Advertisement

Writing Quantitative Research Studies

  • Ankur Singh
  • Adyya Gupta
  • Karen G. Peres
Reference work entry

Abstract

Summarizing quantitative data and its effective presentation and discussion can be challenging for students and researchers. This chapter provides a framework for adequately reporting findings from quantitative analysis in a research study for those contemplating to write a research paper. The rationale underpinning the reporting methods to maintain the credibility and integrity of quantitative studies is outlined. Commonly used terminologies in empirical studies are defined and discussed with suitable examples. Key elements that build consistency between different sections (background, methods, results, and the discussion) of a research study using quantitative methods in a journal article are explicated. Specifically, recommended standard guidelines for randomized controlled trials and observational studies for reporting and discussion of findings from quantitative studies are elaborated. Key aspects of methodology that include describing the study population, sampling strategy, data collection methods, measurements/variables, and statistical analysis which informs the quality of a study from the reviewer’s perspective are described. Effective use of references in the methods section to strengthen the rationale behind specific statistical techniques and choice of measures has been highlighted with examples. Identifying ways in which data can be most succinctly and effectively summarized in tables and graphs according to their suitability and purpose of information is also detailed in this chapter. Strategies to present and discuss the quantitative findings in a structured discussion section are also provided. Overall, the chapter provides the readers with a comprehensive set of tools to identify key strategies to be considered when reporting quantitative research.

Keywords

Quantitative analysis Reporting Research methodology Writing strategies Empirical studies 

References

  1. Bhaumik S, Arora M, Singh A, Sargent JD. Impact of entertainment media smoking on adolescent smoking behaviours. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;6:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dickersin K, Manheimer E, Wieland S, Robinson KA, Lefebvre C, McDonald S. Development of the Cochrane Collaboration’s CENTRAL register of controlled clinical trials. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):38–64.Google Scholar
  3. Docherty M, Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers: much the same as that for structuring abstracts. Br Med J. 1999;318(7193):1224–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1999;10(1):37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Horton R. The rhetoric of research. Br Med J. 1995;310(6985):985–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kool B, Ziersch A, Robinson P, Wolfenden L, Lowe JB. The ‘Seven deadly sins’ of rejected papers. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016;40(1):3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mannocci A, Saulle R, Colamesta V, D’Aguanno S, Giraldi G, Maffongelli E, et al. What is the impact of reporting guidelines on public health journals in Europe? The case of STROBE, CONSORT and PRISMA. J Public Health. 2015;37(4):737–40.Google Scholar
  8. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet. 2005;365(9453):82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Szklo M. Quality of scientific articles. Rev Saude Publica. 2006;40 Spec no:30–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Weiss NS, Koepsell TD, Psaty BM. Generalizability of the results of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(2):133–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Singh A, Gupta A, Peres MA, Watt RG, Tsakos G, Mathur MR. Association between tooth loss and hypertension among a primarily rural middle aged and older Indian adult population. J Public Health Dent. 2016;76:198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global HealthThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Public HealthThe University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health (ARCPOH), Adelaide Dental SchoolThe University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations