandemic: a case study. J Nurs Educ. 2021;9(5):33–42.

Meskell P, Burke E, Kropmans TJB, Byrne E, Setyonugroho W, Kennedy KM. Back to the future: an online OSCE Management Information System for nursing OSCEs. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35(11):1091–6.

Lichtenberg PA. (2010). Handbook of Assessment in Clinical Gerontology, 2nd Ed. Academic Press, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374961-1.10030-2

Gholami Booreng F, Mahram B, Kareshki H. Construction and validation of a scale of research anxiety for students. IJPCP. 2017;23(1):78–93.

Esmaili M. A survey of the influence of Murita therapy on reducing the rate of anxiety in clients of counseling centers. Res Clin Psychol Couns. 2011;1(1):15–30.

Farajpour A, Amini M, Pishbin E, Arshadi H, Sanjarmusavi N, Yousefi J, Sarafrazyazdi M. Teachers’ and students’ satisfaction with DOPS Examination in Islamic Azad University of Mashhad, a study in Year 2012. Iran J Med Educ. 2014;14(2):165–73.

StraussAC, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and technique. 2nd ed. London: Sage, Newbury Park; 1998.

Dickens L, Watkins K. Action research: rethinking Lewin. Manage Learn. 1999;30(2):127–40.

Rezaeerad M, Nadri Kh, Mohammadi Etergoleh R. The effect of ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation) designing method with emphasizing on mobile learning on students’ self-conception, development motivation and academic development in English course. Educational Adm Res Q. 2013;4(15):15–32.

Ben-David MF. AMEE Guide 18: standard setting in student assessment. Med Teach. 2000;22(2):120–30.

McKinley DW, Norcini JJ. How to set standards on performance-based examinations: AMEE Guide 85. Med Teach. 2014;36(2):97–110.

Fung JTC, Zhang W, Yeung MN, Pang MTH, Lam VSF, Chan BKY, Wong JYH. Evaluation of students perceived clinical competence and learning needs following an online virtual simulation education programmed with debriefing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nurs Open. 2021;8(6):3045–54.

Luke S, Petitt E, Tombrella J, McGoff E. Virtual evaluation of clinical competence in nurse practitioner students. Med Sci Educ. 2021;31:1267–71.

Beiranvand SH, Hosseinabadi R, Ghasemi F, Anbari KH. An Assessment of nursing and Midwifery Student Veiwwpoin, Performance, and feedback with an objective structured clinical examination. J Nurs Educ. 2017;6(1):63–7.

Sheikh Abumasoudi R, Moghimian M, Hashemi M, Kashani F, Karimi T, Atashi V. Comparison of the Effect of Objective Structured Clinical evaluation (OSCE) with Direct and Indirect Supervision on nursing student’s test anxiety. J Nurs Educ. 2015;4(2):1–8.

Zahran EM, Taha EE. Students’ feedback on Objective Structured Clinical examinations (OSCEs) experience in emergency nursing. J High Inst Public Health. 2009;39(2):370–87.

Na A-G. Assessment of Students’ knowledge, clinical performance and satisfaction with objective structured clinical exam. Med J Cairo Univ. 2009;77(4):287–93.

Adib-Hajbaghery M, Yazdani M. Effects of OSCE on learning, satisfaction and test anxiety of nursing students: a review study. Iran J Med Educ. 2018;18:70–83.

Purwanti LE, Sukartini T, Kurniawati ND, Nursalam N, Susilowati T. Virtual Simulation in clinical nursing education to improve knowledge and clinical skills: Literature Review. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2022;10(F):396–404.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to thank the Research and Technology deputy of Smart University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, the faculty members, staff, and officials of the School of Nursing and Midwifery, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran, and all individuals who participated in this study.

All steps of the study, including study design and data collection, analysis, interpretation, and manuscript drafting, were supported by the Deputy of Research of Smart University of Medical Sciences.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of E-Learning in Medical Education, Center of Excellence for E-learning in Medical Education, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Rita Mojtahedzadeh & Aeen Mohammadi

Department of Medical Education, Smart University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Tahereh Toulabi

Cardiovascular Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RM. Participating in study design, accrual of study participants, review of the manuscript, and critical revisions for important intellectual content. TT : The investigator; participated in study design, data collection, accrual of study participants, and writing and reviewing the manuscript. AM: Participating in study design, data analysis, accrual of study participants, and reviewing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tahereh Toulabi .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This action research was conducted following the participatory method. All methods were performed according to the relevant guidelines and regulations in the Declaration of Helsinki (ethics approval and consent to participate). The study’s aims and procedures were explained to all participants, and necessary assurance was given to them for the anonymity and confidentiality of their information. The results were continuously provided as feedback to the participants. Informed consent (explaining the goals and methods of the study) was obtained from participants. The Smart University of Medical Sciences Ethics Committee approved the study protocol (IR.VUMS.REC.1400.011).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mojtahedzadeh, R., Toulabi, T. & Mohammadi, A. The design, implementation, and evaluation of a blended (in-person and virtual) Clinical Competency Examination for final-year nursing students. BMC Med Educ 24 , 936 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05935-9

