what is data collection in research paper

• Privacy Policy

Home » Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Table of Contents

Data Collection

Definition:

Data collection is the process of gathering and collecting information from various sources to analyze and make informed decisions based on the data collected. This can involve various methods, such as surveys, interviews, experiments, and observation.

In order for data collection to be effective, it is important to have a clear understanding of what data is needed and what the purpose of the data collection is. This can involve identifying the population or sample being studied, determining the variables to be measured, and selecting appropriate methods for collecting and recording data.

Types of Data Collection

Types of Data Collection are as follows:

Primary Data Collection

Primary data collection is the process of gathering original and firsthand information directly from the source or target population. This type of data collection involves collecting data that has not been previously gathered, recorded, or published. Primary data can be collected through various methods such as surveys, interviews, observations, experiments, and focus groups. The data collected is usually specific to the research question or objective and can provide valuable insights that cannot be obtained from secondary data sources. Primary data collection is often used in market research, social research, and scientific research.

Secondary Data Collection

Secondary data collection is the process of gathering information from existing sources that have already been collected and analyzed by someone else, rather than conducting new research to collect primary data. Secondary data can be collected from various sources, such as published reports, books, journals, newspapers, websites, government publications, and other documents.

Qualitative Data Collection

Qualitative data collection is used to gather non-numerical data such as opinions, experiences, perceptions, and feelings, through techniques such as interviews, focus groups, observations, and document analysis. It seeks to understand the deeper meaning and context of a phenomenon or situation and is often used in social sciences, psychology, and humanities. Qualitative data collection methods allow for a more in-depth and holistic exploration of research questions and can provide rich and nuanced insights into human behavior and experiences.

Quantitative Data Collection

Quantitative data collection is a used to gather numerical data that can be analyzed using statistical methods. This data is typically collected through surveys, experiments, and other structured data collection methods. Quantitative data collection seeks to quantify and measure variables, such as behaviors, attitudes, and opinions, in a systematic and objective way. This data is often used to test hypotheses, identify patterns, and establish correlations between variables. Quantitative data collection methods allow for precise measurement and generalization of findings to a larger population. It is commonly used in fields such as economics, psychology, and natural sciences.

Data Collection Methods

Data Collection Methods are as follows:

Surveys involve asking questions to a sample of individuals or organizations to collect data. Surveys can be conducted in person, over the phone, or online.

Interviews involve a one-on-one conversation between the interviewer and the respondent. Interviews can be structured or unstructured and can be conducted in person or over the phone.

Focus Groups

Focus groups are group discussions that are moderated by a facilitator. Focus groups are used to collect qualitative data on a specific topic.

Observation

Observation involves watching and recording the behavior of people, objects, or events in their natural setting. Observation can be done overtly or covertly, depending on the research question.

Experiments

Experiments involve manipulating one or more variables and observing the effect on another variable. Experiments are commonly used in scientific research.

Case Studies

Case studies involve in-depth analysis of a single individual, organization, or event. Case studies are used to gain detailed information about a specific phenomenon.

Secondary Data Analysis

Secondary data analysis involves using existing data that was collected for another purpose. Secondary data can come from various sources, such as government agencies, academic institutions, or private companies.

How to Collect Data

The following are some steps to consider when collecting data:

• Define the objective : Before you start collecting data, you need to define the objective of the study. This will help you determine what data you need to collect and how to collect it.
• Identify the data sources : Identify the sources of data that will help you achieve your objective. These sources can be primary sources, such as surveys, interviews, and observations, or secondary sources, such as books, articles, and databases.
• Determine the data collection method : Once you have identified the data sources, you need to determine the data collection method. This could be through online surveys, phone interviews, or face-to-face meetings.
• Develop a data collection plan : Develop a plan that outlines the steps you will take to collect the data. This plan should include the timeline, the tools and equipment needed, and the personnel involved.
• Test the data collection process: Before you start collecting data, test the data collection process to ensure that it is effective and efficient.
• Collect the data: Collect the data according to the plan you developed in step 4. Make sure you record the data accurately and consistently.
• Analyze the data: Once you have collected the data, analyze it to draw conclusions and make recommendations.
• Report the findings: Report the findings of your data analysis to the relevant stakeholders. This could be in the form of a report, a presentation, or a publication.
• Monitor and evaluate the data collection process: After the data collection process is complete, monitor and evaluate the process to identify areas for improvement in future data collection efforts.
• Ensure data quality: Ensure that the collected data is of high quality and free from errors. This can be achieved by validating the data for accuracy, completeness, and consistency.
• Maintain data security: Ensure that the collected data is secure and protected from unauthorized access or disclosure. This can be achieved by implementing data security protocols and using secure storage and transmission methods.
• Follow ethical considerations: Follow ethical considerations when collecting data, such as obtaining informed consent from participants, protecting their privacy and confidentiality, and ensuring that the research does not cause harm to participants.
• Use appropriate data analysis methods : Use appropriate data analysis methods based on the type of data collected and the research objectives. This could include statistical analysis, qualitative analysis, or a combination of both.
• Record and store data properly: Record and store the collected data properly, in a structured and organized format. This will make it easier to retrieve and use the data in future research or analysis.
• Collaborate with other stakeholders : Collaborate with other stakeholders, such as colleagues, experts, or community members, to ensure that the data collected is relevant and useful for the intended purpose.

Applications of Data Collection

Data collection methods are widely used in different fields, including social sciences, healthcare, business, education, and more. Here are some examples of how data collection methods are used in different fields:

• Social sciences : Social scientists often use surveys, questionnaires, and interviews to collect data from individuals or groups. They may also use observation to collect data on social behaviors and interactions. This data is often used to study topics such as human behavior, attitudes, and beliefs.
• Healthcare : Data collection methods are used in healthcare to monitor patient health and track treatment outcomes. Electronic health records and medical charts are commonly used to collect data on patients’ medical history, diagnoses, and treatments. Researchers may also use clinical trials and surveys to collect data on the effectiveness of different treatments.
• Business : Businesses use data collection methods to gather information on consumer behavior, market trends, and competitor activity. They may collect data through customer surveys, sales reports, and market research studies. This data is used to inform business decisions, develop marketing strategies, and improve products and services.
• Education : In education, data collection methods are used to assess student performance and measure the effectiveness of teaching methods. Standardized tests, quizzes, and exams are commonly used to collect data on student learning outcomes. Teachers may also use classroom observation and student feedback to gather data on teaching effectiveness.
• Agriculture : Farmers use data collection methods to monitor crop growth and health. Sensors and remote sensing technology can be used to collect data on soil moisture, temperature, and nutrient levels. This data is used to optimize crop yields and minimize waste.
• Environmental sciences : Environmental scientists use data collection methods to monitor air and water quality, track climate patterns, and measure the impact of human activity on the environment. They may use sensors, satellite imagery, and laboratory analysis to collect data on environmental factors.
• Transportation : Transportation companies use data collection methods to track vehicle performance, optimize routes, and improve safety. GPS systems, on-board sensors, and other tracking technologies are used to collect data on vehicle speed, fuel consumption, and driver behavior.

Examples of Data Collection

Examples of Data Collection are as follows:

• Traffic Monitoring: Cities collect real-time data on traffic patterns and congestion through sensors on roads and cameras at intersections. This information can be used to optimize traffic flow and improve safety.
• Social Media Monitoring : Companies can collect real-time data on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to monitor their brand reputation, track customer sentiment, and respond to customer inquiries and complaints in real-time.
• Weather Monitoring: Weather agencies collect real-time data on temperature, humidity, air pressure, and precipitation through weather stations and satellites. This information is used to provide accurate weather forecasts and warnings.
• Stock Market Monitoring : Financial institutions collect real-time data on stock prices, trading volumes, and other market indicators to make informed investment decisions and respond to market fluctuations in real-time.
• Health Monitoring : Medical devices such as wearable fitness trackers and smartwatches can collect real-time data on a person’s heart rate, blood pressure, and other vital signs. This information can be used to monitor health conditions and detect early warning signs of health issues.

Purpose of Data Collection

The purpose of data collection can vary depending on the context and goals of the study, but generally, it serves to:

• Provide information: Data collection provides information about a particular phenomenon or behavior that can be used to better understand it.
• Measure progress : Data collection can be used to measure the effectiveness of interventions or programs designed to address a particular issue or problem.
• Support decision-making : Data collection provides decision-makers with evidence-based information that can be used to inform policies, strategies, and actions.
• Identify trends : Data collection can help identify trends and patterns over time that may indicate changes in behaviors or outcomes.
• Monitor and evaluate : Data collection can be used to monitor and evaluate the implementation and impact of policies, programs, and initiatives.

When to use Data Collection

Data collection is used when there is a need to gather information or data on a specific topic or phenomenon. It is typically used in research, evaluation, and monitoring and is important for making informed decisions and improving outcomes.

Data collection is particularly useful in the following scenarios:

• Research : When conducting research, data collection is used to gather information on variables of interest to answer research questions and test hypotheses.
• Evaluation : Data collection is used in program evaluation to assess the effectiveness of programs or interventions, and to identify areas for improvement.
• Monitoring : Data collection is used in monitoring to track progress towards achieving goals or targets, and to identify any areas that require attention.
• Decision-making: Data collection is used to provide decision-makers with information that can be used to inform policies, strategies, and actions.
• Quality improvement : Data collection is used in quality improvement efforts to identify areas where improvements can be made and to measure progress towards achieving goals.

Characteristics of Data Collection

Data collection can be characterized by several important characteristics that help to ensure the quality and accuracy of the data gathered. These characteristics include:

• Validity : Validity refers to the accuracy and relevance of the data collected in relation to the research question or objective.
• Reliability : Reliability refers to the consistency and stability of the data collection process, ensuring that the results obtained are consistent over time and across different contexts.
• Objectivity : Objectivity refers to the impartiality of the data collection process, ensuring that the data collected is not influenced by the biases or personal opinions of the data collector.
• Precision : Precision refers to the degree of accuracy and detail in the data collected, ensuring that the data is specific and accurate enough to answer the research question or objective.
• Timeliness : Timeliness refers to the efficiency and speed with which the data is collected, ensuring that the data is collected in a timely manner to meet the needs of the research or evaluation.
• Ethical considerations : Ethical considerations refer to the ethical principles that must be followed when collecting data, such as ensuring confidentiality and obtaining informed consent from participants.

Advantages of Data Collection

There are several advantages of data collection that make it an important process in research, evaluation, and monitoring. These advantages include:

• Better decision-making : Data collection provides decision-makers with evidence-based information that can be used to inform policies, strategies, and actions, leading to better decision-making.
• Improved understanding: Data collection helps to improve our understanding of a particular phenomenon or behavior by providing empirical evidence that can be analyzed and interpreted.
• Evaluation of interventions: Data collection is essential in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions or programs designed to address a particular issue or problem.
• Identifying trends and patterns: Data collection can help identify trends and patterns over time that may indicate changes in behaviors or outcomes.
• Increased accountability: Data collection increases accountability by providing evidence that can be used to monitor and evaluate the implementation and impact of policies, programs, and initiatives.
• Validation of theories: Data collection can be used to test hypotheses and validate theories, leading to a better understanding of the phenomenon being studied.
• Improved quality: Data collection is used in quality improvement efforts to identify areas where improvements can be made and to measure progress towards achieving goals.

Limitations of Data Collection

While data collection has several advantages, it also has some limitations that must be considered. These limitations include:

• Bias : Data collection can be influenced by the biases and personal opinions of the data collector, which can lead to inaccurate or misleading results.
• Sampling bias : Data collection may not be representative of the entire population, resulting in sampling bias and inaccurate results.
• Cost : Data collection can be expensive and time-consuming, particularly for large-scale studies.
• Limited scope: Data collection is limited to the variables being measured, which may not capture the entire picture or context of the phenomenon being studied.
• Ethical considerations : Data collection must follow ethical principles to protect the rights and confidentiality of the participants, which can limit the type of data that can be collected.
• Data quality issues: Data collection may result in data quality issues such as missing or incomplete data, measurement errors, and inconsistencies.
• Limited generalizability : Data collection may not be generalizable to other contexts or populations, limiting the generalizability of the findings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Research Questions – Types, Examples and Writing...

Data collection in research: Your complete guide

Last updated

31 January 2023

Reviewed by

Cathy Heath

In the late 16th century, Francis Bacon coined the phrase "knowledge is power," which implies that knowledge is a powerful force, like physical strength. In the 21st century, knowledge in the form of data is unquestionably powerful.

But data isn't something you just have - you need to collect it. This means utilizing a data collection process and turning the collected data into knowledge that you can leverage into a successful strategy for your business or organization.

Believe it or not, there's more to data collection than just conducting a Google search. In this complete guide, we shine a spotlight on data collection, outlining what it is, types of data collection methods, common challenges in data collection, data collection techniques, and the steps involved in data collection.

Analyze all your data in one place

Uncover hidden nuggets in all types of qualitative data when you analyze it in Dovetail

• What is data collection?

There are two specific data collection techniques: primary and secondary data collection. Primary data collection is the process of gathering data directly from sources. It's often considered the most reliable data collection method, as researchers can collect information directly from respondents.

Secondary data collection is data that has already been collected by someone else and is readily available. This data is usually less expensive and quicker to obtain than primary data.

• What are the different methods of data collection?

There are several data collection methods, which can be either manual or automated. Manual data collection involves collecting data manually, typically with pen and paper, while computerized data collection involves using software to collect data from online sources, such as social media, website data, transaction data, etc. 

Here are the five most popular methods of data collection:

Surveys are a very popular method of data collection that organizations can use to gather information from many people. Researchers can conduct multi-mode surveys that reach respondents in different ways, including in person, by mail, over the phone, or online.

As a method of data collection, surveys have several advantages. For instance, they are relatively quick and easy to administer, you can be flexible in what you ask, and they can be tailored to collect data on various topics or from certain demographics.

However, surveys also have several disadvantages. For instance, they can be expensive to administer, and the results may not represent the population as a whole. Additionally, survey data can be challenging to interpret. It may also be subject to bias if the questions are not well-designed or if the sample of people surveyed is not representative of the population of interest.

Interviews are a common method of collecting data in social science research. You can conduct interviews in person, over the phone, or even via email or online chat.

Interviews are a great way to collect qualitative and quantitative data . Qualitative interviews are likely your best option if you need to collect detailed information about your subjects' experiences or opinions. If you need to collect more generalized data about your subjects' demographics or attitudes, then quantitative interviews may be a better option.

Interviews are relatively quick and very flexible, allowing you to ask follow-up questions and explore topics in more depth. The downside is that interviews can be time-consuming and expensive due to the amount of information to be analyzed. They are also prone to bias, as both the interviewer and the respondent may have certain expectations or preconceptions that may influence the data.

Direct observation

Observation is a direct way of collecting data. It can be structured (with a specific protocol to follow) or unstructured (simply observing without a particular plan).

Organizations and businesses use observation as a data collection method to gather information about their target market, customers, or competition. Businesses can learn about consumer behavior, preferences, and trends by observing people using their products or service.

There are two types of observation: participatory and non-participatory. In participatory observation, the researcher is actively involved in the observed activities. This type of observation is used in ethnographic research , where the researcher wants to understand a group's culture and social norms. Non-participatory observation is when researchers observe from a distance and do not interact with the people or environment they are studying.

There are several advantages to using observation as a data collection method. It can provide insights that may not be apparent through other methods, such as surveys or interviews. Researchers can also observe behavior in a natural setting, which can provide a more accurate picture of what people do and how and why they behave in a certain context.

There are some disadvantages to using observation as a method of data collection. It can be time-consuming, intrusive, and expensive to observe people for extended periods. Observations can also be tainted if the researcher is not careful to avoid personal biases or preconceptions.

Automated data collection

Business applications and websites are increasingly collecting data electronically to improve the user experience or for marketing purposes.

There are a few different ways that organizations can collect data automatically. One way is through cookies, which are small pieces of data stored on a user's computer. They track a user's browsing history and activity on a site, measuring levels of engagement with a business’s products or services, for example.

Another way organizations can collect data automatically is through web beacons. Web beacons are small images embedded on a web page to track a user's activity.

Finally, organizations can also collect data through mobile apps, which can track user location, device information, and app usage. This data can be used to improve the user experience and for marketing purposes.

Automated data collection is a valuable tool for businesses, helping improve the user experience or target marketing efforts. Businesses should aim to be transparent about how they collect and use this data.

Sourcing data through information service providers

Organizations need to be able to collect data from a variety of sources, including social media, weblogs, and sensors. The process to do this and then use the data for action needs to be efficient, targeted, and meaningful.

In the era of big data, organizations are increasingly turning to information service providers (ISPs) and other external data sources to help them collect data to make crucial decisions. 

Information service providers help organizations collect data by offering personalized services that suit the specific needs of the organizations. These services can include data collection, analysis, management, and reporting. By partnering with an ISP, organizations can gain access to the newest technology and tools to help them to gather and manage data more effectively.

There are also several tools and techniques that organizations can use to collect data from external sources, such as web scraping, which collects data from websites, and data mining, which involves using algorithms to extract data from large data sets. 

Organizations can also use APIs (application programming interface) to collect data from external sources. APIs allow organizations to access data stored in another system and share and integrate it into their own systems.

Finally, organizations can also use manual methods to collect data from external sources. This can involve contacting companies or individuals directly to request data, by using the right tools and methods to get the insights they need.

• What are common challenges in data collection?

There are many challenges that researchers face when collecting data. Here are five common examples:

Big data environments

Data collection can be a challenge in big data environments for several reasons. It can be located in different places, such as archives, libraries, or online. The sheer volume of data can also make it difficult to identify the most relevant data sets.

Second, the complexity of data sets can make it challenging to extract the desired information. Third, the distributed nature of big data environments can make it difficult to collect data promptly and efficiently.

Therefore it is important to have a well-designed data collection strategy to consider the specific needs of the organization and what data sets are the most relevant. Alongside this, consideration should be made regarding the tools and resources available to support data collection and protect it from unintended use.

Data bias is a common challenge in data collection. It occurs when data is collected from a sample that is not representative of the population of interest. 

There are different types of data bias, but some common ones include selection bias, self-selection bias, and response bias. Selection bias can occur when the collected data does not represent the population being studied. For example, if a study only includes data from people who volunteer to participate, that data may not represent the general population.

Self-selection bias can also occur when people self-select into a study, such as by taking part only if they think they will benefit from it. Response bias happens when people respond in a way that is not honest or accurate, such as by only answering questions that make them look good. 

These types of data bias present a challenge because they can lead to inaccurate results and conclusions about behaviors, perceptions, and trends. Data bias can be avoided by identifying potential sources or themes of bias and setting guidelines for eliminating them.

Lack of quality assurance processes

One of the biggest challenges in data collection is the lack of quality assurance processes. This can lead to several problems, including incorrect data, missing data, and inconsistencies between data sets.

Quality assurance is important because there are many data sources, and each source may have different levels of quality or corruption. There are also different ways of collecting data, and data quality may vary depending on the method used. 

There are several ways to improve quality assurance in data collection. These include developing clear and consistent goals and guidelines for data collection, implementing quality control measures, using standardized procedures, and employing data validation techniques. By taking these steps, you can ensure that your data is of adequate quality to inform decision-making.

Limited access to data

Another challenge in data collection is limited access to data. This can be due to several reasons, including privacy concerns, the sensitive nature of the data, security concerns, or simply the fact that data is not readily available.

Legal and compliance regulations

Most countries have regulations governing how data can be collected, used, and stored. In some cases, data collected in one country may not be used in another. This means gaining a global perspective can be a challenge. 

For example, if a company is required to comply with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it may not be able to collect data from individuals in the EU without their explicit consent. This can make it difficult to collect data from a target audience.

Legal and compliance regulations can be complex, and it's important to ensure that all data collected is done so in a way that complies with the relevant regulations.

• What are the key steps in the data collection process?

There are five steps involved in the data collection process. They are:

1. Decide what data you want to gather

Have a clear understanding of the questions you are asking, and then consider where the answers might lie and how you might obtain them. This saves time and resources by avoiding the collection of irrelevant data, and helps maintain the quality of your datasets. 

2. Establish a deadline for data collection

Establishing a deadline for data collection helps you avoid collecting too much data, which can be costly and time-consuming to analyze. It also allows you to plan for data analysis and prompt interpretation. Finally, it helps you meet your research goals and objectives and allows you to move forward.

3. Select a data collection approach

The data collection approach you choose will depend on different factors, including the type of data you need, available resources, and the project timeline. For instance, if you need qualitative data, you might choose a focus group or interview methodology. If you need quantitative data , then a survey or observational study may be the most appropriate form of collection.

4. Gather information

When collecting data for your business, identify your business goals first. Once you know what you want to achieve, you can start collecting data to reach those goals. The most important thing is to ensure that the data you collect is reliable and valid. Otherwise, any decisions you make using the data could result in a negative outcome for your business.

5. Examine the information and apply your findings

As a researcher, it's important to examine the data you're collecting and analyzing before you apply your findings. This is because data can be misleading, leading to inaccurate conclusions. Ask yourself whether it is what you are expecting? Is it similar to other datasets you have looked at? 

There are many scientific ways to examine data, but some common methods include:

looking at the distribution of data points

examining the relationships between variables

looking for outliers

By taking the time to examine your data and noticing any patterns, strange or otherwise, you can avoid making mistakes that could invalidate your research.

• How qualitative analysis software streamlines the data collection process

Knowledge derived from data does indeed carry power. However, if you don't convert the knowledge into action, it will remain a resource of unexploited energy and wasted potential.

Luckily, data collection tools enable organizations to streamline their data collection and analysis processes and leverage the derived knowledge to grow their businesses. For instance, qualitative analysis software can be highly advantageous in data collection by streamlining the process, making it more efficient and less time-consuming.

Secondly, qualitative analysis software provides a structure for data collection and analysis, ensuring that data is of high quality. It can also help to uncover patterns and relationships that would otherwise be difficult to discern. Moreover, you can use it to replace more expensive data collection methods, such as focus groups or surveys.

Overall, qualitative analysis software can be valuable for any researcher looking to collect and analyze data. By increasing efficiency, improving data quality, and providing greater insights, qualitative software can help to make the research process much more efficient and effective.

Learn more about qualitative research data analysis software

Should you be using a customer insights hub.

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

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

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 11 January 2024

Last updated: 15 January 2024

Last updated: 17 January 2024

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

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

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

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

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

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

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Data Collection: What It Is, Methods & Tools + Examples

Let’s face it, no one wants to make decisions based on guesswork or gut feelings. The most important objective of data collection is to ensure that the data gathered is reliable and packed to the brim with juicy insights that can be analyzed and turned into data-driven decisions. There’s nothing better than good statistical analysis .

LEARN ABOUT: Level of Analysis

Collecting high-quality data is essential for conducting market research, analyzing user behavior, or just trying to get a handle on business operations. With the right approach and a few handy tools, gathering reliable and informative data.

So, let’s get ready to collect some data because when it comes to data collection, it’s all about the details.

Content Index

What is Data Collection?

Data collection methods, data collection examples, reasons to conduct online research and data collection, conducting customer surveys for data collection to multiply sales, steps to effectively conduct an online survey for data collection, survey design for data collection.

Data collection is the procedure of collecting, measuring, and analyzing accurate insights for research using standard validated techniques.

Put simply, data collection is the process of gathering information for a specific purpose. It can be used to answer research questions, make informed business decisions, or improve products and services.

To collect data, we must first identify what information we need and how we will collect it. We can also evaluate a hypothesis based on collected data. In most cases, data collection is the primary and most important step for research. The approach to data collection is different for different fields of study, depending on the required information.

LEARN ABOUT: Action Research

There are many ways to collect information when doing research. The data collection methods that the researcher chooses will depend on the research question posed. Some data collection methods include surveys, interviews, tests, physiological evaluations, observations, reviews of existing records, and biological samples. Let’s explore them.

LEARN ABOUT: Best Data Collection Tools

Phone vs. Online vs. In-Person Interviews

Essentially there are four choices for data collection – in-person interviews, mail, phone, and online. There are pros and cons to each of these modes.

• Pros: In-depth and a high degree of confidence in the data
• Cons: Time-consuming, expensive, and can be dismissed as anecdotal
• Pros: Can reach anyone and everyone – no barrier
• Cons: Expensive, data collection errors, lag time
• Pros: High degree of confidence in the data collected, reach almost anyone
• Cons: Expensive, cannot self-administer, need to hire an agency
• Pros: Cheap, can self-administer, very low probability of data errors
• Cons: Not all your customers might have an email address/be on the internet, customers may be wary of divulging information online.

In-person interviews always are better, but the big drawback is the trap you might fall into if you don’t do them regularly. It is expensive to regularly conduct interviews and not conducting enough interviews might give you false positives. Validating your research is almost as important as designing and conducting it.

We’ve seen many instances where after the research is conducted – if the results do not match up with the “gut-feel” of upper management, it has been dismissed off as anecdotal and a “one-time” phenomenon. To avoid such traps, we strongly recommend that data-collection be done on an “ongoing and regular” basis.

LEARN ABOUT: Research Process Steps

This will help you compare and analyze the change in perceptions according to marketing for your products/services. The other issue here is sample size. To be confident with your research, you must interview enough people to weed out the fringe elements.

A couple of years ago there was a lot of discussion about online surveys and their statistical analysis plan . The fact that not every customer had internet connectivity was one of the main concerns.

LEARN ABOUT:   Statistical Analysis Methods

Although some of the discussions are still valid, the reach of the internet as a means of communication has become vital in the majority of customer interactions. According to the US Census Bureau, the number of households with computers has doubled between 1997 and 2001.

Learn more: Quantitative Market Research

In 2001 nearly 50% of households had a computer. Nearly 55% of all households with an income of more than 35,000 have internet access, which jumps to 70% for households with an annual income of 50,000. This data is from the US Census Bureau for 2001.

There are primarily three modes of data collection that can be employed to gather feedback – Mail, Phone, and Online. The method actually used for data collection is really a cost-benefit analysis. There is no slam-dunk solution but you can use the table below to understand the risks and advantages associated with each of the mediums:

Keep in mind, the reach here is defined as “All U.S. Households.” In most cases, you need to look at how many of your customers are online and determine. If all your customers have email addresses, you have a 100% reach of your customers.

Another important thing to keep in mind is the ever-increasing dominance of cellular phones over landline phones. United States FCC rules prevent automated dialing and calling cellular phone numbers and there is a noticeable trend towards people having cellular phones as the only voice communication device.

This introduces the inability to reach cellular phone customers who are dropping home phone lines in favor of going entirely wireless. Even if automated dialing is not used, another FCC rule prohibits from phoning anyone who would have to pay for the call.

Learn more: Qualitative Market Research

Multi-Mode Surveys

Surveys, where the data is collected via different modes (online, paper, phone etc.), is also another way of going. It is fairly straightforward and easy to have an online survey and have data-entry operators to enter in data (from the phone as well as paper surveys) into the system. The same system can also be used to collect data directly from the respondents.

Learn more: Survey Research

Data collection is an important aspect of research. Let’s consider an example of a mobile manufacturer, company X, which is launching a new product variant. To conduct research about features, price range, target market, competitor analysis, etc. data has to be collected from appropriate sources.

The marketing team can conduct various data collection activities such as online surveys or focus groups .

The survey should have all the right questions about features and pricing, such as “What are the top 3 features expected from an upcoming product?” or “How much are your likely to spend on this product?” or “Which competitors provide similar products?” etc.

For conducting a focus group, the marketing team should decide the participants and the mediator. The topic of discussion and objective behind conducting a focus group should be clarified beforehand to conduct a conclusive discussion.

Data collection methods are chosen depending on the available resources. For example, conducting questionnaires and surveys would require the least resources, while focus groups require moderately high resources.

Feedback is a vital part of any organization’s growth. Whether you conduct regular focus groups to elicit information from key players or, your account manager calls up all your marquee  accounts to find out how things are going – essentially they are all processes to find out from your customers’ eyes – How are we doing? What can we do better?

Online surveys are just another medium to collect feedback from your customers , employees and anyone your business interacts with. With the advent of Do-It-Yourself tools for online surveys, data collection on the internet has become really easy, cheap and effective.

Learn more:  Online Research

It is a well-established marketing fact that acquiring a new customer is 10 times more difficult and expensive than retaining an existing one. This is one of the fundamental driving forces behind the extensive adoption and interest in CRM and related customer retention tactics.

In a research study conducted by Rice University Professor Dr. Paul Dholakia and Dr. Vicki Morwitz, published in Harvard Business Review, the experiment inferred that the simple fact of asking customers how an organization was performing by itself to deliver results proved to be an effective customer retention strategy.

In the research study, conducted over the course of a year, one set of customers were sent out a satisfaction and opinion survey and the other set was not surveyed. In the next one year, the group that took the survey saw twice the number of people continuing and renewing their loyalty towards the organization data .

Learn more: Research Design

The research study provided a couple of interesting reasons on the basis of consumer psychology, behind this phenomenon:

• Satisfaction surveys boost the customers’ desire to be coddled and induce positive feelings. This crops from a section of the human psychology that intends to “appreciate” a product or service they already like or prefer. The survey feedback collection method is solely a medium to convey this. The survey is a vehicle to “interact” with the company and reinforces the customer’s commitment to the company.
• Surveys may increase awareness of auxiliary products and services. Surveys can be considered modes of both inbound as well as outbound communication. Surveys are generally considered to be a data collection and analysis source. Most people are unaware of the fact that consumer surveys can also serve as a medium for distributing data. It is important to note a few caveats here.
• In most countries, including the US, “selling under the guise of research” is illegal. b. However, we all know that information is distributed while collecting information. c. Other disclaimers may be included in the survey to ensure users are aware of this fact. For example: “We will collect your opinion and inform you about products and services that have come online in the last year…”
• Induced Judgments:  The entire procedure of asking people for their feedback can prompt them to build an opinion on something they otherwise would not have thought about. This is a very underlying yet powerful argument that can be compared to the “Product Placement” strategy currently used for marketing products in mass media like movies and television shows. One example is the extensive and exclusive use of the “mini-Cooper” in the blockbuster movie “Italian Job.” This strategy is questionable and should be used with great caution.

Surveys should be considered as a critical tool in the customer journey dialog. The best thing about surveys is its ability to carry “bi-directional” information. The research conducted by Paul Dholakia and Vicki Morwitz shows that surveys not only get you the information that is critical for your business, but also enhances and builds upon the established relationship you have with your customers.

Recent technological advances have made it incredibly easy to conduct real-time surveys and  opinion polls . Online tools make it easy to frame questions and answers and create surveys on the Web. Distributing surveys via email, website links or even integration with online CRM tools like Salesforce.com have made online surveying a quick-win solution.

So, you’ve decided to conduct an online survey. There are a few questions in your mind that you would like answered, and you are looking for a fast and inexpensive way to find out more about your customers, clients, etc.

First and foremost thing you need to decide what the smart objectives of the study are. Ensure that you can phrase these objectives as questions or measurements. If you can’t, you are better off looking at other data sources like focus groups and other qualitative methods . The data collected via online surveys is dominantly quantitative in nature.

Review the basic objectives of the study. What are you trying to discover? What actions do you  want to take as a result of the survey? –  Answers to these questions help in validating collected data. Online surveys are just one way of collecting and quantifying data .

Learn more: Qualitative Data & Qualitative Data Collection Methods

• Visualize all of the relevant information items you would like to have. What will the output survey research report look like? What charts and graphs will be prepared? What information do you need to be assured that action is warranted?
• Assign ranks to each topic (1 and 2) according to their priority, including the most important topics first. Revisit these items again to ensure that the objectives, topics, and information you need are appropriate. Remember, you can’t solve the research problem if you ask the wrong questions.
• How easy or difficult is it for the respondent to provide information on each topic? If it is difficult, is there an alternative medium to gain insights by asking a different question? This is probably the most important step. Online surveys have to be Precise, Clear and Concise. Due to the nature of the internet and the fluctuations involved, if your questions are too difficult to understand, the survey dropout rate will be high.
• Create a sequence for the topics that are unbiased. Make sure that the questions asked first do not bias the results of the next questions. Sometimes providing too much information, or disclosing purpose of the study can create bias. Once you have a series of decided topics, you can have a basic structure of a survey. It is always advisable to add an “Introductory” paragraph before the survey to explain the project objective and what is expected of the respondent. It is also sensible to have a “Thank You” text as well as information about where to find the results of the survey when they are published.
• Page Breaks – The attention span of respondents can be very low when it comes to a long scrolling survey. Add page breaks as wherever possible. Having said that, a single question per page can also hamper response rates as it increases the time to complete the survey as well as increases the chances for dropouts.
• Branching – Create smart and effective surveys with the implementation of branching wherever required. Eliminate the use of text such as, “If you answered No to Q1 then Answer Q4” – this leads to annoyance amongst respondents which result in increase survey dropout rates. Design online surveys using the branching logic so that appropriate questions are automatically routed based on previous responses.
• Write the questions . Initially, write a significant number of survey questions out of which you can use the one which is best suited for the survey. Divide the survey into sections so that respondents do not get confused seeing a long list of questions.
• Sequence the questions so that they are unbiased.
• Repeat all of the steps above to find any major holes. Are the questions really answered? Have someone review it for you.
• Time the length of the survey. A survey should take less than five minutes. At three to four research questions per minute, you are limited to about 15 questions. One open end text question counts for three multiple choice questions. Most online software tools will record the time taken for the respondents to answer questions.
• Include a few open-ended survey questions that support your survey object. This will be a type of feedback survey.
• Send an email to the project survey to your test group and then email the feedback survey afterward.
• This way, you can have your test group provide their opinion about the functionality as well as usability of your project survey by using the feedback survey.
• Make changes to your questionnaire based on the received feedback.
• Send the survey out to all your respondents!

Online surveys have, over the course of time, evolved into an effective alternative to expensive mail or telephone surveys. However, you must be aware of a few conditions that need to be met for online surveys. If you are trying to survey a sample representing the target population, please remember that not everyone is online.

Moreover, not everyone is receptive to an online survey also. Generally, the demographic segmentation of younger individuals is inclined toward responding to an online survey.

Learn More: Examples of Qualitarive Data in Education

Good survey design is crucial for accurate data collection. From question-wording to response options, let’s explore how to create effective surveys that yield valuable insights with our tips to survey design.

• Writing Great Questions for data collection

Writing great questions can be considered an art. Art always requires a significant amount of hard work, practice, and help from others.

The questions in a survey need to be clear, concise, and unbiased. A poorly worded question or a question with leading language can result in inaccurate or irrelevant responses, ultimately impacting the data’s validity.

Moreover, the questions should be relevant and specific to the research objectives. Questions that are irrelevant or do not capture the necessary information can lead to incomplete or inconsistent responses too.

• Avoid loaded or leading words or questions

A small change in content can produce effective results. Words such as could , should and might are all used for almost the same purpose, but may produce a 20% difference in agreement to a question. For example, “The management could.. should.. might.. have shut the factory”.

Intense words such as – prohibit or action, representing control or action, produce similar results. For example,  “Do you believe Donald Trump should prohibit insurance companies from raising rates?”.

Sometimes the content is just biased. For instance, “You wouldn’t want to go to Rudolpho’s Restaurant for the organization’s annual party, would you?”

• Misplaced questions

Questions should always reference the intended context, and questions placed out of order or without its requirement should be avoided. Generally, a funnel approach should be implemented – generic questions should be included in the initial section of the questionnaire as a warm-up and specific ones should follow. Toward the end, demographic or geographic questions should be included.

• Mutually non-overlapping response categories

Multiple-choice answers should be mutually unique to provide distinct choices. Overlapping answer options frustrate the respondent and make interpretation difficult at best. Also, the questions should always be precise.

For example: “Do you like water juice?”

This question is vague. In which terms is the liking for orange juice is to be rated? – Sweetness, texture, price, nutrition etc.

• Avoid the use of confusing/unfamiliar words

Asking about industry-related terms such as caloric content, bits, bytes, MBS , as well as other terms and acronyms can confuse respondents . Ensure that the audience understands your language level, terminology, and, above all, the question you ask.

• Non-directed questions give respondents excessive leeway

In survey design for data collection, non-directed questions can give respondents excessive leeway, which can lead to vague and unreliable data. These types of questions are also known as open-ended questions, and they do not provide any structure for the respondent to follow.

For instance, a non-directed question like “ What suggestions do you have for improving our shoes?” can elicit a wide range of answers, some of which may not be relevant to the research objectives. Some respondents may give short answers, while others may provide lengthy and detailed responses, making comparing and analyzing the data challenging.

To avoid these issues, it’s essential to ask direct questions that are specific and have a clear structure. Closed-ended questions, for example, offer structured response options and can be easier to analyze as they provide a quantitative measure of respondents’ opinions.

• Never force questions

There will always be certain questions that cross certain privacy rules. Since privacy is an important issue for most people, these questions should either be eliminated from the survey or not be kept as mandatory. Survey questions about income, family income, status, religious and political beliefs, etc., should always be avoided as they are considered to be intruding, and respondents can choose not to answer them.

• Unbalanced answer options in scales

Unbalanced answer options in scales such as Likert Scale and Semantic Scale may be appropriate for some situations and biased in others. When analyzing a pattern in eating habits, a study used a quantity scale that made obese people appear in the middle of the scale with the polar ends reflecting a state where people starve and an irrational amount to consume. There are cases where we usually do not expect poor service, such as hospitals.

• Questions that cover two points

In survey design for data collection, questions that cover two points can be problematic for several reasons. These types of questions are often called “double-barreled” questions and can cause confusion for respondents, leading to inaccurate or irrelevant data.

For instance, a question like “Do you like the food and the service at the restaurant?” covers two points, the food and the service, and it assumes that the respondent has the same opinion about both. If the respondent only liked the food, their opinion of the service could affect their answer.

It’s important to ask one question at a time to avoid confusion and ensure that the respondent’s answer is focused and accurate. This also applies to questions with multiple concepts or ideas. In these cases, it’s best to break down the question into multiple questions that address each concept or idea separately.

• Dichotomous questions

Dichotomous questions are used in case you want a distinct answer, such as: Yes/No or Male/Female . For example, the question “Do you think this candidate will win the election?” can be Yes or No.

• Avoid the use of long questions

The use of long questions will definitely increase the time taken for completion, which will generally lead to an increase in the survey dropout rate. Multiple-choice questions are the longest and most complex, and open-ended questions are the shortest and easiest to answer.

Data collection is an essential part of the research process, whether you’re conducting scientific experiments, market research, or surveys. The methods and tools used for data collection will vary depending on the research type, the sample size required, and the resources available.

Several data collection methods include surveys, observations, interviews, and focus groups. We learn each method has advantages and disadvantages, and choosing the one that best suits the research goals is important.

With the rise of technology, many tools are now available to facilitate data collection, including online survey software and data visualization tools. These tools can help researchers collect, store, and analyze data more efficiently, providing greater results and accuracy.

By understanding the various methods and tools available for data collection, we can develop a solid foundation for conducting research. With these research skills , we can make informed decisions, solve problems, and contribute to advancing our understanding of the world around us.

Analyze your survey data to gauge in-depth market drivers, including competitive intelligence, purchasing behavior, and price sensitivity, with QuestionPro.

You will obtain accurate insights with various techniques, including conjoint analysis, MaxDiff analysis, sentiment analysis, TURF analysis, heatmap analysis, etc. Export quality data to external in-depth analysis tools such as SPSS and R Software, and integrate your research with external business applications. Everything you need for your data collection. Start today for free!

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

Data Information vs Insight: Essential differences

May 14, 2024

Pricing Analytics Software: Optimize Your Pricing Strategy

May 13, 2024

Relationship Marketing: What It Is, Examples & Top 7 Benefits

May 8, 2024

The Best Email Survey Tool to Boost Your Feedback Game

May 7, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

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

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

Data in research

Data collection methods, challenges in data collection, using technology in data collection, data organization.

• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research
• Case studies
• Ethnographical research
• Ethical considerations
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Data collection - What is it and why is it important?

The data collected for your study informs the analysis of your research. Gathering data in a transparent and thorough manner informs the rest of your research and makes it persuasive to your audience.

We will look at the data collection process, the methods of data collection that exist in quantitative and qualitative research , and the various issues around data in qualitative research.

When it comes to defining data, data can be any sort of information that people use to better understand the world around them. Having this information allows us to robustly draw and verify conclusions, as opposed to relying on blind guesses or thought exercises.

Necessity of data collection skills

Collecting data is critical to the fundamental objective of research as a vehicle to organize knowledge. While this may seem intuitive, it's important to acknowledge that researchers must be as skilled in data collection as they are in data analysis .

Collecting the right data

Rather than just collecting as much data as possible, it's important to collect data that is relevant for answering your research question . Imagine a simple research question: what factors do people consider when buying a car? It would not be possible to ask every living person about their car purchases. Even if it was possible, not everyone drives a car, so asking non-drivers seems unproductive. As a result, the researcher conducting a study to devise data reports and marketing strategies has to take a sample of the relevant data to ensure reliable analysis and findings.

Data collection examples

In the broadest terms, any sort of data gathering contributes to the research process. In any work of science, researchers cannot make empirical conclusions without relying on some body of data to make rational judgments.

Various examples of data collection in the social sciences include:

• responses to a survey about product satisfaction
• interviews with students about their career goals
• reactions to an experimental vitamin supplement regimen
• observations of workplace interactions and practices
• focus group data about customer behavior

Data science and scholarly research have almost limitless possibilities to collect data, and the primary requirement is that the dataset should be relevant to the research question and clearly defined. Researchers thus need to rule out any irrelevant data so that they can develop new theory or key findings.

Types of data

Researchers can collect data themselves (primary data) or use third-party data (secondary data). The data collection considerations regarding which type of data to work with have a direct relationship to your research question and objectives.

Primary data

Original research relies on first-party data, or primary data that the researcher collects themselves for their own analysis. When you are collecting information in a primary study yourself, you are more likely to gain the high quality you require.

Because the researcher is most aware of the inquiry they want to conduct and has tailored the research process to their inquiry, first-party data collection has the greatest potential for congruence between the data collected and the potential to generate relevant insights.

Ethnographic research , for example, relies on first-party data collection since a description of a culture or a group of people is contextualized through a comprehensive understanding of the researcher and their relative positioning to that culture.

Secondary data

Researchers can also use publicly available secondary data that other researchers have generated to analyze following a different approach and thus produce new insights. Online databases and literature reviews are good examples where researchers can find existing data to conduct research on a previously unexplored inquiry. However, it is important to consider data accuracy or relevance when using third-party data, given that the researcher can only conduct limited quality control of data that has already been collected.

A relatively new consideration in data collection and data analysis has been the advent of big data, where data scientists employ automated processes to collect data in large amounts.

The advantage of collecting data at scale is that a thorough analysis of a greater scope of data can potentially generate more generalizable findings. Nonetheless, this is a daunting task because it is time-consuming and arduous. Moreover, it requires skilled data scientists to sift through large data sets to filter out irrelevant data and generate useful insights. On the other hand, it is important for qualitative researchers to carefully consider their needs for data breadth versus depth: Qualitative studies typically rely on a relatively small number of participants but very detailed data is collected for each participant, because understanding the specific context and individual interpretations or experiences is often of central importance. When using big data, this depth of data is usually replaced with a greater breadth of data that includes a much greater number of participants. Researchers need to consider their need for depth or breadth to decide which data collection method is best suited to answer their research question.

Data science made easy with ATLAS.ti

ATLAS.ti handles all research projects big and small. See how with a free trial.

Different data collection procedures for gathering data exist depending on the research inquiry you want to conduct. Let's explore the common data collection methods in quantitative and qualitative research.

Quantitative data collection methods

Quantitative methods are used to collect numerical or quantifiable data. These can then be processed statistically to test hypotheses and gain insights. Quantitative data gathering is typically aimed at measuring a particular phenomenon (e.g., the amount of awareness a brand has in the market, the efficacy of a particular diet, etc.) in order to test hypotheses (e.g., social media marketing campaigns increase brand awareness, eating more fruits and vegetables leads to better physical performance, etc.).

Some qualitative methods of research can contribute to quantitative data collection and analysis. Online surveys and questionnaires with multiple-choice questions can produce structured data ready to be analyzed. A survey platform like Qualtrics, for example, aggregates survey responses in a spreadsheet to allow for numerical or frequency analysis.

Qualitative data collection methods

Analyzing qualitative data is important for describing a phenomenon (e.g., the requirements for good teaching practices), which may lead to the creation of propositions or the development of a theory. Behavioral data, transactional data, and data from social media monitoring are examples of different forms of data that can be collected qualitatively.

Consideration of tools or equipment for collecting data is also important. Primary data collection methods in observational research , for example, employ tools such as audio and video recorders , notebooks for writing field notes , and cameras for taking photographs. As long as the products of such tools can be analyzed, those products can be incorporated into a study's data collection.

Employing multiple data collection methods

Moreover, qualitative researchers seldom rely on one data collection method alone. Ethnographic researchers , in particular, can incorporate direct observation , interviews , focus group sessions , and document collection in their data collection process to produce the most contextualized data for their research. Mixed methods research employs multiple data collection methods, including qualitative and quantitative data, along with multiple tools to study a phenomenon from as many different angles as possible.

New forms of data collection

External data sources such as social media data and big data have also gained contemporary focus as social trends change and new research questions emerge. This has prompted the creation of novel data collection methods in research.

Ultimately, there are countless data collection instruments used for qualitative methods, but the key objective is to be able to produce relevant data that can be systematically analyzed. As a result, researchers can analyze audio, video, images, and other formats beyond text. As our world is continuously changing, for example, with the growing prominence of generative artificial intelligence and social media, researchers will undoubtedly bring forth new inquiries that require continuous innovation and adaptation with data collection methods.

Collecting data for qualitative research is a complex process that often comes with unique challenges. This section discusses some of the common obstacles that researchers may encounter during data collection and offers strategies to navigate these issues.

Access to participants

Obtaining access to research participants can be a significant challenge. This might be due to geographical distance, time constraints, or reluctance from potential participants. To address this, researchers need to clearly communicate the purpose of their study, ensure confidentiality, and be flexible with their scheduling.

Cultural and language barriers

Researchers may face cultural and language barriers, particularly in cross-cultural research. These barriers can affect communication and understanding between the researcher and the participant. Employing translators, cultural mediators, or learning the local language can be beneficial in overcoming these barriers.

Non-responsive or uncooperative participants

At times, researchers might encounter participants who are unwilling or unable to provide the required information. In these situations, rapport-building is crucial. The researcher should aim to build trust, create a comfortable environment for the participant, and reassure them about the confidentiality of their responses.

Time constraints

Qualitative research can be time-consuming, particularly when involving interviews or focus groups that require coordination of multiple schedules, transcription , and in-depth analysis . Adequate planning and organization can help mitigate this challenge.

Bias in data collection

Bias in data collection can occur when the researcher's preconceptions or the participant's desire to present themselves favorably affect the data. Strategies for mitigating bias include reflexivity , triangulation, and member checking .

Handling sensitive topics

Research involving sensitive topics can be challenging for both the researcher and the participant. Ensuring a safe and supportive environment , practicing empathetic listening, and providing resources for emotional support can help navigate these sensitive issues.

Collecting data in qualitative research can be a very rewarding but challenging experience. However, with careful planning, ethical conduct, and a flexible approach, researchers can effectively navigate these obstacles and collect robust, meaningful data.

Considerations when collecting data

Research relies on empiricism and credibility at all stages of a research inquiry. As a result, there are various data collection problems and issues that researchers need to keep in mind.

Data quality issues

Your analysis may depend on capturing the fine-grained details that some data collection tools may miss. In that case, you should carefully consider data quality issues regarding the precision of your data collection. For example, think about a picture taken with a smartphone camera and a picture taken with a professional camera. If you need high-resolution photos, it would make sense to rely on a professional camera that can provide adequate data quality.

Quantitative data collection often relies on precise data collection tools to evaluate outcomes, but researchers collecting qualitative data should also be concerned with quality assurance. For example, suppose a study involving direct observation requires multiple observers in different contexts. In that case, researchers should take care to ensure that all observers can gather data in a similar fashion to ensure that all data can be analyzed in the same way.

Data quality is a crucial consideration when gathering information. Even if the researcher has chosen an appropriate method for data collection, is the data that they collect useful and detailed enough to provide the necessary analysis to answer the given research inquiry?

One example where data quality is consequential in qualitative data collection includes interviews and focus groups. Recordings may lose some of the finer details of social interaction, such as pauses, thinking words, or utterances that aren't loud enough for the microphone to pick up.

Suppose you are conducting an interview for a study where such details are relevant to your analysis. In that case, you should consider employing tools that collect sufficiently rich data to record these aspects of interaction.

Data integrity

The possibility of inaccurate data has the potential to confound the data analysis process, as drawing conclusions or making decisions becomes difficult, if not impossible, with low-quality data. Failure to establish the integrity of data collection can cast doubt on the findings of a given study. Accurate data collection is just one aspect researchers should consider to protect data integrity. After that, it is a matter of preserving the data after data collection. How is the data stored? Who has access to the collected data? To what extent can the data be changed between data collection and research dissemination?

Data integrity is an issue of research ethics as well as research credibility . The researcher needs to establish that the data presented for research dissemination is an accurate representation of the phenomenon under study.

Imagine if a photograph of wildlife becomes so aged that the color becomes distorted over time. Suppose the findings depend on describing the colors of a particular animal or plant. In that case, then not preserving the integrity of the data presents a serious threat to the credibility of the research and the researcher. In addition, when transcribing an interview or focus group, it is important to take care that participants’ words are accurately transcribed to avoid unintentionally changing the data.

Transparency

As explored earlier, researchers rely on both intuition and data to make interpretations about the world. As a result, researchers have an obligation to explain how they collected data and describe their data so that audiences can also understand it. Establishing research transparency also allows other researchers to examine a study and determine if they find it credible and how they can continue to build off it.

To address this need, research papers typically have a methodology section, which includes descriptions of the tools employed for data collection and the breadth and depth of the data that is collected for the study. It is important to transparently convey every aspect of the data collection and analysis , which might involve providing a sample of the questions participants were asked, demographic information about participants, or proof of compliance with ethical standards, to name a few examples.

Subjectivity

How to gather data is also a key concern, especially in social sciences where people's perspectives represent the collected data, and these perspectives can vastly differ.

In interviews and focus groups, how questions are framed may change the nature of the answers that participants provide. In market research, researchers have to carefully design questions to not inadvertently lead customers to provide a certain response or to facilitate useful feedback. Even in the natural sciences, researchers have to regularly check whether the data collection equipment they use for gathering data is producing accurate data sets for analysis.

Finally, the different methods of data collection raise questions about whether the data says what we think it says. Consider how people might establish monitoring systems to track behavioral data online. When a user spends a certain amount of time on a mobile app, are they deeply engaged in using the app, or are they leaving it on while they work on other tasks?

Data collection is only as useful as the extent to which the resulting data can be systematically analyzed and is relevant to the research inquiry being pursued. While it is tempting to collect as much data as possible, it is the researcher’s analyses and inferences, not just the quantity of data, that ultimately determine the impact of the research.

Validity and reliability in qualitative data

Ensuring validity and reliability in qualitative data collection is paramount to producing meaningful, rigorous, and trustworthy research findings. This section will outline the core principles of validity and reliability, which stem from quantitative research, and then we will consider relevant quality criteria for qualitative research.

Understanding validity

In general terms, validity is about ensuring that the research accurately reflects the phenomena it purports to represent. It is tied to how well the methods and techniques used in a study align with the intended research question and how accurately the findings represent the participants' experiences or perceptions. In qualitative research, however, the co-existence of multiple realities is often recognized, rather than believing there is only one “true” reality out there that can be measured. Thus, qualitative researchers can instead convey credibility by transparently communicating their research question, operationalization of key concepts, and how this translated into their data collection instruments and analysis. Moreover, qualitative researchers should pay attention to whether their own preconceptions or goals might be inadvertently shaping their findings. In addition, potential reactivity effects can be considered, to assess how the research may have influenced their participants or research setting while collecting data.

Understanding reliability

Reliability broadly refers to the consistency of the research approach across different contexts and with different researchers. A quantitative study is considered reliable if its findings can be replicated in a similar context or if the same results can be obtained by a different researcher following the same research procedure.

In qualitative research, however, researchers acknowledge and embrace the specific context of their data and analysis. All knowledge that is generated is context-specific, so rather than claiming that a study’s findings can be reliably reproduced in a wholly different context, qualitative researchers aim to demonstrate the trustworthiness or dependability of their data and findings. Transparent descriptions and clear communication can convey to audiences that the research was conducted with rigor and coherence between the research question , methods, and findings, all of which can bolster the credibility of the qualitative study.

Enhancing data quality

Various strategies can be used to enhance data quality in qualitative research. Among them are:

1. Triangulation: This involves using multiple data sources, methods, or researchers to gather data about the same phenomenon. This can help to ensure the findings are robust and not dependent on a single source. 2. Member checking: This method involves returning the findings to the participants to check if the interpretations accurately reflect their experiences or perceptions. This can help to ensure the validity of the research findings. 3. Thick description: Providing detailed accounts of the context, interactions, and interpretations in the research report can allow others to understand the research process better, which is important to foster the communicability of one’s research. 4. Audit trail: Keeping a detailed record of the research process, decisions, and reflections can increase the transparency and coherence of the study.

A wide variety of technologies can be used to work with qualitative data. Technology not only aids in data collection but also in the organization , analysis , and presentation of data .

This section explores some of the key ways that technology can be integrated into qualitative data collection.

Digital tools for data collection

Digital tools can vastly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of data collection. For example, audio and video recording devices can capture interviews , focus groups , and observational data with great detail.

Online surveys and questionnaires can reach a wider audience, often at a lower cost and with quicker turnaround times compared with traditional methods. Mobile applications can also be used to capture real-time experiences, emotions, and activities through diary studies or experience sampling.

Online platforms for qualitative research

Online platforms like social media , blogs, and discussion forums provide a rich source of qualitative data. Researchers can analyze these platforms for insights into people's behaviors, attitudes, and experiences.

In addition, virtual communities and digital ethnography are becoming increasingly common as researchers explore these online spaces.

Ethical considerations with technology

With the increased use of technology, researchers must be mindful of ethical considerations , including privacy and consent . It's important to secure informed consent when collecting data from online platforms or using digital tools, and all researchers should obtain the necessary approvals for collecting data and adhering to any applicable codes of conduct (such as GDPR). It's also crucial to ensure data security and confidentiality when storing data on digital platforms.

Advantages and limitations of technology

While technology offers numerous advantages in terms of efficiency, accessibility, and breadth of data, it also presents limitations. For example, digital tools may not capture the full nuance and richness of face-to-face interactions.

Furthermore, technological glitches and data loss are potential risks. Therefore, it's important for researchers to understand these trade-offs when incorporating technology into their data collection process.

As technology continues to evolve, so too will its applications in qualitative research. Embracing these technological advancements can help researchers to enhance their data collection practices, offering new opportunities for capturing, analyzing , and presenting qualitative data .

Data analysis after collecting data is only possible if the data is sufficiently organized into a form that can be easily sorted and understood. Imagine collecting social media data , which could be millions of posts from millions of social media users every day. You can dump every single post into a file, but how can you make sense of it?

Data organization is especially important when dealing with unstructured data. The researcher needs to structure the data in some way that facilitates the analytical process.

Transcription

Collecting data in focus groups, interviews, or other similar interactions produces raw video and audio recordings . This data can often be analyzed for contextual cues such as non-verbal interaction, facial expressions, and accents. However, most traditional analyses of interview and focus group data benefit from converting participants’ words into text.

Recordings are typically transcribed so that the text can be systematically analyzed and incorporated into research papers or presentations . Transcription can be a tedious task, especially if a researcher has to deal with hours of audio data. These days, researchers can often choose between manually transcribing their raw data or using automated transcription services to greatly speed up this process.

Survey data

In online survey platforms, participant responses to closed-ended questions can be easily aggregated in a spreadsheet. Responses to any open-ended questions can also be included in a spreadsheet or saved as separate files for subsequent analysis of the text participants wrote. Since survey data is relatively structured, it tends to be quicker and easier to organize than other forms of qualitative data that are more unstructured, such as interviews or observations.

Field notes and artifacts

In ethnographic research or research involving direct observation , gathering data often means writing notes or taking photographs during field work. While field notes can be typed into a document for data analysis, the researcher can also scan their notes into an image or a PDF for later organization.

This degree of flexibility allows researchers to code all forms of data that aren't textual in nature but can still provide useful data points for analysis and theoretical development.

Coding is among the most fundamental skills in qualitative research, because coding is how researchers can effectively reduce large datasets into a series of compact codes for later analysis. If you are dealing with dozens or hundreds of pages of qualitative data, then applying codes to your data is a key method for condensing, synthesizing, and understanding the data.

Organize your data with ATLAS.ti.

All your research data in one organized place. Give ATLAS.ti a try with a free trial.

Jump to navigation

Cochrane Training

Chapter 5: collecting data.

Tianjing Li, Julian PT Higgins, Jonathan J Deeks

Key Points:

• Systematic reviews have studies, rather than reports, as the unit of interest, and so multiple reports of the same study need to be identified and linked together before or after data extraction.
• Because of the increasing availability of data sources (e.g. trials registers, regulatory documents, clinical study reports), review authors should decide on which sources may contain the most useful information for the review, and have a plan to resolve discrepancies if information is inconsistent across sources.
• Review authors are encouraged to develop outlines of tables and figures that will appear in the review to facilitate the design of data collection forms. The key to successful data collection is to construct easy-to-use forms and collect sufficient and unambiguous data that faithfully represent the source in a structured and organized manner.
• Effort should be made to identify data needed for meta-analyses, which often need to be calculated or converted from data reported in diverse formats.
• Data should be collected and archived in a form that allows future access and data sharing.

Cite this chapter as: Li T, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ (editors). Chapter 5: Collecting data. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

5.1 Introduction

Systematic reviews aim to identify all studies that are relevant to their research questions and to synthesize data about the design, risk of bias, and results of those studies. Consequently, the findings of a systematic review depend critically on decisions relating to which data from these studies are presented and analysed. Data collected for systematic reviews should be accurate, complete, and accessible for future updates of the review and for data sharing. Methods used for these decisions must be transparent; they should be chosen to minimize biases and human error. Here we describe approaches that should be used in systematic reviews for collecting data, including extraction of data directly from journal articles and other reports of studies.

5.2 Sources of data

Studies are reported in a range of sources which are detailed later. As discussed in Section 5.2.1 , it is important to link together multiple reports of the same study. The relative strengths and weaknesses of each type of source are discussed in Section 5.2.2 . For guidance on searching for and selecting reports of studies, refer to Chapter 4 .

Journal articles are the source of the majority of data included in systematic reviews. Note that a study can be reported in multiple journal articles, each focusing on some aspect of the study (e.g. design, main results, and other results).

Conference abstracts are commonly available. However, the information presented in conference abstracts is highly variable in reliability, accuracy, and level of detail (Li et al 2017).

Errata and letters can be important sources of information about studies, including critical weaknesses and retractions, and review authors should examine these if they are identified (see MECIR Box 5.2.a ).

Trials registers (e.g. ClinicalTrials.gov) catalogue trials that have been planned or started, and have become an important data source for identifying trials, for comparing published outcomes and results with those planned, and for obtaining efficacy and safety data that are not available elsewhere (Ross et al 2009, Jones et al 2015, Baudard et al 2017).

Clinical study reports (CSRs) contain unabridged and comprehensive descriptions of the clinical problem, design, conduct and results of clinical trials, following a structure and content guidance prescribed by the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH 1995). To obtain marketing approval of drugs and biologics for a specific indication, pharmaceutical companies submit CSRs and other required materials to regulatory authorities. Because CSRs also incorporate tables and figures, with appendices containing the protocol, statistical analysis plan, sample case report forms, and patient data listings (including narratives of all serious adverse events), they can be thousands of pages in length. CSRs often contain more data about trial methods and results than any other single data source (Mayo-Wilson et al 2018). CSRs are often difficult to access, and are usually not publicly available. Review authors could request CSRs from the European Medicines Agency (Davis and Miller 2017). The US Food and Drug and Administration had historically avoided releasing CSRs but launched a pilot programme in 2018 whereby selected portions of CSRs for new drug applications were posted on the agency’s website. Many CSRs are obtained through unsealed litigation documents, repositories (e.g. clinicalstudydatarequest.com ), and other open data and data-sharing channels (e.g. The Yale University Open Data Access Project) (Doshi et al 2013, Wieland et al 2014, Mayo-Wilson et al 2018)).

Regulatory reviews such as those available from the US Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency provide useful information about trials of drugs, biologics, and medical devices submitted by manufacturers for marketing approval (Turner 2013). These documents are summaries of CSRs and related documents, prepared by agency staff as part of the process of approving the products for marketing, after reanalysing the original trial data. Regulatory reviews often are available only for the first approved use of an intervention and not for later applications (although review authors may request those documents, which are usually brief). Using regulatory reviews from the US Food and Drug Administration as an example, drug approval packages are available on the agency’s website for drugs approved since 1997 (Turner 2013); for drugs approved before 1997, information must be requested through a freedom of information request. The drug approval packages contain various documents: approval letter(s), medical review(s), chemistry review(s), clinical pharmacology review(s), and statistical reviews(s).

Individual participant data (IPD) are usually sought directly from the researchers responsible for the study, or may be identified from open data repositories (e.g. www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com ). These data typically include variables that represent the characteristics of each participant, intervention (or exposure) group, prognostic factors, and measurements of outcomes (Stewart et al 2015). Access to IPD has the advantage of allowing review authors to reanalyse the data flexibly, in accordance with the preferred analysis methods outlined in the protocol, and can reduce the variation in analysis methods across studies included in the review. IPD reviews are addressed in detail in Chapter 26 .

MECIR Box 5.2.a Relevant expectations for conduct of intervention reviews

5.2.1 Studies (not reports) as the unit of interest

In a systematic review, studies rather than reports of studies are the principal unit of interest. Since a study may have been reported in several sources, a comprehensive search for studies for the review may identify many reports from a potentially relevant study (Mayo-Wilson et al 2017a, Mayo-Wilson et al 2018). Conversely, a report may describe more than one study.

Multiple reports of the same study should be linked together (see MECIR Box 5.2.b ). Some authors prefer to link reports before they collect data, and collect data from across the reports onto a single form. Other authors prefer to collect data from each report and then link together the collected data across reports. Either strategy may be appropriate, depending on the nature of the reports at hand. It may not be clear that two reports relate to the same study until data collection has commenced. Although sometimes there is a single report for each study, it should never be assumed that this is the case.

MECIR Box 5.2.b Relevant expectations for conduct of intervention reviews

It can be difficult to link multiple reports from the same study, and review authors may need to do some ‘detective work’. Multiple sources about the same trial may not reference each other, do not share common authors (Gøtzsche 1989, Tramèr et al 1997), or report discrepant information about the study design, characteristics, outcomes, and results (von Elm et al 2004, Mayo-Wilson et al 2017a).

Some of the most useful criteria for linking reports are:

• trial registration numbers;
• authors’ names;
• sponsor for the study and sponsor identifiers (e.g. grant or contract numbers);
• location and setting (particularly if institutions, such as hospitals, are named);
• specific details of the interventions (e.g. dose, frequency);
• numbers of participants and baseline data; and
• date and duration of the study (which also can clarify whether different sample sizes are due to different periods of recruitment), length of follow-up, or subgroups selected to address secondary goals.

Review authors should use as many trial characteristics as possible to link multiple reports. When uncertainties remain after considering these and other factors, it may be necessary to correspond with the study authors or sponsors for confirmation.

5.2.2 Determining which sources might be most useful

A comprehensive search to identify all eligible studies from all possible sources is resource-intensive but necessary for a high-quality systematic review (see Chapter 4 ). Because some data sources are more useful than others (Mayo-Wilson et al 2018), review authors should consider which data sources may be available and which may contain the most useful information for the review. These considerations should be described in the protocol. Table 5.2.a summarizes the strengths and limitations of different data sources (Mayo-Wilson et al 2018). Gaining access to CSRs and IPD often takes a long time. Review authors should begin searching repositories and contact trial investigators and sponsors as early as possible to negotiate data usage agreements (Mayo-Wilson et al 2015, Mayo-Wilson et al 2018).

Table 5.2.a Strengths and limitations of different data sources for systematic reviews

5.2.3 Correspondence with investigators

Review authors often find that they are unable to obtain all the information they seek from available reports about the details of the study design, the full range of outcomes measured and the numerical results. In such circumstances, authors are strongly encouraged to contact the original investigators (see MECIR Box 5.2.c ). Contact details of study authors, when not available from the study reports, often can be obtained from more recent publications, from university or institutional staff listings, from membership directories of professional societies, or by a general search of the web. If the contact author named in the study report cannot be contacted or does not respond, it is worthwhile attempting to contact other authors.

Review authors should consider the nature of the information they require and make their request accordingly. For descriptive information about the conduct of the trial, it may be most appropriate to ask open-ended questions (e.g. how was the allocation process conducted, or how were missing data handled?). If specific numerical data are required, it may be more helpful to request them specifically, possibly providing a short data collection form (either uncompleted or partially completed). If IPD are required, they should be specifically requested (see also Chapter 26 ). In some cases, study investigators may find it more convenient to provide IPD rather than conduct additional analyses to obtain the specific statistics requested.

MECIR Box 5.2.c Relevant expectations for conduct of intervention reviews

5.3 What data to collect

5.3.1 what are data.

For the purposes of this chapter, we define ‘data’ to be any information about (or derived from) a study, including details of methods, participants, setting, context, interventions, outcomes, results, publications, and investigators. Review authors should plan in advance what data will be required for their systematic review, and develop a strategy for obtaining them (see MECIR Box 5.3.a ). The involvement of consumers and other stakeholders can be helpful in ensuring that the categories of data collected are sufficiently aligned with the needs of review users ( Chapter 1, Section 1.3 ). The data to be sought should be described in the protocol, with consideration wherever possible of the issues raised in the rest of this chapter.

The data collected for a review should adequately describe the included studies, support the construction of tables and figures, facilitate the risk of bias assessment, and enable syntheses and meta-analyses. Review authors should familiarize themselves with reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (see online Chapter III and the PRISMA statement; (Liberati et al 2009) to ensure that relevant elements and sections are incorporated. The following sections review the types of information that should be sought, and these are summarized in Table 5.3.a (Li et al 2015).

MECIR Box 5.3.a Relevant expectations for conduct of intervention reviews

Table 5.3.a Checklist of items to consider in data collection

*Full description required for assessments of risk of bias (see Chapter 8 , Chapter 23 and Chapter 25 ).

5.3.2 Study methods and potential sources of bias

Different research methods can influence study outcomes by introducing different biases into results. Important study design characteristics should be collected to allow the selection of appropriate methods for assessment and analysis, and to enable description of the design of each included study in a table of ‘Characteristics of included studies’, including whether the study is randomized, whether the study has a cluster or crossover design, and the duration of the study. If the review includes non-randomized studies, appropriate features of the studies should be described (see Chapter 24 ).

Detailed information should be collected to facilitate assessment of the risk of bias in each included study. Risk-of-bias assessment should be conducted using the tool most appropriate for the design of each study, and the information required to complete the assessment will depend on the tool. Randomized studies should be assessed using the tool described in Chapter 8 . The tool covers bias arising from the randomization process, due to deviations from intended interventions, due to missing outcome data, in measurement of the outcome, and in selection of the reported result. For each item in the tool, a description of what happened in the study is required, which may include verbatim quotes from study reports. Information for assessment of bias due to missing outcome data and selection of the reported result may be most conveniently collected alongside information on outcomes and results. Chapter 7 (Section 7.3.1) discusses some issues in the collection of information for assessments of risk of bias. For non-randomized studies, the most appropriate tool is described in Chapter 25 . A separate tool also covers bias due to missing results in meta-analysis (see Chapter 13 ).

A particularly important piece of information is the funding source of the study and potential conflicts of interest of the study authors.