Download citation

Received : 21 July 2023

Accepted : 20 August 2024

Published : 28 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05935-9

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clinical Competency Examination (CCE)
• Objective Structural Clinical Examination (OSCE)
• Blended method
• Satisfaction

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Global (EN)
• Albania (en)
• Algeria (fr)
• Argentina (es)
• Armenia (en)
• Australia (en)
• Austria (de)
• Austria (en)
• Azerbaijan (en)
• Bahamas (en)
• Bahrain (en)
• Bangladesh (en)
• Barbados (en)
• Belgium (en)
• Belgium (nl)
• Bermuda (en)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina (en)
• Brasil (pt)
• Brazil (en)
• British Virgin Islands (en)
• Bulgaria (en)
• Cambodia (en)
• Cameroon (fr)
• Canada (en)
• Canada (fr)
• Cayman Islands (en)
• Channel Islands (en)
• Colombia (es)
• Costa Rica (es)
• Croatia (en)
• Cyprus (en)
• Czech Republic (cs)
• Czech Republic (en)
• DR Congo (fr)
• Denmark (da)
• Denmark (en)
• Ecuador (es)
• Estonia (en)
• Estonia (et)
• Finland (fi)
• France (fr)
• Georgia (en)
• Germany (de)
• Germany (en)
• Gibraltar (en)
• Greece (el)
• Greece (en)
• Hong Kong SAR (en)
• Hungary (en)
• Hungary (hu)
• Iceland (is)
• Indonesia (en)
• Ireland (en)
• Isle of Man (en)
• Israel (en)
• Ivory Coast (fr)
• Jamaica (en)
• Jordan (en)
• Kazakhstan (en)
• Kazakhstan (kk)
• Kazakhstan (ru)
• Kuwait (en)
• Latvia (en)
• Latvia (lv)
• Lebanon (en)
• Lithuania (en)
• Lithuania (lt)
• Luxembourg (en)
• Macau SAR (en)
• Malaysia (en)
• Mauritius (en)
• Mexico (es)
• Moldova (en)
• Monaco (en)
• Monaco (fr)
• Mongolia (en)
• Montenegro (en)
• Mozambique (en)
• Myanmar (en)
• Namibia (en)
• Netherlands (en)
• Netherlands (nl)
• New Zealand (en)
• Nigeria (en)
• North Macedonia (en)
• Norway (nb)
• Pakistan (en)
• Panama (es)
• Philippines (en)
• Poland (en)
• Poland (pl)
• Portugal (en)
• Portugal (pt)
• Romania (en)
• Romania (ro)
• Saudi Arabia (en)
• Serbia (en)
• Singapore (en)
• Slovakia (en)
• Slovakia (sk)
• Slovenia (en)
• South Africa (en)
• Sri Lanka (en)
• Sweden (sv)
• Switzerland (de)
• Switzerland (en)
• Switzerland (fr)
• Taiwan (en)
• Taiwan (zh)
• Thailand (en)
• Trinidad and Tobago (en)
• Tunisia (en)
• Tunisia (fr)
• Turkey (en)
• Turkey (tr)
• Ukraine (en)
• Ukraine (ru)
• Ukraine (uk)
• United Arab Emirates (en)
• United Kingdom (en)
• United States (en)
• Uruguay (es)
• Uzbekistan (en)
• Uzbekistan (ru)
• Venezuela (es)
• Vietnam (en)
• Vietnam (vi)
• Zambia (en)
• Zimbabwe (en)
• Financial Reporting View
• Women's Leadership
• Corporate Finance
• Board Leadership
• Executive Education

Fresh thinking and actionable insights that address critical issues your organization faces.

• Insights by Industry
• Insights by Topic

KPMG's multi-disciplinary approach and deep, practical industry knowledge help clients meet challenges and respond to opportunities.

• Advisory Services
• Audit Services
• Tax Services

Services to meet your business goals

Technology Alliances

KPMG has market-leading alliances with many of the world's leading software and services vendors.

Helping clients meet their business challenges begins with an in-depth understanding of the industries in which they work. That’s why KPMG LLP established its industry-driven structure. In fact, KPMG LLP was the first of the Big Four firms to organize itself along the same industry lines as clients.

• Our Industries

How We Work

We bring together passionate problem-solvers, innovative technologies, and full-service capabilities to create opportunity with every insight.

• What sets us apart

Careers & Culture

What is culture? Culture is how we do things around here. It is the combination of a predominant mindset, actions (both big and small) that we all commit to every day, and the underlying processes, programs and systems supporting how work gets done.

Relevant Results

Sorry, there are no results matching your search., kpmg report: updated accounting method change procedures and clarification of rules under section 174.

A KPMG report concerning two forms of guidance addressing section 174.

The IRS on December 22, 2023, released the following two forms of guidance addressing section 174:

• Notice 2024-12 clarifies and modifies Notice 2023-63 addressing the capitalization and amortization of specified research or experimental (SRE) expenditures under section 174. Of note, the notice specifically clarifies the previously issued guidance relating to contract research providers.
• Revenue Procedure 2024-9 updates the procedures for changing methods of accounting under section 174.

Public Law 115-97 (December 22, 2017), commonly referred to as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” (TCJA), amended section 174 in several ways with the intent of raising revenues to offset tax cuts in other areas. Among the key amendments was the removal of the ability to currently deduct section 174 expenditures, requiring taxpayers to capitalize such costs and recover them through amortization over five years for expenditures incurred in the U.S. and over 15 years for expenditures incurred outside of the U.S.

The IRS on December 12, 2022, released an advance copy of Rev. Proc. 2023-8, providing accounting method change procedures applicable to companies required to capitalize and amortize SRE expenditures. Subsequently, the IRS on December 29, 2022, released Rev. Proc. 2023-11 to amend the procedures set forth in Rev. Proc. 2023-8 for making post-2022 accounting method changes with respect to obtaining audit protection. The IRS on June 15, 2023, released Rev. Proc. 2023-24, providing an updated annual list of automatic accounting method changes, which incorporates the automatic method change procedures issued in Rev. Proc. 2023-11 under section 174.

The IRS on September 8, 2023, issued Notice 2023-63 addressing issues related to section 174 as amended by the TCJA. Given the lack of a legislative deferral or repeal of the requirement to capitalize SRE expenditures, this notice was welcome guidance for taxpayers working to prepare their current year tax returns because it covered several areas that have been unclear in previous guidance. For a more detailed analysis of Notice 2023-63.

Key points from Notice 2024-12

Notice 2024-12 clarifies and modifies Notice 2023-63, which announced that the Department of Treasury and IRS intend to issue proposed regulations addressing the capitalization and amortization of SRE expenditures under section 174. Specifically, Notice 2024-12 clarifies and modifies three areas of Notice 2023-63 as highlighted below.

• Research performed under contract: excluded SRE product right.   Notice 2023-63 provides that a research provider’s costs paid or incurred in performing SRE activities under a contract with the research recipient are SRE expenditures if the research provider bears financial risk or has an SRE product right (i.e., a right to use any resulting SRE product in a trade or business or otherwise exploit any resulting SRE product through sale, lease, or license). However, research providers that have an SRE product right only upon obtaining approval from an unrelated party (within the meaning of section 267 or 707) are not treated as having an SRE product right. While Notice 2023-63 eliminated significant uncertainty that contract research providers faced in evaluating the proper treatment of costs, it did not explicitly address a situation in which a research provider separately acquires rights for consideration thus compensating the research owner for those rights. These arrangements are common for multi-national corporations with complex intercompany research services arrangements. For example, in many cases, in addition to a research services agreement, the parties enter a separate agreement granting the research provider rights to distribute the product developed under the research services agreement and requiring the research provider to pay the research recipient an arms-length royalty for those rights. While not explicitly addressing this situation, KPMG interpreted the notice to exclude expenditures from the definition of SREs in this situation,[1] and Notice 2024-12 confirms that interpretation. Removing the ambiguity, Notice 2024-12 explicitly explains that costs paid or incurred by the research provider to perform SRE activities when the research provider separately bargains for the SRE product right, whether in the same contract or a separate contract, are not SRE expenditures of the research provider (referred to as an “excluded SRE product right”) and thus not subject to capitalization under section 174.
• KPMG observation Taxpayers that took a more conservative position in interpreting either Notice 2023-63 or section 174(a) in general—that separately bargained for rights needed to be undertaken by a different entity, or at a minimum, a different contract--should no longer have that concern. Taxpayers in this position now have an opportunity to change their method of accounting in 2023 to expense the unamortized amount of these expenses. See the discussion of the procedures permitting a cumulative section 481(a) adjustment below.
• Full or partial reliance on any of the rules in Notice 2023-63.   Notice 2023-63 states that the IRS intends to issue proposed regulations consistent with the rules in the notice to apply to tax years ending after September 8, 2023. However, the notice also provides that a taxpayer may choose to rely on the rules in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, provided the taxpayer relies on and consistently applies all such rules. Notice 2024-12 modifies Notice 2023-63 by removing the requirement that Notice 2023-63 must be fully relied on and applied consistently in an effort to facilitate reliance on the rules in a more administrable manner. This modification benefits taxpayers that seek to rely on certain provisions of Notice 2023-63, as modified by Notice 2024-12, but not others, in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, and before the issuance of final regulations. For example, Section 4.03(1) of Notice 2023-63 gives a nonexclusive list of costs that are SRE expenditures, and excludes amounts paid or incurred for severance from the definition of labor SRE expenditures. While such exclusion is helpful to taxpayers seeking to limit costs subject to capitalization, it negatively impacts the research credit under section 41, which generally provides as a threshold requirement that an expense be a SRE expenditure to be a qualified research expense (QRE). Eligible wages under section 41 are determined based on section 3401(a) which means all tax wages reported on Box 1 of Form W-2 are potentially QREs. Form W-2 Box 1 which includes severance. Given these inconsistencies, and absent the modification in Notice 2024-12 that removes the requirement to fully rely on and apply Notice 2023-63 consistently. If a taxpayer relied on Notice 2023-63 for a certain position, then it would need to exclude severance from Box 1, Schedule W-2 wages in the section 41 research credit. The modification to the applicability of Notice 2023-63 creates opportunities for taxpayers to partially rely on Notice 2023-63 but include severance as SRE expenditures avoiding the need to exclude such costs in the research credit under section 41.
• Section 5.01 of Rev. Proc. 2000-50 obsoleted for software development costs paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021.  For tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, SRE expenditures subject to capitalization under section 174 include expenditures for software development. Notice 2023-63 provides guidance with respect to determining the types of activities that constitute software development and defines the term “computer software” as consistent with the guidance provided in Rev. Proc. 2000-50. Notice 2023-63 obsoleted section 5 of Rev. Proc. 2000-50, which permits taxpayers to treat software development costs in a manner similar to section 174 expenditures under the rules in effect prior to mandatory capitalization. Notice 2024-12 clarifies that section 5 of Rev. Proc. 2000-50 is only obsoleted for expenditures paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021. The clarification allows taxpayers to continue to file method changes to deduct software development expenditures under section 5 of Rev. Proc. 2000-50 that are paid or incurred in tax years beginning on or before December 31, 2021. This is helpful to taxpayers who may have capitalized these costs in the past and that seek to currently change the treatment of these expenses and given that some states do not follow section 174, will provide flexibility for state income tax purposes.