Some review authors will wish to collect additional information on study characteristics that bear on the quality of the study’s conduct but that may not lead directly to risk of bias, such as whether ethical approval was obtained and whether a sample size calculation was performed a priori.

5.3.3 Participants and setting

Details of participants are collected to enable an understanding of the comparability of, and differences between, the participants within and between included studies, and to allow assessment of how directly or completely the participants in the included studies reflect the original review question.

Typically, aspects that should be collected are those that could (or are believed to) affect presence or magnitude of an intervention effect and those that could help review users assess applicability to populations beyond the review. For example, if the review authors suspect important differences in intervention effect between different socio-economic groups, this information should be collected. If intervention effects are thought constant over such groups, and if such information would not be useful to help apply results, it should not be collected. Participant characteristics that are often useful for assessing applicability include age and sex. Summary information about these should always be collected unless they are not obvious from the context. These characteristics are likely to be presented in different formats (e.g. ages as means or medians, with standard deviations or ranges; sex as percentages or counts for the whole study or for each intervention group separately). Review authors should seek consistent quantities where possible, and decide whether it is more relevant to summarize characteristics for the study as a whole or by intervention group. It may not be possible to select the most consistent statistics until data collection is complete across all or most included studies. Other characteristics that are sometimes important include ethnicity, socio-demographic details (e.g. education level) and the presence of comorbid conditions. Clinical characteristics relevant to the review question (e.g. glucose level for reviews on diabetes) also are important for understanding the severity or stage of the disease.

Diagnostic criteria that were used to define the condition of interest can be a particularly important source of diversity across studies and should be collected. For example, in a review of drug therapy for congestive heart failure, it is important to know how the definition and severity of heart failure was determined in each study (e.g. systolic or diastolic dysfunction, severe systolic dysfunction with ejection fractions below 20%). Similarly, in a review of antihypertensive therapy, it is important to describe baseline levels of blood pressure of participants.

If the settings of studies may influence intervention effects or applicability, then information on these should be collected. Typical settings of healthcare intervention studies include acute care hospitals, emergency facilities, general practice, and extended care facilities such as nursing homes, offices, schools, and communities. Sometimes studies are conducted in different geographical regions with important differences that could affect delivery of an intervention and its outcomes, such as cultural characteristics, economic context, or rural versus city settings. Timing of the study may be associated with important technology differences or trends over time. If such information is important for the interpretation of the review, it should be collected.

Important characteristics of the participants in each included study should be summarized for the reader in the table of ‘Characteristics of included studies’.

5.3.4 Interventions

Details of all experimental and comparator interventions of relevance to the review should be collected. Again, details are required for aspects that could affect the presence or magnitude of an effect or that could help review users assess applicability to their own circumstances. Where feasible, information should be sought (and presented in the review) that is sufficient for replication of the interventions under study. This includes any co-interventions administered as part of the study, and applies similarly to comparators such as ‘usual care’. Review authors may need to request missing information from study authors.

The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) provides a comprehensive framework for full description of interventions and has been proposed for use in systematic reviews as well as reports of primary studies (Hoffmann et al 2014). The checklist includes descriptions of:

• the rationale for the intervention and how it is expected to work;
• any documentation that instructs the recipient on the intervention;
• what the providers do to deliver the intervention (procedures and processes);
• who provides the intervention (including their skill level), how (e.g. face to face, web-based) and in what setting (e.g. home, school, or hospital);
• the timing and intensity;
• whether any variation is permitted or expected, and whether modifications were actually made; and
• any strategies used to ensure or assess fidelity or adherence to the intervention, and the extent to which the intervention was delivered as planned.

For clinical trials of pharmacological interventions, key information to collect will often include routes of delivery (e.g. oral or intravenous delivery), doses (e.g. amount or intensity of each treatment, frequency of delivery), timing (e.g. within 24 hours of diagnosis), and length of treatment. For other interventions, such as those that evaluate psychotherapy, behavioural and educational approaches, or healthcare delivery strategies, the amount of information required to characterize the intervention will typically be greater, including information about multiple elements of the intervention, who delivered it, and the format and timing of delivery. Chapter 17 provides further information on how to manage intervention complexity, and how the intervention Complexity Assessment Tool (iCAT) can facilitate data collection (Lewin et al 2017).

Important characteristics of the interventions in each included study should be summarized for the reader in the table of ‘Characteristics of included studies’. Additional tables or diagrams such as logic models ( Chapter 2, Section 2.5.1 ) can assist descriptions of multi-component interventions so that review users can better assess review applicability to their context.

5.3.4.1 Integrity of interventions

The degree to which specified procedures or components of the intervention are implemented as planned can have important consequences for the findings from a study. We describe this as intervention integrity ; related terms include adherence, compliance and fidelity (Carroll et al 2007). The verification of intervention integrity may be particularly important in reviews of non-pharmacological trials such as behavioural interventions and complex interventions, which are often implemented in conditions that present numerous obstacles to idealized delivery.

It is generally expected that reports of randomized trials provide detailed accounts of intervention implementation (Zwarenstein et al 2008, Moher et al 2010). In assessing whether interventions were implemented as planned, review authors should bear in mind that some interventions are standardized (with no deviations permitted in the intervention protocol), whereas others explicitly allow a degree of tailoring (Zwarenstein et al 2008). In addition, the growing field of implementation science has led to an increased awareness of the impact of setting and context on delivery of interventions (Damschroder et al 2009). (See Chapter 17, Section 17.1.2.1 for further information and discussion about how an intervention may be tailored to local conditions in order to preserve its integrity.)

Information about integrity can help determine whether unpromising results are due to a poorly conceptualized intervention or to an incomplete delivery of the prescribed components. It can also reveal important information about the feasibility of implementing a given intervention in real life settings. If it is difficult to achieve full implementation in practice, the intervention will have low feasibility (Dusenbury et al 2003).

Whether a lack of intervention integrity leads to a risk of bias in the estimate of its effect depends on whether review authors and users are interested in the effect of assignment to intervention or the effect of adhering to intervention, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 8, Section 8.2.2 . Assessment of deviations from intended interventions is important for assessing risk of bias in the latter, but not the former (see Chapter 8, Section 8.4 ), but both may be of interest to decision makers in different ways.

An example of a Cochrane Review evaluating intervention integrity is provided by a review of smoking cessation in pregnancy (Chamberlain et al 2017). The authors found that process evaluation of the intervention occurred in only some trials and that the implementation was less than ideal in others, including some of the largest trials. The review highlighted how the transfer of an intervention from one setting to another may reduce its effectiveness when elements are changed, or aspects of the materials are culturally inappropriate.

5.3.4.2 Process evaluations

Process evaluations seek to evaluate the process (and mechanisms) between the intervention’s intended implementation and the actual effect on the outcome (Moore et al 2015). Process evaluation studies are characterized by a flexible approach to data collection and the use of numerous methods to generate a range of different types of data, encompassing both quantitative and qualitative methods. Guidance for including process evaluations in systematic reviews is provided in Chapter 21 . When it is considered important, review authors should aim to collect information on whether the trial accounted for, or measured, key process factors and whether the trials that thoroughly addressed integrity showed a greater impact. Process evaluations can be a useful source of factors that potentially influence the effectiveness of an intervention.

5.3.5 Outcome s

An outcome is an event or a measurement value observed or recorded for a particular person or intervention unit in a study during or following an intervention, and that is used to assess the efficacy and safety of the studied intervention (Meinert 2012). Review authors should indicate in advance whether they plan to collect information about all outcomes measured in a study or only those outcomes of (pre-specified) interest in the review. Research has shown that trials addressing the same condition and intervention seldom agree on which outcomes are the most important, and consequently report on numerous different outcomes (Dwan et al 2014, Ismail et al 2014, Denniston et al 2015, Saldanha et al 2017a). The selection of outcomes across systematic reviews of the same condition is also inconsistent (Page et al 2014, Saldanha et al 2014, Saldanha et al 2016, Liu et al 2017). Outcomes used in trials and in systematic reviews of the same condition have limited overlap (Saldanha et al 2017a, Saldanha et al 2017b).

We recommend that only the outcomes defined in the protocol be described in detail. However, a complete list of the names of all outcomes measured may allow a more detailed assessment of the risk of bias due to missing outcome data (see Chapter 13 ).

Review authors should collect all five elements of an outcome (Zarin et al 2011, Saldanha et al 2014):

1. outcome domain or title (e.g. anxiety);

2. measurement tool or instrument (including definition of clinical outcomes or endpoints); for a scale, name of the scale (e.g. the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale), upper and lower limits, and whether a high or low score is favourable, definitions of any thresholds if appropriate;

3. specific metric used to characterize each participant’s results (e.g. post-intervention anxiety, or change in anxiety from baseline to a post-intervention time point, or post-intervention presence of anxiety (yes/no));

4. method of aggregation (e.g. mean and standard deviation of anxiety scores in each group, or proportion of people with anxiety);

5. timing of outcome measurements (e.g. assessments at end of eight-week intervention period, events occurring during eight-week intervention period).

Further considerations for economics outcomes are discussed in Chapter 20 , and for patient-reported outcomes in Chapter 18 .

5.3.5.1 Adverse effects

Collection of information about the harmful effects of an intervention can pose particular difficulties, discussed in detail in Chapter 19 . These outcomes may be described using multiple terms, including ‘adverse event’, ‘adverse effect’, ‘adverse drug reaction’, ‘side effect’ and ‘complication’. Many of these terminologies are used interchangeably in the literature, although some are technically different. Harms might additionally be interpreted to include undesirable changes in other outcomes measured during a study, such as a decrease in quality of life where an improvement may have been anticipated.

In clinical trials, adverse events can be collected either systematically or non-systematically. Systematic collection refers to collecting adverse events in the same manner for each participant using defined methods such as a questionnaire or a laboratory test. For systematically collected outcomes representing harm, data can be collected by review authors in the same way as efficacy outcomes (see Section 5.3.5 ).

Non-systematic collection refers to collection of information on adverse events using methods such as open-ended questions (e.g. ‘Have you noticed any symptoms since your last visit?’), or reported by participants spontaneously. In either case, adverse events may be selectively reported based on their severity, and whether the participant suspected that the effect may have been caused by the intervention, which could lead to bias in the available data. Unfortunately, most adverse events are collected non-systematically rather than systematically, creating a challenge for review authors. The following pieces of information are useful and worth collecting (Nicole Fusco, personal communication):

• any coding system or standard medical terminology used (e.g. COSTART, MedDRA), including version number;
• name of the adverse events (e.g. dizziness);
• reported intensity of the adverse event (e.g. mild, moderate, severe);
• whether the trial investigators categorized the adverse event as ‘serious’;
• whether the trial investigators identified the adverse event as being related to the intervention;
• time point (most commonly measured as a count over the duration of the study);
• any reported methods for how adverse events were selected for inclusion in the publication (e.g. ‘We reported all adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of participants’); and
• associated results.

Different collection methods lead to very different accounting of adverse events (Safer 2002, Bent et al 2006, Ioannidis et al 2006, Carvajal et al 2011, Allen et al 2013). Non-systematic collection methods tend to underestimate how frequently an adverse event occurs. It is particularly problematic when the adverse event of interest to the review is collected systematically in some studies but non-systematically in other studies. Different collection methods introduce an important source of heterogeneity. In addition, when non-systematic adverse events are reported based on quantitative selection criteria (e.g. only adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of participants were included in the publication), use of reported data alone may bias the results of meta-analyses. Review authors should be cautious of (or refrain from) synthesizing adverse events that are collected differently.

Regardless of the collection methods, precise definitions of adverse effect outcomes and their intensity should be recorded, since they may vary between studies. For example, in a review of aspirin and gastrointestinal haemorrhage, some trials simply reported gastrointestinal bleeds, while others reported specific categories of bleeding, such as haematemesis, melaena, and proctorrhagia (Derry and Loke 2000). The definition and reporting of severity of the haemorrhages (e.g. major, severe, requiring hospital admission) also varied considerably among the trials (Zanchetti and Hansson 1999). Moreover, a particular adverse effect may be described or measured in different ways among the studies. For example, the terms ‘tiredness’, ‘fatigue’ or ‘lethargy’ may all be used in reporting of adverse effects. Study authors also may use different thresholds for ‘abnormal’ results (e.g. hypokalaemia diagnosed at a serum potassium concentration of 3.0 mmol/L or 3.5 mmol/L).

No mention of adverse events in trial reports does not necessarily mean that no adverse events occurred. It is usually safest to assume that they were not reported. Quality of life measures are sometimes used as a measure of the participants’ experience during the study, but these are usually general measures that do not look specifically at particular adverse effects of the intervention. While quality of life measures are important and can be used to gauge overall participant well-being, they should not be regarded as substitutes for a detailed evaluation of safety and tolerability.

5.3.6 Results

Results data arise from the measurement or ascertainment of outcomes for individual participants in an intervention study. Results data may be available for each individual in a study (i.e. individual participant data; see Chapter 26 ), or summarized at arm level, or summarized at study level into an intervention effect by comparing two intervention arms. Results data should be collected only for the intervention groups and outcomes specified to be of interest in the protocol (see MECIR Box 5.3.b ). Results for other outcomes should not be collected unless the protocol is modified to add them. Any modification should be reported in the review. However, review authors should be alert to the possibility of important, unexpected findings, particularly serious adverse effects.

MECIR Box 5.3.b Relevant expectations for conduct of intervention reviews

Reports of studies often include several results for the same outcome. For example, different measurement scales might be used, results may be presented separately for different subgroups, and outcomes may have been measured at different follow-up time points. Variation in the results can be very large, depending on which data are selected (Gøtzsche et al 2007, Mayo-Wilson et al 2017a). Review protocols should be as specific as possible about which outcome domains, measurement tools, time points, and summary statistics (e.g. final values versus change from baseline) are to be collected (Mayo-Wilson et al 2017b). A framework should be pre-specified in the protocol to facilitate making choices between multiple eligible measures or results. For example, a hierarchy of preferred measures might be created, or plans articulated to select the result with the median effect size, or to average across all eligible results for a particular outcome domain (see also Chapter 9, Section 9.3.3 ). Any additional decisions or changes to this framework made once the data are collected should be reported in the review as changes to the protocol.

Section 5.6 describes the numbers that will be required to perform meta-analysis, if appropriate. The unit of analysis (e.g. participant, cluster, body part, treatment period) should be recorded for each result when it is not obvious (see Chapter 6, Section 6.2 ). The type of outcome data determines the nature of the numbers that will be sought for each outcome. For example, for a dichotomous (‘yes’ or ‘no’) outcome, the number of participants and the number who experienced the outcome will be sought for each group. It is important to collect the sample size relevant to each result, although this is not always obvious. A flow diagram as recommended in the CONSORT Statement (Moher et al 2001) can help to determine the flow of participants through a study. If one is not available in a published report, review authors can consider drawing one (available from www.consort-statement.org ).

The numbers required for meta-analysis are not always available. Often, other statistics can be collected and converted into the required format. For example, for a continuous outcome, it is usually most convenient to seek the number of participants, the mean and the standard deviation for each intervention group. These are often not available directly, especially the standard deviation. Alternative statistics enable calculation or estimation of the missing standard deviation (such as a standard error, a confidence interval, a test statistic (e.g. from a t-test or F-test) or a P value). These should be extracted if they provide potentially useful information (see MECIR Box 5.3.c ). Details of recalculation are provided in Section 5.6 . Further considerations for dealing with missing data are discussed in Chapter 10, Section 10.12 .

MECIR Box 5.3.c Relevant expectations for conduct of intervention reviews

5.3.7 Other information to collect

We recommend that review authors collect the key conclusions of the included study as reported by its authors. It is not necessary to report these conclusions in the review, but they should be used to verify the results of analyses undertaken by the review authors, particularly in relation to the direction of effect. Further comments by the study authors, for example any explanations they provide for unexpected findings, may be noted. References to other studies that are cited in the study report may be useful, although review authors should be aware of the possibility of citation bias (see Chapter 7, Section 7.2.3.2 ). Documentation of any correspondence with the study authors is important for review transparency.

5.4 Data collection tools

5.4.1 rationale for data collection forms.

Data collection for systematic reviews should be performed using structured data collection forms (see MECIR Box 5.4.a ). These can be paper forms, electronic forms (e.g. Google Form), or commercially or custom-built data systems (e.g. Covidence, EPPI-Reviewer, Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR)) that allow online form building, data entry by several users, data sharing, and efficient data management (Li et al 2015). All different means of data collection require data collection forms.

MECIR Box 5.4.a Relevant expectations for conduct of intervention reviews

The data collection form is a bridge between what is reported by the original investigators (e.g. in journal articles, abstracts, personal correspondence) and what is ultimately reported by the review authors. The data collection form serves several important functions (Meade and Richardson 1997). First, the form is linked directly to the review question and criteria for assessing eligibility of studies, and provides a clear summary of these that can be used to identify and structure the data to be extracted from study reports. Second, the data collection form is the historical record of the provenance of the data used in the review, as well as the multitude of decisions (and changes to decisions) that occur throughout the review process. Third, the form is the source of data for inclusion in an analysis.

Given the important functions of data collection forms, ample time and thought should be invested in their design. Because each review is different, data collection forms will vary across reviews. However, there are many similarities in the types of information that are important. Thus, forms can be adapted from one review to the next. Although we use the term ‘data collection form’ in the singular, in practice it may be a series of forms used for different purposes: for example, a separate form could be used to assess the eligibility of studies for inclusion in the review to assist in the quick identification of studies to be excluded from or included in the review.

5.4.2 Considerations in selecting data collection tools

The choice of data collection tool is largely dependent on review authors’ preferences, the size of the review, and resources available to the author team. Potential advantages and considerations of selecting one data collection tool over another are outlined in Table 5.4.a (Li et al 2015). A significant advantage that data systems have is in data management ( Chapter 1, Section 1.6 ) and re-use. They make review updates more efficient, and also facilitate methodological research across reviews. Numerous ‘meta-epidemiological’ studies have been carried out using Cochrane Review data, resulting in methodological advances which would not have been possible if thousands of studies had not all been described using the same data structures in the same system.

Some data collection tools facilitate automatic imports of extracted data into RevMan (Cochrane’s authoring tool), such as CSV (Excel) and Covidence. Details available here https://documentation.cochrane.org/revman-kb/populate-study-data-260702462.html

Table 5.4.a Considerations in selecting data collection tools

5.4.3 Design of a data collection form

Regardless of whether data are collected using a paper or electronic form, or a data system, the key to successful data collection is to construct easy-to-use forms and collect sufficient and unambiguous data that faithfully represent the source in a structured and organized manner (Li et al 2015). In most cases, a document format should be developed for the form before building an electronic form or a data system. This can be distributed to others, including programmers and data analysts, and as a guide for creating an electronic form and any guidance or codebook to be used by data extractors. Review authors also should consider compatibility of any electronic form or data system with analytical software, as well as mechanisms for recording, assessing and correcting data entry errors.

Data described in multiple reports (or even within a single report) of a study may not be consistent. Review authors will need to describe how they work with multiple reports in the protocol, for example, by pre-specifying which report will be used when sources contain conflicting data that cannot be resolved by contacting the investigators. Likewise, when there is only one report identified for a study, review authors should specify the section within the report (e.g. abstract, methods, results, tables, and figures) for use in case of inconsistent information.

If review authors wish to automatically import their extracted data into RevMan, it is advised that their data collection forms match the data extraction templates available via the RevMan Knowledge Base. Details available here https://documentation.cochrane.org/revman-kb/data-extraction-templates-260702375.html.

A good data collection form should minimize the need to go back to the source documents. When designing a data collection form, review authors should involve all members of the team, that is, content area experts, authors with experience in systematic review methods and data collection form design, statisticians, and persons who will perform data extraction. Here are suggested steps and some tips for designing a data collection form, based on the informal collation of experiences from numerous review authors (Li et al 2015).

Step 1. Develop outlines of tables and figures expected to appear in the systematic review, considering the comparisons to be made between different interventions within the review, and the various outcomes to be measured. This step will help review authors decide the right amount of data to collect (not too much or too little). Collecting too much information can lead to forms that are longer than original study reports, and can be very wasteful of time. Collection of too little information, or omission of key data, can lead to the need to return to study reports later in the review process.

Step 2. Assemble and group data elements to facilitate form development. Review authors should consult Table 5.3.a , in which the data elements are grouped to facilitate form development and data collection. Note that it may be more efficient to group data elements in the order in which they are usually found in study reports (e.g. starting with reference information, followed by eligibility criteria, intervention description, statistical methods, baseline characteristics and results).

Step 3. Identify the optimal way of framing the data items. Much has been written about how to frame data items for developing robust data collection forms in primary research studies. We summarize a few key points and highlight issues that are pertinent to systematic reviews.

• Ask closed-ended questions (i.e. questions that define a list of permissible responses) as much as possible. Closed-ended questions do not require post hoc coding and provide better control over data quality than open-ended questions. When setting up a closed-ended question, one must anticipate and structure possible responses and include an ‘other, specify’ category because the anticipated list may not be exhaustive. Avoid asking data extractors to summarize data into uncoded text, no matter how short it is.
• Avoid asking a question in a way that the response may be left blank. Include ‘not applicable’, ‘not reported’ and ‘cannot tell’ options as needed. The ‘cannot tell’ option tags uncertain items that may promote review authors to contact study authors for clarification, especially on data items critical to reach conclusions.
• Remember that the form will focus on what is reported in the article rather what has been done in the study. The study report may not fully reflect how the study was actually conducted. For example, a question ‘Did the article report that the participants were masked to the intervention?’ is more appropriate than ‘Were participants masked to the intervention?’
• Where a judgement is required, record the raw data (i.e. quote directly from the source document) used to make the judgement. It is also important to record the source of information collected, including where it was found in a report or whether information was obtained from unpublished sources or personal communications. As much as possible, questions should be asked in a way that minimizes subjective interpretation and judgement to facilitate data comparison and adjudication.
• Incorporate flexibility to allow for variation in how data are reported. It is strongly recommended that outcome data be collected in the format in which they were reported and transformed in a subsequent step if required. Review authors also should consider the software they will use for analysis and for publishing the review (e.g. RevMan).

Step 4. Develop and pilot-test data collection forms, ensuring that they provide data in the right format and structure for subsequent analysis. In addition to data items described in Step 2, data collection forms should record the title of the review as well as the person who is completing the form and the date of completion. Forms occasionally need revision; forms should therefore include the version number and version date to reduce the chances of using an outdated form by mistake. Because a study may be associated with multiple reports, it is important to record the study ID as well as the report ID. Definitions and instructions helpful for answering a question should appear next to the question to improve quality and consistency across data extractors (Stock 1994). Provide space for notes, regardless of whether paper or electronic forms are used.