Notice 2024-12 is effective as of September 8, 2023, and may be relied on for expenditures paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, until forthcoming proposed regulations are published.

Key points from Rev. Proc. 2024-9

Rev. Proc. 2024-9 modifies Section 7.02 of Rev. Proc. 2023-24, which provides automatic procedures for changing methods of accounting for SREs under section 174 paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021. In addition, Rev. Proc. 2024-9 adds Section 19.02 to Rev. Proc. 2023-24 to provide an automatic change for taking SREs into account under the percentage of completion method (PCM) under section 460. These changes are effective for Forms 3115 filed on or after December 22, 2023.

The following highlights the key points from the guidance:

• General Scope: Option to change a method to rely on the statute or Notice 2023-63.  Section 7.02 of Rev. Proc. 2023-24 provides two options for a taxpayer to change its method of accounting relating to the substantive rules for defining SREs: (1) A change in method of accounting to interpret the statute (i.e., section 174, as amended by the TCJA) without regard to the notice (DCN 265), or (2) a change in method of accounting to rely on Notice 2023-63, as modified by Notice 2024-12 (DCN 270). Given that that the notices may be relied on by taxpayers, in whole or in part, but taxpayers also have the continued opportunity to rely on a reasonable interpretation of the statute without relying on the notices, in most instances a taxpayer following the approach of reasonably interpreting the statute would likely be able to contend that any positions taken that are consistent with the notices are also reasonable interpretations of the statute, but not vice versa. As such, we recommend that any taxpayer making a change under the new procedure designate the change to be under DCN 265, or both DCN 265 and DCN 270, but not DCN 270 by itself. The modified procedure also makes it explicit that a change to no longer capitalize costs under section 174 that do not meet the definition of an SRE, depending on which option the taxpayer selects—interpretation of the statute or Notice 2023-63, as modified by Notice 2024-12—is included in the scope of the automatic change. In addition, the modified procedure excludes from the automatic change a change from treating SREs paid or incurred by a taxpayer that transfers property with respect to which such SREs were paid or incurred in a section 351 exchange as amortizable by the transferee following such exchange to treating such SREs as amortizable by the transferor following such exchange (since such a change is not a change in method of accounting).
• Cut-off basis vs. section 481(a) adjustment.  As with the prior guidance, a change in method of accounting for the taxpayer’s first tax year beginning after December 31, 2021, is made on a cut-off basis. However, method changes made in a year later than the first year beginning after December 31, 2021 (e.g., 2023) are made with a modified section 481(a) adjustment which takes into account costs paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021. Interestingly, if the change results in a taxpayer favorable (“negative”) section 481(a) adjustment, Rev. Proc. 2024-9 provides flexibility allowing the taxpayer to choose between either making the change with an adjustment or on a cut-off basis.
• Statement attachment or Form 3115.  Consistent with the prior guidance, a change in method of accounting for the taxpayer’s first tax year beginning after December 31, 2021 is made by attaching a statement to the taxpayer’s tax return for that year. However, changes made for a year later than first year beginning after December 31, 2021 are made by filing Form 3115. The revenue procedure describes certain information that is required to be included in the Form 3115 which is similar to the information that is required for the changes made via return statement.
• Prior five-year change rule waived for a limited time.  The scope limitation on filing an automatic change if a taxpayer changed its method for the same item in the prior five tax years (found in Section 5.01(1)(f) of Rev. Proc. 2015-13) is waived for a taxpayer’s first or second tax year beginning after December 31, 2021 (i.e., it is waived for the 2023 tax year). The revenue procedure clarifies that this is the case even if the taxpayer makes a change for the same item in successive tax years. For example, if the taxpayer changed its method for the first tax year beginning after December 31, 2021 (i.e., 2022), it may file another change for the same item for the second tax year beginning after December 31, 2021 (i.e., 2023) under the automatic procedure.
• Limited audit protection is provided.  The new procedure narrows the scope of the denial of audit protection. Instead of denying it altogether for 2022 tax years, the revenue procedure only precludes a taxpayer from obtaining audit protection for 2022 if they did not make an accounting method change to capitalize SREs in 2022. Specifically, a taxpayer will not receive audit protection for a change made for the second year beginning after December 31, 2021 if it did not change, or attempt to change, its method for the first year beginning after December 31, 2021. As an example, if a taxpayer changed its method for 2022 and files a subsequent change for 2023, the change for 2023 will have audit protection (assuming it is otherwise available—e.g., the taxpayer is not under IRS examination). However, if the taxpayer waited to change its method until 2023, it would not have audit protection.
• Non-applicability of two-year rule requiring the filing of two tax returns before filing a change in method of accounting.  IRS guidance provides that a taxpayer will not be treated as having adopted an improper accounting method until they file at least two consecutive tax returns using the method of accounting.[1] Although there is a view that the two-year rule also applies when a taxpayer incorrectly makes a method change for an item, Rev. Proc. 2024-9 indicates that a taxpayer may use the revenue procedure “for its second tax year beginning after December 31, 2021, regardless of whether the taxpayer made, or purported to make, a change for the same item for its first tax year beginning after December 31, 2021.”
• Taxpayers who filed returns in early 2023.  The revenue procedure provides a transition rule for taxpayers who filed a federal income tax return on or before January 17, 2023, for a tax year beginning after December 31, 2021. Those taxpayers are deemed to have complied with Section 7.02 of Rev. Proc. 2023-24 to change their method for SREs paid or incurred in the first tax year beginning after December 31, 2021 if the taxpayer (1) reported the amount of SREs paid or incurred for such tax year on Part VI of Form 4562,  Depreciation and Amortization,  filed with the Federal income tax return, and (2) properly capitalized and amortized the SREs in accordance with Section 174 for that year.
• Automatic method change under Section 460.  A new Section 19.02 is added to Rev. Proc. 2023-24 to provide a method change to rely on Section 8 of Notice 2023-63, which addresses taking SREs into account under the PCM (DCN 271). The method change applies to treat the costs allocable to a long-term contract accounted for using the PCM to include only amortization deductions of such SREs, rather than the total amount incurred and capitalized under section 174. In addition, the amortization deduction for the SREs is treated as incurred for purposes of determining the percentage of contract completion in the tax year the amortization is deducted. This has the effect of not requiring the taxpayer to allocate the entire capitalized amount of allocable SRE expenditures to the contract, while only being permitted to deduct the amortization of such costs. This change would permit the taxpayer to only allocate the amortization amount of allocable SRE expenditures (i.e., only include the current year amortization amount in the numerator of the PCM formula) and to deduct the amortization as a cost incurred for the year in determining the percentage of the contract completed for the year. Lastly, the procedure provides that “estimated total allocable contract costs” in the denominator of the PCM formula will include either (1) all amortization of SREs that directly benefit or are incurred by reason of the performance of the long-term contract (i.e., the entire capitalized amount of allocable SREs), or (2) only that portion of such amortization expected to be incurred and deducted during the term of the contract (i.e., only the portion of allocable SREs to be amortized during the contract term). A taxpayer using the first alternative must report any portion of the contract price not previously reported by the tax year following the tax year in which the contract is completed, notwithstanding that some portion of the SREs remain unamortized. This change is made on a cut-off basis for the taxpayer’s first tax year beginning after December 31, 2021, but applies to contracts entered into before the year of change for which an SRE expenditure is an allocable contract cost (so that the method change results in an adjustment to revenue and costs for existing contracts, not just new contracts). A change made for a year later the first tax year beginning after December 31, 2021 is made with a modified Section 481(a) adjustment, taking into account costs paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2021 (again, including contracts entered into before the year of change). If the change results in a negative Section 481(a) adjustment, the taxpayer may choose to implement the change with an adjustment or on a cut-off basis. The five-year prior change scope limitation does not apply to a change made for the taxpayer’s first or second tax year beginning after December 31, 2021.