All data collection forms and data systems should be thoroughly pilot-tested before launch (see MECIR Box 5.4.a ). Testing should involve several people extracting data from at least a few articles. The initial testing focuses on the clarity and completeness of questions. Users of the form may provide feedback that certain coding instructions are confusing or incomplete (e.g. a list of options may not cover all situations). The testing may identify data that are missing from the form, or likely to be superfluous. After initial testing, accuracy of the extracted data should be checked against the source document or verified data to identify problematic areas. It is wise to draft entries for the table of ‘Characteristics of included studies’ and complete a risk of bias assessment ( Chapter 8 ) using these pilot reports to ensure all necessary information is collected. A consensus between review authors may be required before the form is modified to avoid any misunderstandings or later disagreements. It may be necessary to repeat the pilot testing on a new set of reports if major changes are needed after the first pilot test.

Problems with the data collection form may surface after pilot testing has been completed, and the form may need to be revised after data extraction has started. When changes are made to the form or coding instructions, it may be necessary to return to reports that have already undergone data extraction. In some situations, it may be necessary to clarify only coding instructions without modifying the actual data collection form.

5.5 Extracting data from reports

5.5.1 introduction.

In most systematic reviews, the primary source of information about each study is published reports of studies, usually in the form of journal articles. Despite recent developments in machine learning models to automate data extraction in systematic reviews (see Section 5.5.9 ), data extraction is still largely a manual process. Electronic searches for text can provide a useful aid to locating information within a report. Examples include using search facilities in PDF viewers, internet browsers and word processing software. However, text searching should not be considered a replacement for reading the report, since information may be presented using variable terminology and presented in multiple formats.

5.5.2 Who should extract data?

Data extractors should have at least a basic understanding of the topic, and have knowledge of study design, data analysis and statistics. They should pay attention to detail while following instructions on the forms. Because errors that occur at the data extraction stage are rarely detected by peer reviewers, editors, or users of systematic reviews, it is recommended that more than one person extract data from every report to minimize errors and reduce introduction of potential biases by review authors (see MECIR Box 5.5.a ). As a minimum, information that involves subjective interpretation and information that is critical to the interpretation of results (e.g. outcome data) should be extracted independently by at least two people (see MECIR Box 5.5.a ). In common with implementation of the selection process ( Chapter 4, Section 4.6 ), it is preferable that data extractors are from complementary disciplines, for example a methodologist and a topic area specialist. It is important that everyone involved in data extraction has practice using the form and, if the form was designed by someone else, receives appropriate training.

Evidence in support of duplicate data extraction comes from several indirect sources. One study observed that independent data extraction by two authors resulted in fewer errors than data extraction by a single author followed by verification by a second (Buscemi et al 2006). A high prevalence of data extraction errors (errors in 20 out of 34 reviews) has been observed (Jones et al 2005). A further study of data extraction to compute standardized mean differences found that a minimum of seven out of 27 reviews had substantial errors (Gøtzsche et al 2007).

MECIR Box 5.5.a Relevant expectations for conduct of intervention reviews

5.5.3 Training data extractors

Training of data extractors is intended to familiarize them with the review topic and methods, the data collection form or data system, and issues that may arise during data extraction. Results of the pilot testing of the form should prompt discussion among review authors and extractors of ambiguous questions or responses to establish consistency. Training should take place at the onset of the data extraction process and periodically over the course of the project (Li et al 2015). For example, when data related to a single item on the form are present in multiple locations within a report (e.g. abstract, main body of text, tables, and figures) or in several sources (e.g. publications, ClinicalTrials.gov, or CSRs), the development and documentation of instructions to follow an agreed algorithm are critical and should be reinforced during the training sessions.

Some have proposed that some information in a report, such as its authors, be blinded to the review author prior to data extraction and assessment of risk of bias (Jadad et al 1996). However, blinding of review authors to aspects of study reports generally is not recommended for Cochrane Reviews as there is little evidence that it alters the decisions made (Berlin 1997).

5.5.4 Extracting data from multiple reports of the same study

Studies frequently are reported in more than one publication or in more than one source (Tramèr et al 1997, von Elm et al 2004). A single source rarely provides complete information about a study; on the other hand, multiple sources may contain conflicting information about the same study (Mayo-Wilson et al 2017a, Mayo-Wilson et al 2017b, Mayo-Wilson et al 2018). Because the unit of interest in a systematic review is the study and not the report, information from multiple reports often needs to be collated and reconciled. It is not appropriate to discard any report of an included study without careful examination, since it may contain valuable information not included in the primary report. Review authors will need to decide between two strategies:

• Extract data from each report separately, then combine information across multiple data collection forms.
• Extract data from all reports directly into a single data collection form.

The choice of which strategy to use will depend on the nature of the reports and may vary across studies and across reports. For example, when a full journal article and multiple conference abstracts are available, it is likely that the majority of information will be obtained from the journal article; completing a new data collection form for each conference abstract may be a waste of time. Conversely, when there are two or more detailed journal articles, perhaps relating to different periods of follow-up, then it is likely to be easier to perform data extraction separately for these articles and collate information from the data collection forms afterwards. When data from all reports are extracted into a single data collection form, review authors should identify the ‘main’ data source for each study when sources include conflicting data and these differences cannot be resolved by contacting authors (Mayo-Wilson et al 2018). Flow diagrams such as those modified from the PRISMA statement can be particularly helpful when collating and documenting information from multiple reports (Mayo-Wilson et al 2018).

5.5.5 Reliability and reaching consensus

When more than one author extracts data from the same reports, there is potential for disagreement. After data have been extracted independently by two or more extractors, responses must be compared to assure agreement or to identify discrepancies. An explicit procedure or decision rule should be specified in the protocol for identifying and resolving disagreements. Most often, the source of the disagreement is an error by one of the extractors and is easily resolved. Thus, discussion among the authors is a sensible first step. More rarely, a disagreement may require arbitration by another person. Any disagreement that cannot be resolved should be addressed by contacting the study authors; if this is unsuccessful, the disagreement should be reported in the review.

The presence and resolution of disagreements should be carefully recorded. Maintaining a copy of the data ‘as extracted’ (in addition to the consensus data) allows assessment of reliability of coding. Examples of ways in which this can be achieved include the following:

• Use one author’s (paper) data collection form and record changes after consensus in a different ink colour.
• Enter consensus data onto an electronic form.
• Record original data extracted and consensus data in separate forms (some online tools do this automatically).

Agreement of coded items before reaching consensus can be quantified, for example using kappa statistics (Orwin 1994), although this is not routinely done in Cochrane Reviews. If agreement is assessed, this should be done only for the most important data (e.g. key risk of bias assessments, or availability of key outcomes).

Throughout the review process informal consideration should be given to the reliability of data extraction. For example, if after reaching consensus on the first few studies, the authors note a frequent disagreement for specific data, then coding instructions may need modification. Furthermore, an author’s coding strategy may change over time, as the coding rules are forgotten, indicating a need for retraining and, possibly, some recoding.

5.5.6 Extracting data from clinical study reports

Clinical study reports (CSRs) obtained for a systematic review are likely to be in PDF format. Although CSRs can be thousands of pages in length and very time-consuming to review, they typically follow the content and format required by the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH 1995). Information in CSRs is usually presented in a structured and logical way. For example, numerical data pertaining to important demographic, efficacy, and safety variables are placed within the main text in tables and figures. Because of the clarity and completeness of information provided in CSRs, data extraction from CSRs may be clearer and conducted more confidently than from journal articles or other short reports.

To extract data from CSRs efficiently, review authors should familiarize themselves with the structure of the CSRs. In practice, review authors may want to browse or create ‘bookmarks’ within a PDF document that record section headers and subheaders and search key words related to the data extraction (e.g. randomization). In addition, it may be useful to utilize optical character recognition software to convert tables of data in the PDF to an analysable format when additional analyses are required, saving time and minimizing transcription errors.

CSRs may contain many outcomes and present many results for a single outcome (due to different analyses) (Mayo-Wilson et al 2017b). We recommend review authors extract results only for outcomes of interest to the review (Section 5.3.6 ). With regard to different methods of analysis, review authors should have a plan and pre-specify preferred metrics in their protocol for extracting results pertaining to different populations (e.g. ‘all randomized’, ‘all participants taking at least one dose of medication’), methods for handling missing data (e.g. ‘complete case analysis’, ‘multiple imputation’), and adjustment (e.g. unadjusted, adjusted for baseline covariates). It may be important to record the range of analysis options available, even if not all are extracted in detail. In some cases it may be preferable to use metrics that are comparable across multiple included studies, which may not be clear until data collection for all studies is complete.

CSRs are particularly useful for identifying outcomes assessed but not presented to the public. For efficacy outcomes and systematically collected adverse events, review authors can compare what is described in the CSRs with what is reported in published reports to assess the risk of bias due to missing outcome data ( Chapter 8, Section 8.5 ) and in selection of reported result ( Chapter 8, Section 8.7 ). Note that non-systematically collected adverse events are not amenable to such comparisons because these adverse events may not be known ahead of time and thus not pre-specified in the protocol.

5.5.7 Extracting data from regulatory reviews

Data most relevant to systematic reviews can be found in the medical and statistical review sections of a regulatory review. Both of these are substantially longer than journal articles (Turner 2013). A list of all trials on a drug usually can be found in the medical review. Because trials are referenced by a combination of numbers and letters, it may be difficult for the review authors to link the trial with other reports of the same trial (Section 5.2.1 ).

Many of the documents downloaded from the US Food and Drug Administration’s website for older drugs are scanned copies and are not searchable because of redaction of confidential information (Turner 2013). Optical character recognition software can convert most of the text. Reviews for newer drugs have been redacted electronically; documents remain searchable as a result.

Compared to CSRs, regulatory reviews contain less information about trial design, execution, and results. They provide limited information for assessing the risk of bias. In terms of extracting outcomes and results, review authors should follow the guidance provided for CSRs (Section 5.5.6 ).

5.5.8 Extracting data from figures with software

Sometimes numerical data needed for systematic reviews are only presented in figures. Review authors may request the data from the study investigators, or alternatively, extract the data from the figures either manually (e.g. with a ruler) or by using software. Numerous tools are available, many of which are free. Those available at the time of writing include tools called Plot Digitizer, WebPlotDigitizer, Engauge, Dexter, ycasd, GetData Graph Digitizer. The software works by taking an image of a figure and then digitizing the data points off the figure using the axes and scales set by the users. The numbers exported can be used for systematic reviews, although additional calculations may be needed to obtain the summary statistics, such as calculation of means and standard deviations from individual-level data points (or conversion of time-to-event data presented on Kaplan-Meier plots to hazard ratios; see Chapter 6, Section 6.8.2 ).

It has been demonstrated that software is more convenient and accurate than visual estimation or use of a ruler (Gross et al 2014, Jelicic Kadic et al 2016). Review authors should consider using software for extracting numerical data from figures when the data are not available elsewhere.

5.5.9 Automating data extraction in systematic reviews

Because data extraction is time-consuming and error-prone, automating or semi-automating this step may make the extraction process more efficient and accurate. The state of science relevant to automating data extraction is summarized here (Jonnalagadda et al 2015).

• At least 26 studies have tested various natural language processing and machine learning approaches for facilitating data extraction for systematic reviews.

· Each tool focuses on only a limited number of data elements (ranges from one to seven). Most of the existing tools focus on the PICO information (e.g. number of participants, their age, sex, country, recruiting centres, intervention groups, outcomes, and time points). A few are able to extract study design and results (e.g. objectives, study duration, participant flow), and two extract risk of bias information (Marshall et al 2016, Millard et al 2016). To date, well over half of the data elements needed for systematic reviews have not been explored for automated extraction.

• Most tools highlight the sentence(s) that may contain the data elements as opposed to directly recording these data elements into a data collection form or a data system.
• There is no gold standard or common dataset to evaluate the performance of these tools, limiting our ability to interpret the significance of the reported accuracy measures.

At the time of writing, we cannot recommend a specific tool for automating data extraction for routine systematic review production. There is a need for review authors to work with experts in informatics to refine these tools and evaluate them rigorously. Such investigations should address how the tool will fit into existing workflows. For example, the automated or semi-automated data extraction approaches may first act as checks for manual data extraction before they can replace it.

5.5.10 Suspicions of scientific misconduct

Systematic review authors can uncover suspected misconduct in the published literature. Misconduct includes fabrication or falsification of data or results, plagiarism, and research that does not adhere to ethical norms. Review authors need to be aware of scientific misconduct because the inclusion of fraudulent material could undermine the reliability of a review’s findings. Plagiarism of results data in the form of duplicated publication (either by the same or by different authors) may, if undetected, lead to study participants being double counted in a synthesis.

It is preferable to identify potential problems before, rather than after, publication of the systematic review, so that readers are not misled. However, empirical evidence indicates that the extent to which systematic review authors explore misconduct varies widely (Elia et al 2016). Text-matching software and systems such as CrossCheck may be helpful for detecting plagiarism, but they can detect only matching text, so data tables or figures need to be inspected by hand or using other systems (e.g. to detect image manipulation). Lists of data such as in a meta-analysis can be a useful means of detecting duplicated studies. Furthermore, examination of baseline data can lead to suspicions of misconduct for an individual randomized trial (Carlisle et al 2015). For example, Al-Marzouki and colleagues concluded that a trial report was fabricated or falsified on the basis of highly unlikely baseline differences between two randomized groups (Al-Marzouki et al 2005).

Cochrane Review authors are advised to consult with Cochrane editors if cases of suspected misconduct are identified. Searching for comments, letters or retractions may uncover additional information. Sensitivity analyses can be used to determine whether the studies arousing suspicion are influential in the conclusions of the review. Guidance for editors for addressing suspected misconduct will be available from Cochrane’s Editorial Publishing and Policy Resource (see community.cochrane.org ). Further information is available from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE; publicationethics.org ), including a series of flowcharts on how to proceed if various types of misconduct are suspected. Cases should be followed up, typically including an approach to the editors of the journals in which suspect reports were published. It may be useful to write first to the primary investigators to request clarification of apparent inconsistencies or unusual observations.

Because investigations may take time, and institutions may not always be responsive (Wager 2011), articles suspected of being fraudulent should be classified as ‘awaiting assessment’. If a misconduct investigation indicates that the publication is unreliable, or if a publication is retracted, it should not be included in the systematic review, and the reason should be noted in the ‘excluded studies’ section.

5.5.11 Key points in planning and reporting data extraction

In summary, the methods section of both the protocol and the review should detail:

• the data categories that are to be extracted;
• how extracted data from each report will be verified (e.g. extraction by two review authors, independently);
• whether data extraction is undertaken by content area experts, methodologists, or both;
• pilot testing, training and existence of coding instructions for the data collection form;
• how data are extracted from multiple reports from the same study; and
• how disagreements are handled when more than one author extracts data from each report.

5.6 Extracting study results and converting to the desired format

In most cases, it is desirable to collect summary data separately for each intervention group of interest and to enter these into software in which effect estimates can be calculated, such as RevMan. Sometimes the required data may be obtained only indirectly, and the relevant results may not be obvious. Chapter 6 provides many useful tips and techniques to deal with common situations. When summary data cannot be obtained from each intervention group, or where it is important to use results of adjusted analyses (for example to account for correlations in crossover or cluster-randomized trials) effect estimates may be available directly.

5.7 Managing and sharing data

When data have been collected for each individual study, it is helpful to organize them into a comprehensive electronic format, such as a database or spreadsheet, before entering data into a meta-analysis or other synthesis. When data are collated electronically, all or a subset of them can easily be exported for cleaning, consistency checks and analysis.

Tabulation of collected information about studies can facilitate classification of studies into appropriate comparisons and subgroups. It also allows identification of comparable outcome measures and statistics across studies. It will often be necessary to perform calculations to obtain the required statistics for presentation or synthesis. It is important through this process to retain clear information on the provenance of the data, with a clear distinction between data from a source document and data obtained through calculations. Statistical conversions, for example from standard errors to standard deviations, ideally should be undertaken with a computer rather than using a hand calculator to maintain a permanent record of the original and calculated numbers as well as the actual calculations used.

Ideally, data only need to be extracted once and should be stored in a secure and stable location for future updates of the review, regardless of whether the original review authors or a different group of authors update the review (Ip et al 2012). Standardizing and sharing data collection tools as well as data management systems among review authors working in similar topic areas can streamline systematic review production. Review authors have the opportunity to work with trialists, journal editors, funders, regulators, and other stakeholders to make study data (e.g. CSRs, IPD, and any other form of study data) publicly available, increasing the transparency of research. When legal and ethical to do so, we encourage review authors to share the data used in their systematic reviews to reduce waste and to allow verification and reanalysis because data will not have to be extracted again for future use (Mayo-Wilson et al 2018).

5.8 Chapter information

Editors: Tianjing Li, Julian PT Higgins, Jonathan J Deeks

Acknowledgements: This chapter builds on earlier versions of the Handbook . For details of previous authors and editors of the Handbook , see Preface. Andrew Herxheimer, Nicki Jackson, Yoon Loke, Deirdre Price and Helen Thomas contributed text. Stephanie Taylor and Sonja Hood contributed suggestions for designing data collection forms. We are grateful to Judith Anzures, Mike Clarke, Miranda Cumpston and Peter Gøtzsche for helpful comments.

Funding: JPTH is a member of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. JJD received support from the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham. JPTH received funding from National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator award NF-SI-0617-10145. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

5.9 References

Al-Marzouki S, Evans S, Marshall T, Roberts I. Are these data real? Statistical methods for the detection of data fabrication in clinical trials. BMJ 2005; 331 : 267-270.

Allen EN, Mushi AK, Massawe IS, Vestergaard LS, Lemnge M, Staedke SG, Mehta U, Barnes KI, Chandler CI. How experiences become data: the process of eliciting adverse event, medical history and concomitant medication reports in antimalarial and antiretroviral interaction trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2013; 13 : 140.

Baudard M, Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Perrodeau E, Boutron I. Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ 2017; 356 : j448.

Bent S, Padula A, Avins AL. Better ways to question patients about adverse medical events: a randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 2006; 144 : 257-261.

Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Lancet 1997; 350 : 185-186.

Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59 : 697-703.

Carlisle JB, Dexter F, Pandit JJ, Shafer SL, Yentis SM. Calculating the probability of random sampling for continuous variables in submitted or published randomised controlled trials. Anaesthesia 2015; 70 : 848-858.

Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, Booth A, Rick J, Balain S. A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science 2007; 2 : 40.

Carvajal A, Ortega PG, Sainz M, Velasco V, Salado I, Arias LHM, Eiros JM, Rubio AP, Castrodeza J. Adverse events associated with pandemic influenza vaccines: Comparison of the results of a follow-up study with those coming from spontaneous reporting. Vaccine 2011; 29 : 519-522.

Chamberlain C, O'Mara-Eves A, Porter J, Coleman T, Perlen SM, Thomas J, McKenzie JE. Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017; 2 : CD001055.

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science 2009; 4 : 50.

Davis AL, Miller JD. The European Medicines Agency and publication of clinical study reports: a challenge for the US FDA. JAMA 2017; 317 : 905-906.

Denniston AK, Holland GN, Kidess A, Nussenblatt RB, Okada AA, Rosenbaum JT, Dick AD. Heterogeneity of primary outcome measures used in clinical trials of treatments for intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 2015; 10 : 97.

Derry S, Loke YK. Risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage with long term use of aspirin: meta-analysis. BMJ 2000; 321 : 1183-1187.

Doshi P, Dickersin K, Healy D, Vedula SS, Jefferson T. Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings. BMJ 2013; 346 : f2865.

Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Falco M, Hansen WB. A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research 2003; 18 : 237-256.

Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, Gamble C, Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Medicine 2014; 11 : e1001666.

Elia N, von Elm E, Chatagner A, Popping DM, Tramèr MR. How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors. BMJ Open 2016; 6 : e010442.

Gøtzsche PC. Multiple publication of reports of drug trials. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1989; 36 : 429-432.

Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Maric K, Tendal B. Data extraction errors in meta-analyses that use standardized mean differences. JAMA 2007; 298 : 430-437.

Gross A, Schirm S, Scholz M. Ycasd - a tool for capturing and scaling data from graphical representations. BMC Bioinformatics 2014; 15 : 219.

Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, Altman DG, Barbour V, Macdonald H, Johnston M, Lamb SE, Dixon-Woods M, McCulloch P, Wyatt JC, Chan AW, Michie S. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014; 348 : g1687.

ICH. ICH Harmonised tripartite guideline: Struture and content of clinical study reports E31995. ICH1995. www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E3/E3_Guideline.pdf .

Ioannidis JPA, Mulrow CD, Goodman SN. Adverse events: The more you search, the more you find. Annals of Internal Medicine 2006; 144 : 298-300.

Ip S, Hadar N, Keefe S, Parkin C, Iovin R, Balk EM, Lau J. A web-based archive of systematic review data. Systematic Reviews 2012; 1 : 15.

Ismail R, Azuara-Blanco A, Ramsay CR. Variation of clinical outcomes used in glaucoma randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2014; 98 : 464-468.

Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay H. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials 1996; 17 : 1-12.

Jelicic Kadic A, Vucic K, Dosenovic S, Sapunar D, Puljak L. Extracting data from figures with software was faster, with higher interrater reliability than manual extraction. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2016; 74 : 119-123.

Jones AP, Remmington T, Williamson PR, Ashby D, Smyth RL. High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005; 58 : 741-742.

Jones CW, Keil LG, Holland WC, Caughey MC, Platts-Mills TF. Comparison of registered and published outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. BMC Medicine 2015; 13 : 282.

Jonnalagadda SR, Goyal P, Huffman MD. Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: a systematic review. Systematic Reviews 2015; 4 : 78.

Lewin S, Hendry M, Chandler J, Oxman AD, Michie S, Shepperd S, Reeves BC, Tugwell P, Hannes K, Rehfuess EA, Welch V, McKenzie JE, Burford B, Petkovic J, Anderson LM, Harris J, Noyes J. Assessing the complexity of interventions within systematic reviews: development, content and use of a new tool (iCAT_SR). BMC Medical Research Methodology 2017; 17 : 76.

Li G, Abbade LPF, Nwosu I, Jin Y, Leenus A, Maaz M, Wang M, Bhatt M, Zielinski L, Sanger N, Bantoto B, Luo C, Shams I, Shahid H, Chang Y, Sun G, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, Levine MAH, Adachi JD, Thabane L. A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2017; 17 : 181.

Li TJ, Vedula SS, Hadar N, Parkin C, Lau J, Dickersin K. Innovations in data collection, management, and archiving for systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine 2015; 162 : 287-294.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 2009; 6 : e1000100.

Liu ZM, Saldanha IJ, Margolis D, Dumville JC, Cullum NA. Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews related to wound care: an investigation into prespecification. Wound Repair and Regeneration 2017; 25 : 292-308.