For more information, contact a member of the KPMG Washington National Tax Methods and Credits group:

David Kalman | dkalman@kpmg.com

Colleen O’Connor | colleenmoconnor@kpmg.com

Carol Conjura | cconjura@kpmg.com

Natalie Tucker | natalietucker@kpmg.com

Cathy Fitzpatrick |  cfitzpatrick@kpmg.com

Hogan Humphries | hhumphries@kpmg.com

• See our analysis on page 10 of:  IRS Releases Initial Guidance on Section 174 SRE Expenditures  [PDF 453 KB]
• See Rev. Rul. 90-38.

The KPMG name and logo are trademarks used under license by the independent member firms of the KPMG global organization. KPMG International Limited is a private English company limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 3712, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.

Thank you for contacting KPMG. We will respond to you as soon as possible.

Contact KPMG

By submitting, you agree that KPMG LLP may process any personal information you provide pursuant to KPMG LLP's Privacy Statement .

Job seekers

Visit our careers section or search our jobs database.

Use the RFP submission form to detail the services KPMG can help assist you with.

Office locations

International hotline

You can confidentially report concerns to the KPMG International hotline

Press contacts

Do you need to speak with our Press Office? Here's how to get in touch.

Money blog: New M&S strategy becomes clear - and might explain some of things you've seen on social media

M&S is targeting younger shoppers on social media and Sainsbury's has called in police after becoming the subject of a TikTok fake voucher trend. Scroll through the Money blog for these plus more personal finance and consumer posts, and leave a comment on anything we're covering below.

Thursday 5 September 2024 12:20, UK

• 'The Sainsbury's method': Fake voucher trend sees supermarket call in police
• M&S target younger shoppers with social media campaigns
• 'Free £5' perk axed by Barclays - many will stay for savings rate but how does it compare?

Essential reads

• How data roaming charges compare by network
• How your pension could be taxed
• Big Issue seller reveals how it works financially and his technique
• Best of the Money blog

Tips and advice

• Basically... Free school meals
• Cheapest holidays dates before Christmas
• Money Problem : 'My dog died but insurance still wants a year's payment'

Ask a question or make a comment

Picking up a Costa coffee or grabbing a latte from Starbucks doesn't sound like an expensive habit - but one generation is spending more than £700 a year doing it.

Millennials outspend all other age groups, forking out an average of £728 a year on takeaway coffees, according to research commissioned by McDonald's. 

It found those aged between 28 and 43 spent £52 more a year than the younger Gen Z and £468 more than the older Baby boomers. 

Overall, 37% of coffee drinkers said they would even turn down a free cup at work to pay for a "nice" one outside the office. 

Those polled said a cup of coffee should cost £1.86. 

But that's almost half of what the average on-the-go coffee costs at £3.40, according to FreshGround .

Costs aside, 56% said coffee was a luxury they would not want to live without.

The study also found that the average coffee drinker spends more than £29,000 on takeaway coffee in their lifetime.

Latte was the most popular style, with 23% favouring it, followed by cappuccino on 21% and flat white on 11%. 

Marks & Spencer is targeting younger shoppers by spending more money on social media content. 

In a bid to "move with the times", the retailer has upped its spend on videos for TikTok and YouTube, with investment in social media ads up nearly 80% in the last year, according to The Telegraph . 

Some of you might have noticed recent M&S products trending online - our TikTok for you pages have been filled with people trying out the new "Big Daddy" chocolate bar. 

Its £35 Celine handbag dupe also appeared a lot last year. 

The high-street giant has also unveiled wider plans to get more shoppers buying through its website and app. 

Bosses have hailed the "beginnings of a new M&S", saying the business could grow its fashion and homeware business further on the back of strong online momentum. 

The clothing and home business saw sales grow by 5.2% in the year to March, helping to support a 58% rise in profits.

M&S clothing and home managing director Richard Price told reporters he hoped investment in the app, online personalisation and Sparks loyalty programme would help keep sales high.

He said: "We are over two years into our programme for growth and we can really start to see the beginnings of a new M&S.

"Online sales are growing ahead of the market and ahead of stores. It's driven by better product and much more effective branded social marketing.

"We continue to grow our style perceptions and are getting stronger from a value and quality perception as well."

Keep scrolling for:

• The 'Sainsbury's method': Supermarket calls in police over TikTok fraudulent voucher trend
• Cheapest supermarket revealed
• Barclays axes key perk - so what are alternative accounts?

"It tastes like burning," according to one reviewer. 

Beithir Fire is a 75% ABV beer brewed in Scotland that comes with a warning label and (for one 330ml bottle) a £45.95 price tag.

The cost takes into account that it takes more than three months to produce. 

As well as purporting to be the world's strongest beer, 88 Brewery also claims it's "the only beer with a 100-year shelf life".

TikToker Dan from  @1minutebeerreview  tasted just 35ml of the fiery beverage - the most the brewery recommends you consume at one time. 

His thoughts? 

"That's really strong. It tastes like burning. My tongue is now numb... I need to go lie down."

Asda says it has started selling refurbished TVs in some of its stores - becoming the first UK supermarket to do so.

The retailer said customers in a handful of locations in England and Scotland are able to get their hands on three models of returned TVs from as little as £100.

The 32-inch, 40-inch and 50-inch TVs are being refurbished at Asda's electrical returns centre using recycled materials and come re-packaged to make clear they are refurbished models, it said.

These are the models available: 

• PLRD Combi TV 32-inch - £100 (RRP £149) - saving of £49
• Sharp Smart TV 40-inch - £130 (RRP £190) - saving of £60
• PLRD Smart Fire TV 50-inch - £160 (£240) - saving of £80

Customers in Folkestone, Leeds, Glasgow, Sunderland and Ellesmere Port are able to purchase one of the TVs as part of a trial by Asda to increase the longevity of its returned products.

By James Sillars , business reporter

Quite a few companies are reporting positive results in London this morning.

However, the FTSE 100 is trading further down in what has been a tough week for global stock markets.

The main drag has been renewed fears of a US recession, while major tech stocks suffered some intense bleeding on profit taking on Tuesday amid a school of thought they are overvalued.

Leading the way on the FTSE this morning was housebuilder Vistry – up by more than 2%.

The company revealed a 7% rise in half-year profits despite the affordability challenges facing the sector and a share buyback worth £130m.

In the wider market, Asos, the fast fashion firm, saw its shares climb more than 12% after it reported that annual profits were expected to come in at the top of market expectations, despite continued struggles for sales.

The electricals retailer Currys saw its stock drop by 0.5% despite a 2% lift in underlying sales over the last four months, putting it on track to grow profit this year.

Aldi has again pipped rival Lidl to be crowned cheapest supermarket in August.

Which? said a basket of 62 items at the budget retailer cost £110.58 on average across the month.

Lidl came just behind at £111.88 for the same items with Lidl Plus loyalty pricing, and £112.17 without.

At the other end of the spectrum, Waitrose was named the priciest for the average shop, with its 62-item basket costing £140.89  - £30.31 (27%) more than Aldi.

The basket included a range of branded and non-branded items, including Heinz baked beans, Hovis bread, milk and butter.

Which?'s monthly analysis compares the average prices of popular groceries at eight of the UK's biggest stores.

From yesterday Barclays customers with Blue Rewards current accounts will no longer get a free £5 added to their balance every month. Customers may be reluctant to leave due to other perks such as free Apple TV, access to MLS matches, cashback incentives with major retailers and, perhaps most crucially, the 5.12% rate in their Rainy Day Saver.

For this week's Savings Guide, we asked  Savings Champion co-founder Anna Bowes to look at what else is out there in the easy access accounts market.

"Although the top easy access rates on standard best buy tables have dropped to around 4.8% AER, there are still some accounts available, like Barclays, that are paying 5% or even more," says Anna.

"But, there are a number of reasons that you might not be able to access these accounts, or you may feel that it's not worth it.

"One of the more popular tricks of the trade is to offer an account that is exclusive to those who hold, or open, a current account with the bank - just like Barclays.

"Added to that there may be a restriction on the deposit that will earn this top rate - so, with Barclays, it's £5,000.

"Another example is Santander's Edge Saver Account (Issue 2), which is paying a whopping 6% AER, but this rate includes a 12-month bonus of 1.5% AER and the maximum you can deposit and earn interest on is £4,000. Anything over this balance will earn zero interest, so the overall rate you earn will be diluted if the balance exceeds £4,000."

The rewards that come with the Santander account include cashback on household bills worth up to £10 a month, a similar offer with retailers, and no charges for using your card abroad.

As discussed, Barclays Blue Rewards comes with other perks too. 

Anna says: "It's important to check they are perks that you will benefit from before signing up just to have access to an account.

"The bottom line is that some accounts may look head and shoulders above the rest of the market, but there will usually be a reason that they are able to offer such a rate. So it's important to read the small print to make sure you will earn what you expect."

Here's a look at what's out there...

By Jess Sharp , Money team

Sainsbury's has started working with police after noticing an increase in the number of fraudulent vouchers being used in its stores. 