Marshall IJ, Kuiper J, Wallace BC. RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2016; 23 : 193-201.

Mayo-Wilson E, Doshi P, Dickersin K. Are manufacturers sharing data as promised? BMJ 2015; 351 : h4169.

Mayo-Wilson E, Li TJ, Fusco N, Bertizzolo L, Canner JK, Cowley T, Doshi P, Ehmsen J, Gresham G, Guo N, Haythomthwaite JA, Heyward J, Hong H, Pham D, Payne JL, Rosman L, Stuart EA, Suarez-Cuervo C, Tolbert E, Twose C, Vedula S, Dickersin K. Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2017a; 91 : 95-110.

Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li TJ, Hong H, Canner JK, Dickersin K, MUDS Investigators. Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2017b; 86 : 39-50.

Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Dickersin K. Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study). Research Synthesis Methods 2018; 9 : 2-12.

Meade MO, Richardson WS. Selecting and appraising studies for a systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997; 127 : 531-537.

Meinert CL. Clinical trials dictionary: Terminology and usage recommendations . Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2012.

Millard LAC, Flach PA, Higgins JPT. Machine learning to assist risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews. International Journal of Epidemiology 2016; 45 : 266-277.

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001; 357 : 1191-1194.

Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340 : c869.

Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O'Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2015; 350 : h1258.

Orwin RG. Evaluating coding decisions. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The Handbook of Research Synthesis . New York (NY): Russell Sage Foundation; 1994. p. 139-162.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer S, Green S, Forbes A. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014; 10 : MR000035.

Ross JS, Mulvey GK, Hines EM, Nissen SE, Krumholz HM. Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Medicine 2009; 6 .

Safer DJ. Design and reporting modifications in industry-sponsored comparative psychopharmacology trials. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 2002; 190 : 583-592.

Saldanha IJ, Dickersin K, Wang X, Li TJ. Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews addressing four common eye conditions: an evaluation of completeness and comparability. PloS One 2014; 9 : e109400.

Saldanha IJ, Li T, Yang C, Ugarte-Gil C, Rutherford GW, Dickersin K. Social network analysis identified central outcomes for core outcome sets using systematic reviews of HIV/AIDS. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2016; 70 : 164-175.

Saldanha IJ, Lindsley K, Do DV, Chuck RS, Meyerle C, Jones LS, Coleman AL, Jampel HD, Dickersin K, Virgili G. Comparison of clinical trial and systematic review outcomes for the 4 most prevalent eye diseases. JAMA Ophthalmology 2017a; 135 : 933-940.

Saldanha IJ, Li TJ, Yang C, Owczarzak J, Williamson PR, Dickersin K. Clinical trials and systematic reviews addressing similar interventions for the same condition do not consider similar outcomes to be important: a case study in HIV/AIDS. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2017b; 84 : 85-94.

Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, Riley RD, Simmonds M, Stewart G, Tierney JF, PRISMA-IPD Development Group. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD statement. JAMA 2015; 313 : 1657-1665.

Stock WA. Systematic coding for research synthesis. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The Handbook of Research Synthesis . New York (NY): Russell Sage Foundation; 1994. p. 125-138.

Tramèr MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ 1997; 315 : 635-640.

Turner EH. How to access and process FDA drug approval packages for use in research. BMJ 2013; 347 .

von Elm E, Poglia G, Walder B, Tramèr MR. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA 2004; 291 : 974-980.

Wager E. Coping with scientific misconduct. BMJ 2011; 343 : d6586.

Wieland LS, Rutkow L, Vedula SS, Kaufmann CN, Rosman LM, Twose C, Mahendraratnam N, Dickersin K. Who has used internal company documents for biomedical and public health research and where did they find them? PloS One 2014; 9 .

Zanchetti A, Hansson L. Risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with aspirin (Authors' reply). Lancet 1999; 353 : 149-150.

Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database: update and key issues. New England Journal of Medicine 2011; 364 : 852-860.

Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, Oxman AD, Moher D. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008; 337 : a2390.

For permission to re-use material from the Handbook (either academic or commercial), please see here for full details.

Data Collection, Analysis, and Interpretation

• First Online: 03 January 2022

Cite this chapter

• Mark F. McEntee 5  

477 Accesses

Often it has been said that proper prior preparation prevents performance. Many of the mistakes made in research have their origins back at the point of data collection. Perhaps it is natural human instinct not to plan; we learn from our experiences. However, it is crucial when it comes to the endeavours of science that we do plan our data collection with analysis and interpretation in mind. In this section on data collection, we will review some fundamental concepts of experimental design, sample size estimation, the assumptions that underlie most statistical processes, and ethical principles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Al-Murshedi, S., Hogg, P., & England, A. (2018). An investigation into the validity of utilising the CDRAD 2.0 phantom for optimisation studies in digital radiography. The British Journal of Radiology . British Institute of Radiology , 91 (1089), 4. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20180317

Article   Google Scholar  

Alhailiy, A. B., et al. (2019). The associated factors for radiation dose variation in cardiac CT angiography. The British Journal of Radiology . British Institute of Radiology , 92 (1096), 20180793. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20180793

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Armato, S. G., et al. (2011). The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) and Image Database Resource Initiative (IDRI): A completed reference database of lung nodules on CT scans. Medical Physics . John Wiley and Sons Ltd , 38 (2), 915–931. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3528204

Avison, D. E., et al. (1999). Action research. Communications of the ACM . Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) , 42 (1), 94–97. https://doi.org/10.1145/291469.291479

Båth, M., & Månsson, L. G. (2007). Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: A non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. British Journal of Radiology, 80 (951), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/35012658

Chakraborty, D. P. (2017). Observer performance methods for diagnostic imaging . CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351228190

Book   Google Scholar  

Couper, M. P., Traugott, M. W., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web survey design and administration. Public Opinion Quarterly . Oxford Academic , 65 (2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1086/322199

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

European Commission European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images EUR 16260 EN. (1995).

Google Scholar  

Fähling, M., et al. (2017). Understanding and preventing contrast-induced acute kidney injury. Nature Reviews Nephrology . Nature Publishing Group, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneph.2016.196

Faucon, A. L., Bobrie, G., & Clément, O. (2019). Nephrotoxicity of iodinated contrast media: From pathophysiology to prevention strategies. European Journal of Radiology . Elsevier Ireland Ltd, 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.03.008

Fisher, M. J., & Marshall, A. P. (2009). Understanding descriptive statistics. Australian Critical Care . Elsevier , 22 (2), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2008.11.003

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fryback, D. G., & Thornbury, J. R. (1991). The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Medical Decision Making . Sage PublicationsSage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA , 11 (2), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9101100203

Ganesan, A., et al. (2018). A review of factors influencing radiologists’ visual search behaviour. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology . Blackwell Publishing , 62 (6), 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12798

Gilligan, L. A., et al. (2020). Risk of acute kidney injury following contrast-enhanced CT in hospitalized pediatric patients: A propensity score analysis. Radiology . Radiological Society of North America Inc. , 294 (3), 548–556. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020191931

Good, P. I., & Hardin, J. W. (2012). Common errors in statistics (and how to avoid them): Fourth edition . Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118360125

Gusterson, H. (2008). Ethnographic research. In Qualitative methods in international relations (pp. 93–113). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230584129_7

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hansson, J., Månsson, L. G., & Båth, M. (2016). The validity of using ROC software for analysing visual grading characteristics data: An investigation based on the novel software VGC analyzer. Radiation Protection Dosimetry . Oxford University Press , 169 (1–4), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncw035

Home - LUNA16 - Grand Challenge. (n.d.). Available at: https://luna16.grand-challenge.org/ . Accessed 25 Mar 2021.

Huda, W., et al. (1997). Comparison of a photostimulable phosphor system with film for dental radiology. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics . Mosby Inc. , 83 (6), 725–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(97)90327-9

Iarossi, G. (2006). The power of survey design: A user’s guide for managing surveys, interpreting results, and influencing respondents . Available at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=E-8XHVsqoeUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=survey+design&ots=fADK9Aznuk&sig=G5DiPgYM18VcoZ-PF05kT7G0OGI . Accessed 21 Mar 2021.

Jang, J. S., et al. (2018). Image quality assessment with dose reduction using high kVp and additional filtration for abdominal digital radiography. Physica Medica . Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica , 50 , 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.05.007

Jessen, K. A. (2004). Balancing image quality and dose in diagnostic radiology. European Radiology, Supplement . Springer , 14 (1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10406-004-0003-7

King, N., Horrocks, C., & Brooks, J. (2018). Interviews in qualitative research . Available at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZdB2DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=interviews+in+research&ots=hwRx2cwH3W&sig=_gt8y-4GlHSCnTQAhLfynA3C17E . Accessed: 21 Mar 2021.

Krul, A. J., Daanen, H. A. M., & Choi, H. (2011). Self-reported and measured weight, height and body mass index (BMI) in Italy, the Netherlands and North America. The European Journal of Public Health . Oxford Academic , 21 (4), 414–419. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckp228

Kundel, H. L. (1979). Images, image quality and observer performance. New horizons in radiology lecture. Radiology, 132 (2), 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1148/132.2.265

Makary, M. A., & Daniel, M. (2016). Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ (Online) . BMJ Publishing Group , 353 . https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2139

Martin, C. J., Sharp, P. F., & Sutton, D. G. (1999). Measurement of image quality in diagnostic radiology. Applied Radiation and Isotopes . Elsevier Sci Ltd , 50 (1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-8043(98)00022-0

Mathematical methods of statistics / by Harald Cramer | National Library of Australia (n.d.). Available at: https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/81100 . Accessed: 22 Mar 2021.

McCollough, C. H., & Schueler, B. A. (2000). Calculation of effective dose. Medical Physics . John Wiley and Sons Ltd , 27 (5), 828–837. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598948

Meissner, H., et al. (n.d.). Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences_the_nature_and_design_of_mixed_methods_research .

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology . Annual Reviews Inc. , 22 , 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129

Moses, L. E., Shapiro, D., & Littenberg, B. (1993). Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary roc curve: Data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Statistics in Medicine . John Wiley & Sons, Ltd , 12 (14), 1293–1316. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780121403

Neill Howell 2008 Inferential Statistical Decision Tree – StuDocu . (n.d.). Available at: https://www.studocu.com/en-gb/document/university-of-hertfordshire/using-data-to-address-research-questions/summaries/neill-howell-2008-inferential-statistical-decision-tree/1193346/view . Accessed: 23 Mar 2021.

Neuendorf, K. A., & Kumar, A. (2016). Content analysis. In The international encyclopedia of political communication (pp. 1–10). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc065

Nguyen, P. K., et al. (2015). Assessment of the radiation effects of cardiac CT angiography using protein and genetic biomarkers. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging . Elsevier Inc. , 8 (8), 873–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.04.016

Noordzij, M., et al. (2010). Sample size calculations: Basic principles and common pitfalls. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation . Oxford University Press, , 25 (5), 1388–1393. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfp732

Pisano, E. D., et al. (2005). Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. New England Journal of Medicine . Massachusetts Medical Society , 353 (17), 1773–1783. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052911

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

ROC curve analysis with MedCalc. (n.d.). Available at: https://www.medcalc.org/manual/roc-curves.php . Accessed 30 Mar 2021.

Rudolfer, S. M. (2003). ZHOU, X.-H., OBUCHOWSKI, N. A. and MCCLISH, D. K. statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. Wiley, New York, 2002. xv + 437 pp. $94.95/£70.50. ISBN 0-471-34772-8. Biometrics . Wiley-Blackwell , 59 (1), 203–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0420.00266

Sudheesh, K., Duggappa, D. R., & Nethra, S. S. (2016). How to write a research proposal? Indian Journal of Anaesthesia . https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.190617

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Mark F. McEntee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark F. McEntee .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Medical Imaging, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Burnaby, BC, Canada

Euclid Seeram

Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Robert Davidson

Brookfield Health Sciences, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Andrew England

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

McEntee, M.F. (2021). Data Collection, Analysis, and Interpretation. In: Seeram, E., Davidson, R., England, A., McEntee, M.F. (eds) Research for Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79956-4_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79956-4_6

Published : 03 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-79955-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-79956-4

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Table of Contents

What is data collection, why do we need data collection, what are the different data collection methods, data collection tools, the importance of ensuring accurate and appropriate data collection, issues related to maintaining the integrity of data collection, what are common challenges in data collection, what are the key steps in the data collection process, data collection considerations and best practices, choose the right data science program, are you interested in a career in data science, what is data collection: methods, types, tools.

The process of gathering and analyzing accurate data from various sources to find answers to research problems, trends and probabilities, etc., to evaluate possible outcomes is Known as Data Collection. Knowledge is power, information is knowledge, and data is information in digitized form, at least as defined in IT. Hence, data is power. But before you can leverage that data into a successful strategy for your organization or business, you need to gather it. That’s your first step.

So, to help you get the process started, we shine a spotlight on data collection. What exactly is it? Believe it or not, it’s more than just doing a Google search! Furthermore, what are the different types of data collection? And what kinds of data collection tools and data collection techniques exist?

If you want to get up to speed about what is data collection process, you’ve come to the right place. 

Transform raw data into captivating visuals with Simplilearn's hands-on Data Visualization Courses and captivate your audience. Also, master the art of data management with Simplilearn's comprehensive data management courses  - unlock new career opportunities today!

Data collection is the process of collecting and evaluating information or data from multiple sources to find answers to research problems, answer questions, evaluate outcomes, and forecast trends and probabilities. It is an essential phase in all types of research, analysis, and decision-making, including that done in the social sciences, business, and healthcare.

Accurate data collection is necessary to make informed business decisions, ensure quality assurance, and keep research integrity.

During data collection, the researchers must identify the data types, the sources of data, and what methods are being used. We will soon see that there are many different data collection methods . There is heavy reliance on data collection in research, commercial, and government fields.

Before an analyst begins collecting data, they must answer three questions first:

• What’s the goal or purpose of this research?
• What kinds of data are they planning on gathering?
• What methods and procedures will be used to collect, store, and process the information?

Additionally, we can break up data into qualitative and quantitative types. Qualitative data covers descriptions such as color, size, quality, and appearance. Quantitative data, unsurprisingly, deals with numbers, such as statistics, poll numbers, percentages, etc.

Before a judge makes a ruling in a court case or a general creates a plan of attack, they must have as many relevant facts as possible. The best courses of action come from informed decisions, and information and data are synonymous.

The concept of data collection isn’t a new one, as we’ll see later, but the world has changed. There is far more data available today, and it exists in forms that were unheard of a century ago. The data collection process has had to change and grow with the times, keeping pace with technology.

Whether you’re in the world of academia, trying to conduct research, or part of the commercial sector, thinking of how to promote a new product, you need data collection to help you make better choices.

Now that you know what is data collection and why we need it, let's take a look at the different methods of data collection. While the phrase “data collection” may sound all high-tech and digital, it doesn’t necessarily entail things like computers, big data , and the internet. Data collection could mean a telephone survey, a mail-in comment card, or even some guy with a clipboard asking passersby some questions. But let’s see if we can sort the different data collection methods into a semblance of organized categories.

Primary and secondary methods of data collection are two approaches used to gather information for research or analysis purposes. Let's explore each data collection method in detail:

1. Primary Data Collection:

Primary data collection involves the collection of original data directly from the source or through direct interaction with the respondents. This method allows researchers to obtain firsthand information specifically tailored to their research objectives. There are various techniques for primary data collection, including:

a. Surveys and Questionnaires: Researchers design structured questionnaires or surveys to collect data from individuals or groups. These can be conducted through face-to-face interviews, telephone calls, mail, or online platforms.

b. Interviews: Interviews involve direct interaction between the researcher and the respondent. They can be conducted in person, over the phone, or through video conferencing. Interviews can be structured (with predefined questions), semi-structured (allowing flexibility), or unstructured (more conversational).

c. Observations: Researchers observe and record behaviors, actions, or events in their natural setting. This method is useful for gathering data on human behavior, interactions, or phenomena without direct intervention.

d. Experiments: Experimental studies involve the manipulation of variables to observe their impact on the outcome. Researchers control the conditions and collect data to draw conclusions about cause-and-effect relationships.

e. Focus Groups: Focus groups bring together a small group of individuals who discuss specific topics in a moderated setting. This method helps in understanding opinions, perceptions, and experiences shared by the participants.

2. Secondary Data Collection:

Secondary data collection involves using existing data collected by someone else for a purpose different from the original intent. Researchers analyze and interpret this data to extract relevant information. Secondary data can be obtained from various sources, including:

a. Published Sources: Researchers refer to books, academic journals, magazines, newspapers, government reports, and other published materials that contain relevant data.

b. Online Databases: Numerous online databases provide access to a wide range of secondary data, such as research articles, statistical information, economic data, and social surveys.

c. Government and Institutional Records: Government agencies, research institutions, and organizations often maintain databases or records that can be used for research purposes.

d. Publicly Available Data: Data shared by individuals, organizations, or communities on public platforms, websites, or social media can be accessed and utilized for research.

e. Past Research Studies: Previous research studies and their findings can serve as valuable secondary data sources. Researchers can review and analyze the data to gain insights or build upon existing knowledge.

Now that we’ve explained the various techniques, let’s narrow our focus even further by looking at some specific tools. For example, we mentioned interviews as a technique, but we can further break that down into different interview types (or “tools”).

Word Association

The researcher gives the respondent a set of words and asks them what comes to mind when they hear each word.

Sentence Completion

Researchers use sentence completion to understand what kind of ideas the respondent has. This tool involves giving an incomplete sentence and seeing how the interviewee finishes it.

Role-Playing

Respondents are presented with an imaginary situation and asked how they would act or react if it was real.

In-Person Surveys

The researcher asks questions in person.

Online/Web Surveys

These surveys are easy to accomplish, but some users may be unwilling to answer truthfully, if at all.

Mobile Surveys

These surveys take advantage of the increasing proliferation of mobile technology. Mobile collection surveys rely on mobile devices like tablets or smartphones to conduct surveys via SMS or mobile apps.

Phone Surveys

No researcher can call thousands of people at once, so they need a third party to handle the chore. However, many people have call screening and won’t answer.

Observation

Sometimes, the simplest method is the best. Researchers who make direct observations collect data quickly and easily, with little intrusion or third-party bias. Naturally, it’s only effective in small-scale situations.

Accurate data collecting is crucial to preserving the integrity of research, regardless of the subject of study or preferred method for defining data (quantitative, qualitative). Errors are less likely to occur when the right data gathering tools are used (whether they are brand-new ones, updated versions of them, or already available).

Among the effects of data collection done incorrectly, include the following -

• Erroneous conclusions that squander resources
• Decisions that compromise public policy
• Incapacity to correctly respond to research inquiries
• Bringing harm to participants who are humans or animals
• Deceiving other researchers into pursuing futile research avenues
• The study's inability to be replicated and validated

When these study findings are used to support recommendations for public policy, there is the potential to result in disproportionate harm, even if the degree of influence from flawed data collecting may vary by discipline and the type of investigation.

Let us now look at the various issues that we might face while maintaining the integrity of data collection.

In order to assist the errors detection process in the data gathering process, whether they were done purposefully (deliberate falsifications) or not, maintaining data integrity is the main justification (systematic or random errors).

Quality assurance and quality control are two strategies that help protect data integrity and guarantee the scientific validity of study results.

Each strategy is used at various stages of the research timeline:

• Quality control - tasks that are performed both after and during data collecting
• Quality assurance - events that happen before data gathering starts

Let us explore each of them in more detail now.

Quality Assurance

As data collecting comes before quality assurance, its primary goal is "prevention" (i.e., forestalling problems with data collection). The best way to protect the accuracy of data collection is through prevention. The uniformity of protocol created in the thorough and exhaustive procedures manual for data collecting serves as the best example of this proactive step. 

The likelihood of failing to spot issues and mistakes early in the research attempt increases when guides are written poorly. There are several ways to show these shortcomings:

• Failure to determine the precise subjects and methods for retraining or training staff employees in data collecting
• List of goods to be collected, in part
• There isn't a system in place to track modifications to processes that may occur as the investigation continues.
• Instead of detailed, step-by-step instructions on how to deliver tests, there is a vague description of the data gathering tools that will be employed.
• Uncertainty regarding the date, procedure, and identity of the person or people in charge of examining the data
• Incomprehensible guidelines for using, adjusting, and calibrating the data collection equipment.

Now, let us look at how to ensure Quality Control.

Become a Data Scientist With Real-World Experience

Quality Control

Despite the fact that quality control actions (detection/monitoring and intervention) take place both after and during data collection, the specifics should be meticulously detailed in the procedures manual. Establishing monitoring systems requires a specific communication structure, which is a prerequisite. Following the discovery of data collection problems, there should be no ambiguity regarding the information flow between the primary investigators and staff personnel. A poorly designed communication system promotes slack oversight and reduces opportunities for error detection.

Direct staff observation conference calls, during site visits, or frequent or routine assessments of data reports to spot discrepancies, excessive numbers, or invalid codes can all be used as forms of detection or monitoring. Site visits might not be appropriate for all disciplines. Still, without routine auditing of records, whether qualitative or quantitative, it will be challenging for investigators to confirm that data gathering is taking place in accordance with the manual's defined methods. Additionally, quality control determines the appropriate solutions, or "actions," to fix flawed data gathering procedures and reduce recurrences.

Problems with data collection, for instance, that call for immediate action include:

• Fraud or misbehavior
• Systematic mistakes, procedure violations 
• Individual data items with errors
• Issues with certain staff members or a site's performance 

Researchers are trained to include one or more secondary measures that can be used to verify the quality of information being obtained from the human subject in the social and behavioral sciences where primary data collection entails using human subjects. 

For instance, a researcher conducting a survey would be interested in learning more about the prevalence of risky behaviors among young adults as well as the social factors that influence these risky behaviors' propensity for and frequency. Let us now explore the common challenges with regard to data collection.

There are some prevalent challenges faced while collecting data, let us explore a few of them to understand them better and avoid them.

Data Quality Issues

The main threat to the broad and successful application of machine learning is poor data quality. Data quality must be your top priority if you want to make technologies like machine learning work for you. Let's talk about some of the most prevalent data quality problems in this blog article and how to fix them.

Inconsistent Data

When working with various data sources, it's conceivable that the same information will have discrepancies between sources. The differences could be in formats, units, or occasionally spellings. The introduction of inconsistent data might also occur during firm mergers or relocations. Inconsistencies in data have a tendency to accumulate and reduce the value of data if they are not continually resolved. Organizations that have heavily focused on data consistency do so because they only want reliable data to support their analytics.

Data Downtime

Data is the driving force behind the decisions and operations of data-driven businesses. However, there may be brief periods when their data is unreliable or not prepared. Customer complaints and subpar analytical outcomes are only two ways that this data unavailability can have a significant impact on businesses. A data engineer spends about 80% of their time updating, maintaining, and guaranteeing the integrity of the data pipeline. In order to ask the next business question, there is a high marginal cost due to the lengthy operational lead time from data capture to insight.

Schema modifications and migration problems are just two examples of the causes of data downtime. Data pipelines can be difficult due to their size and complexity. Data downtime must be continuously monitored, and it must be reduced through automation.

Ambiguous Data

Even with thorough oversight, some errors can still occur in massive databases or data lakes. For data streaming at a fast speed, the issue becomes more overwhelming. Spelling mistakes can go unnoticed, formatting difficulties can occur, and column heads might be deceptive. This unclear data might cause a number of problems for reporting and analytics.

Become a Data Science Expert & Get Your Dream Job

Duplicate Data

Streaming data, local databases, and cloud data lakes are just a few of the sources of data that modern enterprises must contend with. They might also have application and system silos. These sources are likely to duplicate and overlap each other quite a bit. For instance, duplicate contact information has a substantial impact on customer experience. If certain prospects are ignored while others are engaged repeatedly, marketing campaigns suffer. The likelihood of biased analytical outcomes increases when duplicate data are present. It can also result in ML models with biased training data.

Too Much Data

While we emphasize data-driven analytics and its advantages, a data quality problem with excessive data exists. There is a risk of getting lost in an abundance of data when searching for information pertinent to your analytical efforts. Data scientists, data analysts, and business users devote 80% of their work to finding and organizing the appropriate data. With an increase in data volume, other problems with data quality become more serious, particularly when dealing with streaming data and big files or databases.

Inaccurate Data

For highly regulated businesses like healthcare, data accuracy is crucial. Given the current experience, it is more important than ever to increase the data quality for COVID-19 and later pandemics. Inaccurate information does not provide you with a true picture of the situation and cannot be used to plan the best course of action. Personalized customer experiences and marketing strategies underperform if your customer data is inaccurate.

Data inaccuracies can be attributed to a number of things, including data degradation, human mistake, and data drift. Worldwide data decay occurs at a rate of about 3% per month, which is quite concerning. Data integrity can be compromised while being transferred between different systems, and data quality might deteriorate with time.

Hidden Data

The majority of businesses only utilize a portion of their data, with the remainder sometimes being lost in data silos or discarded in data graveyards. For instance, the customer service team might not receive client data from sales, missing an opportunity to build more precise and comprehensive customer profiles. Missing out on possibilities to develop novel products, enhance services, and streamline procedures is caused by hidden data.

Finding Relevant Data

Finding relevant data is not so easy. There are several factors that we need to consider while trying to find relevant data, which include -

• Relevant Domain
• Relevant demographics
• Relevant Time period and so many more factors that we need to consider while trying to find relevant data.

Data that is not relevant to our study in any of the factors render it obsolete and we cannot effectively proceed with its analysis. This could lead to incomplete research or analysis, re-collecting data again and again, or shutting down the study.

Deciding the Data to Collect

Determining what data to collect is one of the most important factors while collecting data and should be one of the first factors while collecting data. We must choose the subjects the data will cover, the sources we will be used to gather it, and the quantity of information we will require. Our responses to these queries will depend on our aims, or what we expect to achieve utilizing your data. As an illustration, we may choose to gather information on the categories of articles that website visitors between the ages of 20 and 50 most frequently access. We can also decide to compile data on the typical age of all the clients who made a purchase from your business over the previous month.

Not addressing this could lead to double work and collection of irrelevant data or ruining your study as a whole.

Dealing With Big Data

Big data refers to exceedingly massive data sets with more intricate and diversified structures. These traits typically result in increased challenges while storing, analyzing, and using additional methods of extracting results. Big data refers especially to data sets that are quite enormous or intricate that conventional data processing tools are insufficient. The overwhelming amount of data, both unstructured and structured, that a business faces on a daily basis. 

The amount of data produced by healthcare applications, the internet, social networking sites social, sensor networks, and many other businesses are rapidly growing as a result of recent technological advancements. Big data refers to the vast volume of data created from numerous sources in a variety of formats at extremely fast rates. Dealing with this kind of data is one of the many challenges of Data Collection and is a crucial step toward collecting effective data. 

Low Response and Other Research Issues

Poor design and low response rates were shown to be two issues with data collecting, particularly in health surveys that used questionnaires. This might lead to an insufficient or inadequate supply of data for the study. Creating an incentivized data collection program might be beneficial in this case to get more responses.

Now, let us look at the key steps in the data collection process.

In the Data Collection Process, there are 5 key steps. They are explained briefly below -

1. Decide What Data You Want to Gather

The first thing that we need to do is decide what information we want to gather. We must choose the subjects the data will cover, the sources we will use to gather it, and the quantity of information that we would require. For instance, we may choose to gather information on the categories of products that an average e-commerce website visitor between the ages of 30 and 45 most frequently searches for. 

2. Establish a Deadline for Data Collection

The process of creating a strategy for data collection can now begin. We should set a deadline for our data collection at the outset of our planning phase. Some forms of data we might want to continuously collect. We might want to build up a technique for tracking transactional data and website visitor statistics over the long term, for instance. However, we will track the data throughout a certain time frame if we are tracking it for a particular campaign. In these situations, we will have a schedule for when we will begin and finish gathering data. 

3. Select a Data Collection Approach

We will select the data collection technique that will serve as the foundation of our data gathering plan at this stage. We must take into account the type of information that we wish to gather, the time period during which we will receive it, and the other factors we decide on to choose the best gathering strategy.

4. Gather Information

Once our plan is complete, we can put our data collection plan into action and begin gathering data. In our DMP, we can store and arrange our data. We need to be careful to follow our plan and keep an eye on how it's doing. Especially if we are collecting data regularly, setting up a timetable for when we will be checking in on how our data gathering is going may be helpful. As circumstances alter and we learn new details, we might need to amend our plan.

5. Examine the Information and Apply Your Findings

It's time to examine our data and arrange our findings after we have gathered all of our information. The analysis stage is essential because it transforms unprocessed data into insightful knowledge that can be applied to better our marketing plans, goods, and business judgments. The analytics tools included in our DMP can be used to assist with this phase. We can put the discoveries to use to enhance our business once we have discovered the patterns and insights in our data.

Let us now look at some data collection considerations and best practices that one might follow.

We must carefully plan before spending time and money traveling to the field to gather data. While saving time and resources, effective data collection strategies can help us collect richer, more accurate, and richer data.

Below, we will be discussing some of the best practices that we can follow for the best results -

1. Take Into Account the Price of Each Extra Data Point

Once we have decided on the data we want to gather, we need to make sure to take the expense of doing so into account. Our surveyors and respondents will incur additional costs for each additional data point or survey question.

2. Plan How to Gather Each Data Piece

There is a dearth of freely accessible data. Sometimes the data is there, but we may not have access to it. For instance, unless we have a compelling cause, we cannot openly view another person's medical information. It could be challenging to measure several types of information.

Consider how time-consuming and difficult it will be to gather each piece of information while deciding what data to acquire.

3. Think About Your Choices for Data Collecting Using Mobile Devices

Mobile-based data collecting can be divided into three categories -

• IVRS (interactive voice response technology) -  Will call the respondents and ask them questions that have already been recorded. 
• SMS data collection - Will send a text message to the respondent, who can then respond to questions by text on their phone. 
• Field surveyors - Can directly enter data into an interactive questionnaire while speaking to each respondent, thanks to smartphone apps.

We need to make sure to select the appropriate tool for our survey and responders because each one has its own disadvantages and advantages.

4. Carefully Consider the Data You Need to Gather

It's all too easy to get information about anything and everything, but it's crucial to only gather the information that we require. 

It is helpful to consider these 3 questions:

• What details will be helpful?
• What details are available?
• What specific details do you require?

5. Remember to Consider Identifiers

Identifiers, or details describing the context and source of a survey response, are just as crucial as the information about the subject or program that we are actually researching.

In general, adding more identifiers will enable us to pinpoint our program's successes and failures with greater accuracy, but moderation is the key.

6. Data Collecting Through Mobile Devices is the Way to Go

Although collecting data on paper is still common, modern technology relies heavily on mobile devices. They enable us to gather many various types of data at relatively lower prices and are accurate as well as quick. There aren't many reasons not to pick mobile-based data collecting with the boom of low-cost Android devices that are available nowadays.

The Ultimate Ticket to Top Data Science Job Roles

1. What is data collection with example?

Data collection is the process of collecting and analyzing information on relevant variables in a predetermined, methodical way so that one can respond to specific research questions, test hypotheses, and assess results. Data collection can be either qualitative or quantitative. Example: A company collects customer feedback through online surveys and social media monitoring to improve their products and services.

2. What are the primary data collection methods?

As is well known, gathering primary data is costly and time intensive. The main techniques for gathering data are observation, interviews, questionnaires, schedules, and surveys.

3. What are data collection tools?

The term "data collecting tools" refers to the tools/devices used to gather data, such as a paper questionnaire or a system for computer-assisted interviews. Tools used to gather data include case studies, checklists, interviews, occasionally observation, surveys, and questionnaires.

4. What’s the difference between quantitative and qualitative methods?

While qualitative research focuses on words and meanings, quantitative research deals with figures and statistics. You can systematically measure variables and test hypotheses using quantitative methods. You can delve deeper into ideas and experiences using qualitative methodologies.

5. What are quantitative data collection methods?

While there are numerous other ways to get quantitative information, the methods indicated above—probability sampling, interviews, questionnaire observation, and document review—are the most typical and frequently employed, whether collecting information offline or online.

6. What is mixed methods research?

User research that includes both qualitative and quantitative techniques is known as mixed methods research. For deeper user insights, mixed methods research combines insightful user data with useful statistics.

7. What are the benefits of collecting data?

Collecting data offers several benefits, including:

• Knowledge and Insight
• Evidence-Based Decision Making
• Problem Identification and Solution
• Validation and Evaluation
• Identifying Trends and Predictions
• Support for Research and Development
• Policy Development
• Quality Improvement
• Personalization and Targeting
• Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration

8. What’s the difference between reliability and validity?

Reliability is about consistency and stability, while validity is about accuracy and appropriateness. Reliability focuses on the consistency of results, while validity focuses on whether the results are actually measuring what they are intended to measure. Both reliability and validity are crucial considerations in research to ensure the trustworthiness and meaningfulness of the collected data and measurements.

Are you thinking about pursuing a career in the field of data science? Simplilearn's Data Science courses are designed to provide you with the necessary skills and expertise to excel in this rapidly changing field. Here's a detailed comparison for your reference:

Program Name Data Scientist Master's Program Post Graduate Program In Data Science Post Graduate Program In Data Science Geo All Geos All Geos Not Applicable in US University Simplilearn Purdue Caltech Course Duration 11 Months 11 Months 11 Months Coding Experience Required Basic Basic No Skills You Will Learn 10+ skills including data structure, data manipulation, NumPy, Scikit-Learn, Tableau and more 8+ skills including Exploratory Data Analysis, Descriptive Statistics, Inferential Statistics, and more 8+ skills including Supervised & Unsupervised Learning Deep Learning Data Visualization, and more Additional Benefits Applied Learning via Capstone and 25+ Data Science Projects Purdue Alumni Association Membership Free IIMJobs Pro-Membership of 6 months Resume Building Assistance Upto 14 CEU Credits Caltech CTME Circle Membership Cost $$ $$$$ $$$$ Explore Program Explore Program Explore Program

We live in the Data Age, and if you want a career that fully takes advantage of this, you should consider a career in data science. Simplilearn offers a Caltech Post Graduate Program in Data Science  that will train you in everything you need to know to secure the perfect position. This Data Science PG program is ideal for all working professionals, covering job-critical topics like R, Python programming , machine learning algorithms , NLP concepts , and data visualization with Tableau in great detail. This is all provided via our interactive learning model with live sessions by global practitioners, practical labs, and industry projects.

Data Science & Business Analytics Courses Duration and Fees

Data Science & Business Analytics programs typically range from a few weeks to several months, with fees varying based on program and institution.

Recommended Reads

Data Science Career Guide: A Comprehensive Playbook To Becoming A Data Scientist

Difference Between Collection and Collections in Java

An Ultimate One-Stop Solution Guide to Collections in C# Programming With Examples

Managing Data

Capped Collection in MongoDB

What Are Java Collections and How to Implement Them?

Get Affiliated Certifications with Live Class programs

Data scientist.

• Industry-recognized Data Scientist Master’s certificate from Simplilearn
• Dedicated live sessions by faculty of industry experts

Caltech Data Sciences-Bootcamp

• Exclusive visit to Caltech’s Robotics Lab

Caltech Post Graduate Program in Data Science

• Earn a program completion certificate from Caltech CTME
• Curriculum delivered in live online sessions by industry experts
• PMP, PMI, PMBOK, CAPM, PgMP, PfMP, ACP, PBA, RMP, SP, and OPM3 are registered marks of the Project Management Institute, Inc.

Data Collection Methods

Data collection is a process of collecting information from all the relevant sources to find answers to the research problem, test the hypothesis (if you are following deductive approach ) and evaluate the outcomes. Data collection methods can be divided into two categories: secondary methods of data collection and primary methods of data collection.

Secondary Data Collection Methods

Secondary data is a type of data that has already been published in books, newspapers, magazines, journals, online portals etc.  There is an abundance of data available in these sources about your research area in business studies, almost regardless of the nature of the research area. Therefore, application of appropriate set of criteria to select secondary data to be used in the study plays an important role in terms of increasing the levels of research validity and reliability.

These criteria include, but not limited to date of publication, credential of the author, reliability of the source, quality of discussions, depth of analyses, the extent of contribution of the text to the development of the research area etc. Secondary data collection is discussed in greater depth in Literature Review chapter.

Secondary data collection methods offer a range of advantages such as saving time, effort and expenses. However they have a major disadvantage. Specifically, secondary research does not make contribution to the expansion of the literature by producing fresh (new) data.

Primary Data Collection Methods

Primary data is the type of data that has not been around before. Primary data is unique findings of your research. Primary data collection and analysis typically requires more time and effort to conduct compared to the secondary data research. Primary data collection methods can be divided into two groups: quantitative and qualitative.

Quantitative data collection methods are based on mathematical calculations in various formats. Methods of quantitative data collection and analysis include questionnaires with closed-ended questions, methods of correlation and regression, mean, mode and median and others.

Quantitative methods are cheaper to apply and they can be applied within shorter duration of time compared to qualitative methods. Moreover, due to a high level of standardisation of quantitative methods, it is easy to make comparisons of findings.

Qualitative research methods , on the contrary, do not involve numbers or mathematical calculations. Qualitative research is closely associated with words, sounds, feeling, emotions, colours and other elements that are non-quantifiable.

Qualitative studies aim to ensure greater level of depth of understanding and qualitative data collection methods include interviews, questionnaires with open-ended questions, focus groups, observation, game or role-playing, case studies etc.

Your choice between quantitative or qualitative methods of data collection depends on the area of your research and the nature of research aims and objectives.

My e-book, The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline.

John Dudovskiy

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Data Collection Methods | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Data Collection Methods | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Published on 4 May 2022 by Pritha Bhandari .

Data collection is a systematic process of gathering observations or measurements. Whether you are performing research for business, governmental, or academic purposes, data collection allows you to gain first-hand knowledge and original insights into your research problem .

While methods and aims may differ between fields, the overall process of data collection remains largely the same. Before you begin collecting data, you need to consider:

• The  aim of the research
• The type of data that you will collect
• The methods and procedures you will use to collect, store, and process the data

To collect high-quality data that is relevant to your purposes, follow these four steps.

Table of contents

Step 1: define the aim of your research, step 2: choose your data collection method, step 3: plan your data collection procedures, step 4: collect the data, frequently asked questions about data collection.

Before you start the process of data collection, you need to identify exactly what you want to achieve. You can start by writing a problem statement : what is the practical or scientific issue that you want to address, and why does it matter?

Next, formulate one or more research questions that precisely define what you want to find out. Depending on your research questions, you might need to collect quantitative or qualitative data :

• Quantitative data is expressed in numbers and graphs and is analysed through statistical methods .
• Qualitative data is expressed in words and analysed through interpretations and categorisations.

If your aim is to test a hypothesis , measure something precisely, or gain large-scale statistical insights, collect quantitative data. If your aim is to explore ideas, understand experiences, or gain detailed insights into a specific context, collect qualitative data.

If you have several aims, you can use a mixed methods approach that collects both types of data.

• Your first aim is to assess whether there are significant differences in perceptions of managers across different departments and office locations.
• Your second aim is to gather meaningful feedback from employees to explore new ideas for how managers can improve.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Based on the data you want to collect, decide which method is best suited for your research.

• Experimental research is primarily a quantitative method.
• Interviews , focus groups , and ethnographies are qualitative methods.
• Surveys , observations, archival research, and secondary data collection can be quantitative or qualitative methods.

Carefully consider what method you will use to gather data that helps you directly answer your research questions.

When you know which method(s) you are using, you need to plan exactly how you will implement them. What procedures will you follow to make accurate observations or measurements of the variables you are interested in?

For instance, if you’re conducting surveys or interviews, decide what form the questions will take; if you’re conducting an experiment, make decisions about your experimental design .

Operationalisation

Sometimes your variables can be measured directly: for example, you can collect data on the average age of employees simply by asking for dates of birth. However, often you’ll be interested in collecting data on more abstract concepts or variables that can’t be directly observed.

Operationalisation means turning abstract conceptual ideas into measurable observations. When planning how you will collect data, you need to translate the conceptual definition of what you want to study into the operational definition of what you will actually measure.

• You ask managers to rate their own leadership skills on 5-point scales assessing the ability to delegate, decisiveness, and dependability.
• You ask their direct employees to provide anonymous feedback on the managers regarding the same topics.

You may need to develop a sampling plan to obtain data systematically. This involves defining a population , the group you want to draw conclusions about, and a sample, the group you will actually collect data from.

Your sampling method will determine how you recruit participants or obtain measurements for your study. To decide on a sampling method you will need to consider factors like the required sample size, accessibility of the sample, and time frame of the data collection.

Standardising procedures

If multiple researchers are involved, write a detailed manual to standardise data collection procedures in your study.

This means laying out specific step-by-step instructions so that everyone in your research team collects data in a consistent way – for example, by conducting experiments under the same conditions and using objective criteria to record and categorise observations.

This helps ensure the reliability of your data, and you can also use it to replicate the study in the future.

Creating a data management plan

Before beginning data collection, you should also decide how you will organise and store your data.

• If you are collecting data from people, you will likely need to anonymise and safeguard the data to prevent leaks of sensitive information (e.g. names or identity numbers).
• If you are collecting data via interviews or pencil-and-paper formats, you will need to perform transcriptions or data entry in systematic ways to minimise distortion.
• You can prevent loss of data by having an organisation system that is routinely backed up.

Finally, you can implement your chosen methods to measure or observe the variables you are interested in.

The closed-ended questions ask participants to rate their manager’s leadership skills on scales from 1 to 5. The data produced is numerical and can be statistically analysed for averages and patterns.

To ensure that high-quality data is recorded in a systematic way, here are some best practices:

• Record all relevant information as and when you obtain data. For example, note down whether or how lab equipment is recalibrated during an experimental study.
• Double-check manual data entry for errors.
• If you collect quantitative data, you can assess the reliability and validity to get an indication of your data quality.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organisations.

When conducting research, collecting original data has significant advantages:

• You can tailor data collection to your specific research aims (e.g., understanding the needs of your consumers or user testing your website).
• You can control and standardise the process for high reliability and validity (e.g., choosing appropriate measurements and sampling methods ).

However, there are also some drawbacks: data collection can be time-consuming, labour-intensive, and expensive. In some cases, it’s more efficient to use secondary data that has already been collected by someone else, but the data might be less reliable.

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.

Reliability and validity are both about how well a method measures something:

• Reliability refers to the  consistency of a measure (whether the results can be reproduced under the same conditions).
• Validity   refers to the  accuracy of a measure (whether the results really do represent what they are supposed to measure).

If you are doing experimental research , you also have to consider the internal and external validity of your experiment.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

Operationalisation means turning abstract conceptual ideas into measurable observations.

For example, the concept of social anxiety isn’t directly observable, but it can be operationally defined in terms of self-rating scores, behavioural avoidance of crowded places, or physical anxiety symptoms in social situations.

Before collecting data , it’s important to consider how you will operationalise the variables that you want to measure.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2022, May 04). Data Collection Methods | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/data-collection-guide/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, qualitative vs quantitative research | examples & methods, triangulation in research | guide, types, examples, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.37(16); 2022 Apr 25

A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles

Edward barroga.

1 Department of General Education, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan.

Glafera Janet Matanguihan

2 Department of Biological Sciences, Messiah University, Mechanicsburg, PA, USA.

The development of research questions and the subsequent hypotheses are prerequisites to defining the main research purpose and specific objectives of a study. Consequently, these objectives determine the study design and research outcome. The development of research questions is a process based on knowledge of current trends, cutting-edge studies, and technological advances in the research field. Excellent research questions are focused and require a comprehensive literature search and in-depth understanding of the problem being investigated. Initially, research questions may be written as descriptive questions which could be developed into inferential questions. These questions must be specific and concise to provide a clear foundation for developing hypotheses. Hypotheses are more formal predictions about the research outcomes. These specify the possible results that may or may not be expected regarding the relationship between groups. Thus, research questions and hypotheses clarify the main purpose and specific objectives of the study, which in turn dictate the design of the study, its direction, and outcome. Studies developed from good research questions and hypotheses will have trustworthy outcomes with wide-ranging social and health implications.

INTRODUCTION

Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses. 1 , 2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results. 3 , 4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the inception of novel studies and the ethical testing of ideas. 5 , 6

It is crucial to have knowledge of both quantitative and qualitative research 2 as both types of research involve writing research questions and hypotheses. 7 However, these crucial elements of research are sometimes overlooked; if not overlooked, then framed without the forethought and meticulous attention it needs. Planning and careful consideration are needed when developing quantitative or qualitative research, particularly when conceptualizing research questions and hypotheses. 4

There is a continuing need to support researchers in the creation of innovative research questions and hypotheses, as well as for journal articles that carefully review these elements. 1 When research questions and hypotheses are not carefully thought of, unethical studies and poor outcomes usually ensue. Carefully formulated research questions and hypotheses define well-founded objectives, which in turn determine the appropriate design, course, and outcome of the study. This article then aims to discuss in detail the various aspects of crafting research questions and hypotheses, with the goal of guiding researchers as they develop their own. Examples from the authors and peer-reviewed scientific articles in the healthcare field are provided to illustrate key points.