The supermarket has recently become the subject of a TikTok trend called "the Sainsbury's method". 

Videos using the term have been posted on the social media platform showing people scanning a coupon several times at the checkout to get money off their shop. 

In one clip, a customer gets into an altercation with a shop worker who tries to stop them using the voucher. 

This video has since been removed from TikTok. 

In another, a person brags about getting shopping worth more than £400 for £6. 

Several videos also encourage viewers to join Discord servers to be sent the reusable voucher.

Other clips have warned people about the risks of using the coupon. 

We've also seen similar messages appearing on X, with people sharing images showing lots of products supposedly bought with the voucher.

In some instances, they have offered to sell others the coupon. 

Sainsbury's told the Money team it had seen an "increase in fraudulent coupons" being used and that there were processes in place to detect and block them. 

In-store detectives have also been tasked with monitoring false attempts, and the supermarket is working with police forces on the issue. 

"We continue to accept genuine coupons and vouchers," a spokesperson said. 

We contacted a number of other supermarkets that use a voucher system to see if they had experienced a similar problem. 

Morrisons told the Money team it was not experiencing any issues. 

We also understand that Asda already has security measures in place. 

Its rewards scheme is app based, with customers getting a unique one-time barcode linked to their account, rather than the same voucher code issued to each person. 

Customers have also been encouraged to be careful before clicking or entering anything online that isn't connected to an official Asda account or an official Asda website.

Tesco did not respond to our requests for comment. 

More landlords are selling up in London, with the number of buy-to-let properties up for sale hitting a 10-year-high. 

Analytics company TwentyCi found 22% of all newly listed homes in July had been available to rent in the last 10 years. 

This compares with 15.6% in July 2023. 

Across the rest of the UK, the number of landlords selling their properties was significantly lower at 9%. 

Chief executive of TwentyCi, Colin Bradshaw, said fears of a capital gains tax increase was one of the reasons for the landlord exodus. 

Capital gains tax is a levy on any profit you make when you sell or "dispose of" an asset, such as shares or a second home.

The amount you can earn in profit before paying capital gains tax is currently £3,000. 

Mr Bradshaw said another factor was expected measures such as the requirement for a minimum emissions rating for rented properties by 2030.

HM Revenue and Customs Data shows private landlords' income fell by 4% from £49.4bn in 2020-21 to £47.44bn in 2022-23. 

One of the biggest falls in income was in London at 12.5%, followed by Scotland at 6.9%. 

Oasis have announced two extra Wembley Stadium shows after their tour sold out over the weekend.

Both Liam and Noel Gallagher, as well as Ticketmaster, came under fire over the initial release - as fans spent hours in virtual queues, and some tickets ended up costing more than three times as much due to surge ticket pricing. The government has launched a review into the practice after the backlash.

Announcing two further dates at Wembley Stadium in September next year, Oasis said there would be a staggered "special invitation-only ballot ticket sale strategy", devised "as a small step towards making amends for the situation".

They said it needed "to be made clear" that the band "leave decisions on ticketing and pricing entirely to their promoters and management, and at no time had any awareness that dynamic pricing was going to be used".

Applications to join the ballot for the September shows will be opened first to fans who were unsuccessful in the initial sale.

The band added: "Inevitably interest in this tour is so overwhelming that it's impossible to schedule enough shows to fulfil public demand," the band's statement continued. "But this ticket sale strategy will make the process far smoother for fans by reducing the stress and time it takes to obtain one of the hottest tickets of our time."

Read more on this story here:

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Free Cyber Services #protect2024 Secure Our World Shields Up Report A Cyber Issue

Vulnerability Summary for the Week of August 19, 2024

The CISA Vulnerability Bulletin provides a summary of new vulnerabilities that have been recorded by the  National Institute of Standards and Technology  (NIST)  National Vulnerability Database  (NVD) in the past week. In some cases, the vulnerabilities in the bulletin may not yet have assigned CVSS scores. Please visit NVD for updated vulnerability entries, which include CVSS scores once they are available.

Vulnerabilities are based on the  Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures  (CVE) vulnerability naming standard and are organized according to severity, determined by the  Common Vulnerability Scoring System  (CVSS) standard. The division of high, medium, and low severities correspond to the following scores:

• High : vulnerabilities with a CVSS base score of 7.0–10.0
• Medium : vulnerabilities with a CVSS base score of 4.0–6.9
• Low : vulnerabilities with a CVSS base score of 0.0–3.9

Entries may include additional information provided by organizations and efforts sponsored by CISA. This information may include identifying information, values, definitions, and related links. Patch information is provided when available. Please note that some of the information in the bulletin is compiled from external, open-source reports and is not a direct result of CISA analysis.  

High Vulnerabilities

Back to top

Medium Vulnerabilities

Low Vulnerabilities

Severity Not Yet Assigned