DEFINITIONS AND RELATIONSHIP OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

A research question is what a study aims to answer after data analysis and interpretation. The answer is written in length in the discussion section of the paper. Thus, the research question gives a preview of the different parts and variables of the study meant to address the problem posed in the research question. 1 An excellent research question clarifies the research writing while facilitating understanding of the research topic, objective, scope, and limitations of the study. 5

On the other hand, a research hypothesis is an educated statement of an expected outcome. This statement is based on background research and current knowledge. 8 , 9 The research hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a new phenomenon 10 or a formal statement on the expected relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. 3 , 11 It provides a tentative answer to the research question to be tested or explored. 4

Hypotheses employ reasoning to predict a theory-based outcome. 10 These can also be developed from theories by focusing on components of theories that have not yet been observed. 10 The validity of hypotheses is often based on the testability of the prediction made in a reproducible experiment. 8

Conversely, hypotheses can also be rephrased as research questions. Several hypotheses based on existing theories and knowledge may be needed to answer a research question. Developing ethical research questions and hypotheses creates a research design that has logical relationships among variables. These relationships serve as a solid foundation for the conduct of the study. 4 , 11 Haphazardly constructed research questions can result in poorly formulated hypotheses and improper study designs, leading to unreliable results. Thus, the formulations of relevant research questions and verifiable hypotheses are crucial when beginning research. 12

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Excellent research questions are specific and focused. These integrate collective data and observations to confirm or refute the subsequent hypotheses. Well-constructed hypotheses are based on previous reports and verify the research context. These are realistic, in-depth, sufficiently complex, and reproducible. More importantly, these hypotheses can be addressed and tested. 13

There are several characteristics of well-developed hypotheses. Good hypotheses are 1) empirically testable 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 ; 2) backed by preliminary evidence 9 ; 3) testable by ethical research 7 , 9 ; 4) based on original ideas 9 ; 5) have evidenced-based logical reasoning 10 ; and 6) can be predicted. 11 Good hypotheses can infer ethical and positive implications, indicating the presence of a relationship or effect relevant to the research theme. 7 , 11 These are initially developed from a general theory and branch into specific hypotheses by deductive reasoning. In the absence of a theory to base the hypotheses, inductive reasoning based on specific observations or findings form more general hypotheses. 10

TYPES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions and hypotheses are developed according to the type of research, which can be broadly classified into quantitative and qualitative research. We provide a summary of the types of research questions and hypotheses under quantitative and qualitative research categories in Table 1 .

Research questions in quantitative research

In quantitative research, research questions inquire about the relationships among variables being investigated and are usually framed at the start of the study. These are precise and typically linked to the subject population, dependent and independent variables, and research design. 1 Research questions may also attempt to describe the behavior of a population in relation to one or more variables, or describe the characteristics of variables to be measured ( descriptive research questions ). 1 , 5 , 14 These questions may also aim to discover differences between groups within the context of an outcome variable ( comparative research questions ), 1 , 5 , 14 or elucidate trends and interactions among variables ( relationship research questions ). 1 , 5 We provide examples of descriptive, comparative, and relationship research questions in quantitative research in Table 2 .

Hypotheses in quantitative research

In quantitative research, hypotheses predict the expected relationships among variables. 15 Relationships among variables that can be predicted include 1) between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable ( simple hypothesis ) or 2) between two or more independent and dependent variables ( complex hypothesis ). 4 , 11 Hypotheses may also specify the expected direction to be followed and imply an intellectual commitment to a particular outcome ( directional hypothesis ) 4 . On the other hand, hypotheses may not predict the exact direction and are used in the absence of a theory, or when findings contradict previous studies ( non-directional hypothesis ). 4 In addition, hypotheses can 1) define interdependency between variables ( associative hypothesis ), 4 2) propose an effect on the dependent variable from manipulation of the independent variable ( causal hypothesis ), 4 3) state a negative relationship between two variables ( null hypothesis ), 4 , 11 , 15 4) replace the working hypothesis if rejected ( alternative hypothesis ), 15 explain the relationship of phenomena to possibly generate a theory ( working hypothesis ), 11 5) involve quantifiable variables that can be tested statistically ( statistical hypothesis ), 11 6) or express a relationship whose interlinks can be verified logically ( logical hypothesis ). 11 We provide examples of simple, complex, directional, non-directional, associative, causal, null, alternative, working, statistical, and logical hypotheses in quantitative research, as well as the definition of quantitative hypothesis-testing research in Table 3 .

Research questions in qualitative research

Unlike research questions in quantitative research, research questions in qualitative research are usually continuously reviewed and reformulated. The central question and associated subquestions are stated more than the hypotheses. 15 The central question broadly explores a complex set of factors surrounding the central phenomenon, aiming to present the varied perspectives of participants. 15

There are varied goals for which qualitative research questions are developed. These questions can function in several ways, such as to 1) identify and describe existing conditions ( contextual research question s); 2) describe a phenomenon ( descriptive research questions ); 3) assess the effectiveness of existing methods, protocols, theories, or procedures ( evaluation research questions ); 4) examine a phenomenon or analyze the reasons or relationships between subjects or phenomena ( explanatory research questions ); or 5) focus on unknown aspects of a particular topic ( exploratory research questions ). 5 In addition, some qualitative research questions provide new ideas for the development of theories and actions ( generative research questions ) or advance specific ideologies of a position ( ideological research questions ). 1 Other qualitative research questions may build on a body of existing literature and become working guidelines ( ethnographic research questions ). Research questions may also be broadly stated without specific reference to the existing literature or a typology of questions ( phenomenological research questions ), may be directed towards generating a theory of some process ( grounded theory questions ), or may address a description of the case and the emerging themes ( qualitative case study questions ). 15 We provide examples of contextual, descriptive, evaluation, explanatory, exploratory, generative, ideological, ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and qualitative case study research questions in qualitative research in Table 4 , and the definition of qualitative hypothesis-generating research in Table 5 .

Qualitative studies usually pose at least one central research question and several subquestions starting with How or What . These research questions use exploratory verbs such as explore or describe . These also focus on one central phenomenon of interest, and may mention the participants and research site. 15

Hypotheses in qualitative research

Hypotheses in qualitative research are stated in the form of a clear statement concerning the problem to be investigated. Unlike in quantitative research where hypotheses are usually developed to be tested, qualitative research can lead to both hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating outcomes. 2 When studies require both quantitative and qualitative research questions, this suggests an integrative process between both research methods wherein a single mixed-methods research question can be developed. 1

FRAMEWORKS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions followed by hypotheses should be developed before the start of the study. 1 , 12 , 14 It is crucial to develop feasible research questions on a topic that is interesting to both the researcher and the scientific community. This can be achieved by a meticulous review of previous and current studies to establish a novel topic. Specific areas are subsequently focused on to generate ethical research questions. The relevance of the research questions is evaluated in terms of clarity of the resulting data, specificity of the methodology, objectivity of the outcome, depth of the research, and impact of the study. 1 , 5 These aspects constitute the FINER criteria (i.e., Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant). 1 Clarity and effectiveness are achieved if research questions meet the FINER criteria. In addition to the FINER criteria, Ratan et al. described focus, complexity, novelty, feasibility, and measurability for evaluating the effectiveness of research questions. 14

The PICOT and PEO frameworks are also used when developing research questions. 1 The following elements are addressed in these frameworks, PICOT: P-population/patients/problem, I-intervention or indicator being studied, C-comparison group, O-outcome of interest, and T-timeframe of the study; PEO: P-population being studied, E-exposure to preexisting conditions, and O-outcome of interest. 1 Research questions are also considered good if these meet the “FINERMAPS” framework: Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant, Manageable, Appropriate, Potential value/publishable, and Systematic. 14

As we indicated earlier, research questions and hypotheses that are not carefully formulated result in unethical studies or poor outcomes. To illustrate this, we provide some examples of ambiguous research question and hypotheses that result in unclear and weak research objectives in quantitative research ( Table 6 ) 16 and qualitative research ( Table 7 ) 17 , and how to transform these ambiguous research question(s) and hypothesis(es) into clear and good statements.

a These statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

b These statements are direct quotes from Higashihara and Horiuchi. 16

a This statement is a direct quote from Shimoda et al. 17

The other statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

CONSTRUCTING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

To construct effective research questions and hypotheses, it is very important to 1) clarify the background and 2) identify the research problem at the outset of the research, within a specific timeframe. 9 Then, 3) review or conduct preliminary research to collect all available knowledge about the possible research questions by studying theories and previous studies. 18 Afterwards, 4) construct research questions to investigate the research problem. Identify variables to be accessed from the research questions 4 and make operational definitions of constructs from the research problem and questions. Thereafter, 5) construct specific deductive or inductive predictions in the form of hypotheses. 4 Finally, 6) state the study aims . This general flow for constructing effective research questions and hypotheses prior to conducting research is shown in Fig. 1 .

Research questions are used more frequently in qualitative research than objectives or hypotheses. 3 These questions seek to discover, understand, explore or describe experiences by asking “What” or “How.” The questions are open-ended to elicit a description rather than to relate variables or compare groups. The questions are continually reviewed, reformulated, and changed during the qualitative study. 3 Research questions are also used more frequently in survey projects than hypotheses in experiments in quantitative research to compare variables and their relationships.

Hypotheses are constructed based on the variables identified and as an if-then statement, following the template, ‘If a specific action is taken, then a certain outcome is expected.’ At this stage, some ideas regarding expectations from the research to be conducted must be drawn. 18 Then, the variables to be manipulated (independent) and influenced (dependent) are defined. 4 Thereafter, the hypothesis is stated and refined, and reproducible data tailored to the hypothesis are identified, collected, and analyzed. 4 The hypotheses must be testable and specific, 18 and should describe the variables and their relationships, the specific group being studied, and the predicted research outcome. 18 Hypotheses construction involves a testable proposition to be deduced from theory, and independent and dependent variables to be separated and measured separately. 3 Therefore, good hypotheses must be based on good research questions constructed at the start of a study or trial. 12

In summary, research questions are constructed after establishing the background of the study. Hypotheses are then developed based on the research questions. Thus, it is crucial to have excellent research questions to generate superior hypotheses. In turn, these would determine the research objectives and the design of the study, and ultimately, the outcome of the research. 12 Algorithms for building research questions and hypotheses are shown in Fig. 2 for quantitative research and in Fig. 3 for qualitative research.

EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS FROM PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Descriptive research question (quantitative research)
• - Presents research variables to be assessed (distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes)
• “BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 was identified, its clinical and biological heterogeneity has been recognized. Identifying COVID-19 phenotypes might help guide basic, clinical, and translational research efforts.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the clinical spectrum of patients with COVID-19 contain distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes? ” 19
• EXAMPLE 2. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Shows interactions between dependent variable (static postural control) and independent variable (peripheral visual field loss)
• “Background: Integration of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive sensations contributes to postural control. People with peripheral visual field loss have serious postural instability. However, the directional specificity of postural stability and sensory reweighting caused by gradual peripheral visual field loss remain unclear.
• Research question: What are the effects of peripheral visual field loss on static postural control ?” 20
• EXAMPLE 3. Comparative research question (quantitative research)
• - Clarifies the difference among groups with an outcome variable (patients enrolled in COMPERA with moderate PH or severe PH in COPD) and another group without the outcome variable (patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH))
• “BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in COPD is a poorly investigated clinical condition.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Which factors determine the outcome of PH in COPD?
• STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed the characteristics and outcome of patients enrolled in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) with moderate or severe PH in COPD as defined during the 6th PH World Symposium who received medical therapy for PH and compared them with patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) .” 21
• EXAMPLE 4. Exploratory research question (qualitative research)
• - Explores areas that have not been fully investigated (perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment) to have a deeper understanding of the research problem
• “Problem: Interventions for children with obesity lead to only modest improvements in BMI and long-term outcomes, and data are limited on the perspectives of families of children with obesity in clinic-based treatment. This scoping review seeks to answer the question: What is known about the perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment? This review aims to explore the scope of perspectives reported by families of children with obesity who have received individualized outpatient clinic-based obesity treatment.” 22
• EXAMPLE 5. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Defines interactions between dependent variable (use of ankle strategies) and independent variable (changes in muscle tone)
• “Background: To maintain an upright standing posture against external disturbances, the human body mainly employs two types of postural control strategies: “ankle strategy” and “hip strategy.” While it has been reported that the magnitude of the disturbance alters the use of postural control strategies, it has not been elucidated how the level of muscle tone, one of the crucial parameters of bodily function, determines the use of each strategy. We have previously confirmed using forward dynamics simulations of human musculoskeletal models that an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. The objective of the present study was to experimentally evaluate a hypothesis: an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. Research question: Do changes in the muscle tone affect the use of ankle strategies ?” 23

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESES IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Working hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - A hypothesis that is initially accepted for further research to produce a feasible theory
• “As fever may have benefit in shortening the duration of viral illness, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response when taken during the early stages of COVID-19 illness .” 24
• “In conclusion, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response . The difference in perceived safety of these agents in COVID-19 illness could be related to the more potent efficacy to reduce fever with ibuprofen compared to acetaminophen. Compelling data on the benefit of fever warrant further research and review to determine when to treat or withhold ibuprofen for early stage fever for COVID-19 and other related viral illnesses .” 24
• EXAMPLE 2. Exploratory hypothesis (qualitative research)
• - Explores particular areas deeper to clarify subjective experience and develop a formal hypothesis potentially testable in a future quantitative approach
• “We hypothesized that when thinking about a past experience of help-seeking, a self distancing prompt would cause increased help-seeking intentions and more favorable help-seeking outcome expectations .” 25
• “Conclusion
• Although a priori hypotheses were not supported, further research is warranted as results indicate the potential for using self-distancing approaches to increasing help-seeking among some people with depressive symptomatology.” 25
• EXAMPLE 3. Hypothesis-generating research to establish a framework for hypothesis testing (qualitative research)
• “We hypothesize that compassionate care is beneficial for patients (better outcomes), healthcare systems and payers (lower costs), and healthcare providers (lower burnout). ” 26
• Compassionomics is the branch of knowledge and scientific study of the effects of compassionate healthcare. Our main hypotheses are that compassionate healthcare is beneficial for (1) patients, by improving clinical outcomes, (2) healthcare systems and payers, by supporting financial sustainability, and (3) HCPs, by lowering burnout and promoting resilience and well-being. The purpose of this paper is to establish a scientific framework for testing the hypotheses above . If these hypotheses are confirmed through rigorous research, compassionomics will belong in the science of evidence-based medicine, with major implications for all healthcare domains.” 26
• EXAMPLE 4. Statistical hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - An assumption is made about the relationship among several population characteristics ( gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD ). Validity is tested by statistical experiment or analysis ( chi-square test, Students t-test, and logistic regression analysis)
• “Our research investigated gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD in a Japanese clinical sample. Due to unique Japanese cultural ideals and expectations of women's behavior that are in opposition to ADHD symptoms, we hypothesized that women with ADHD experience more difficulties and present more dysfunctions than men . We tested the following hypotheses: first, women with ADHD have more comorbidities than men with ADHD; second, women with ADHD experience more social hardships than men, such as having less full-time employment and being more likely to be divorced.” 27
• “Statistical Analysis
• ( text omitted ) Between-gender comparisons were made using the chi-squared test for categorical variables and Students t-test for continuous variables…( text omitted ). A logistic regression analysis was performed for employment status, marital status, and comorbidity to evaluate the independent effects of gender on these dependent variables.” 27

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESIS AS WRITTEN IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN RELATION TO OTHER PARTS

• EXAMPLE 1. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “Pregnant women need skilled care during pregnancy and childbirth, but that skilled care is often delayed in some countries …( text omitted ). The focused antenatal care (FANC) model of WHO recommends that nurses provide information or counseling to all pregnant women …( text omitted ). Job aids are visual support materials that provide the right kind of information using graphics and words in a simple and yet effective manner. When nurses are not highly trained or have many work details to attend to, these job aids can serve as a content reminder for the nurses and can be used for educating their patients (Jennings, Yebadokpo, Affo, & Agbogbe, 2010) ( text omitted ). Importantly, additional evidence is needed to confirm how job aids can further improve the quality of ANC counseling by health workers in maternal care …( text omitted )” 28
• “ This has led us to hypothesize that the quality of ANC counseling would be better if supported by job aids. Consequently, a better quality of ANC counseling is expected to produce higher levels of awareness concerning the danger signs of pregnancy and a more favorable impression of the caring behavior of nurses .” 28
• “This study aimed to examine the differences in the responses of pregnant women to a job aid-supported intervention during ANC visit in terms of 1) their understanding of the danger signs of pregnancy and 2) their impression of the caring behaviors of nurses to pregnant women in rural Tanzania.” 28
• EXAMPLE 2. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “We conducted a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate and compare changes in salivary cortisol and oxytocin levels of first-time pregnant women between experimental and control groups. The women in the experimental group touched and held an infant for 30 min (experimental intervention protocol), whereas those in the control group watched a DVD movie of an infant (control intervention protocol). The primary outcome was salivary cortisol level and the secondary outcome was salivary oxytocin level.” 29
• “ We hypothesize that at 30 min after touching and holding an infant, the salivary cortisol level will significantly decrease and the salivary oxytocin level will increase in the experimental group compared with the control group .” 29
• EXAMPLE 3. Background, aim, and hypothesis are provided
• “In countries where the maternal mortality ratio remains high, antenatal education to increase Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness (BPCR) is considered one of the top priorities [1]. BPCR includes birth plans during the antenatal period, such as the birthplace, birth attendant, transportation, health facility for complications, expenses, and birth materials, as well as family coordination to achieve such birth plans. In Tanzania, although increasing, only about half of all pregnant women attend an antenatal clinic more than four times [4]. Moreover, the information provided during antenatal care (ANC) is insufficient. In the resource-poor settings, antenatal group education is a potential approach because of the limited time for individual counseling at antenatal clinics.” 30
• “This study aimed to evaluate an antenatal group education program among pregnant women and their families with respect to birth-preparedness and maternal and infant outcomes in rural villages of Tanzania.” 30
• “ The study hypothesis was if Tanzanian pregnant women and their families received a family-oriented antenatal group education, they would (1) have a higher level of BPCR, (2) attend antenatal clinic four or more times, (3) give birth in a health facility, (4) have less complications of women at birth, and (5) have less complications and deaths of infants than those who did not receive the education .” 30

Research questions and hypotheses are crucial components to any type of research, whether quantitative or qualitative. These questions should be developed at the very beginning of the study. Excellent research questions lead to superior hypotheses, which, like a compass, set the direction of research, and can often determine the successful conduct of the study. Many research studies have floundered because the development of research questions and subsequent hypotheses was not given the thought and meticulous attention needed. The development of research questions and hypotheses is an iterative process based on extensive knowledge of the literature and insightful grasp of the knowledge gap. Focused, concise, and specific research questions provide a strong foundation for constructing hypotheses which serve as formal predictions about the research outcomes. Research questions and hypotheses are crucial elements of research that should not be overlooked. They should be carefully thought of and constructed when planning research. This avoids unethical studies and poor outcomes by defining well-founded objectives that determine the design, course, and outcome of the study.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Conceptualization: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Methodology: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - original draft: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - review & editing: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Data Descriptor
• Open access
• Published: 03 May 2024

A dataset for measuring the impact of research data and their curation

• Libby Hemphill   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3793-7281 1 , 2 ,
• Andrea Thomer 3 ,
• Sara Lafia 1 ,
• Lizhou Fan 2 ,
• David Bleckley   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7715-4348 1 &
• Elizabeth Moss 1  

Scientific Data volume  11 , Article number:  442 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

686 Accesses

8 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Research data
• Social sciences

Science funders, publishers, and data archives make decisions about how to responsibly allocate resources to maximize the reuse potential of research data. This paper introduces a dataset developed to measure the impact of archival and data curation decisions on data reuse. The dataset describes 10,605 social science research datasets, their curation histories, and reuse contexts in 94,755 publications that cover 59 years from 1963 to 2022. The dataset was constructed from study-level metadata, citing publications, and curation records available through the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan. The dataset includes information about study-level attributes (e.g., PIs, funders, subject terms); usage statistics (e.g., downloads, citations); archiving decisions (e.g., curation activities, data transformations); and bibliometric attributes (e.g., journals, authors) for citing publications. This dataset provides information on factors that contribute to long-term data reuse, which can inform the design of effective evidence-based recommendations to support high-impact research data curation decisions.

Similar content being viewed by others

SciSciNet: A large-scale open data lake for the science of science research

Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science

Interdisciplinarity revisited: evidence for research impact and dynamism

Background & summary.

Recent policy changes in funding agencies and academic journals have increased data sharing among researchers and between researchers and the public. Data sharing advances science and provides the transparency necessary for evaluating, replicating, and verifying results. However, many data-sharing policies do not explain what constitutes an appropriate dataset for archiving or how to determine the value of datasets to secondary users 1 , 2 , 3 . Questions about how to allocate data-sharing resources efficiently and responsibly have gone unanswered 4 , 5 , 6 . For instance, data-sharing policies recognize that not all data should be curated and preserved, but they do not articulate metrics or guidelines for determining what data are most worthy of investment.

Despite the potential for innovation and advancement that data sharing holds, the best strategies to prioritize datasets for preparation and archiving are often unclear. Some datasets are likely to have more downstream potential than others, and data curation policies and workflows should prioritize high-value data instead of being one-size-fits-all. Though prior research in library and information science has shown that the “analytic potential” of a dataset is key to its reuse value 7 , work is needed to implement conceptual data reuse frameworks 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 . In addition, publishers and data archives need guidance to develop metrics and evaluation strategies to assess the impact of datasets.

Several existing resources have been compiled to study the relationship between the reuse of scholarly products, such as datasets (Table  1 ); however, none of these resources include explicit information on how curation processes are applied to data to increase their value, maximize their accessibility, and ensure their long-term preservation. The CCex (Curation Costs Exchange) provides models of curation services along with cost-related datasets shared by contributors but does not make explicit connections between them or include reuse information 15 . Analyses on platforms such as DataCite 16 have focused on metadata completeness and record usage, but have not included related curation-level information. Analyses of GenBank 17 and FigShare 18 , 19 citation networks do not include curation information. Related studies of Github repository reuse 20 and Softcite software citation 21 reveal significant factors that impact the reuse of secondary research products but do not focus on research data. RD-Switchboard 22 and DSKG 23 are scholarly knowledge graphs linking research data to articles, patents, and grants, but largely omit social science research data and do not include curation-level factors. To our knowledge, other studies of curation work in organizations similar to ICPSR – such as GESIS 24 , Dataverse 25 , and DANS 26 – have not made their underlying data available for analysis.

This paper describes a dataset 27 compiled for the MICA project (Measuring the Impact of Curation Actions) led by investigators at ICPSR, a large social science data archive at the University of Michigan. The dataset was originally developed to study the impacts of data curation and archiving on data reuse. The MICA dataset has supported several previous publications investigating the intensity of data curation actions 28 , the relationship between data curation actions and data reuse 29 , and the structures of research communities in a data citation network 30 . Collectively, these studies help explain the return on various types of curatorial investments. The dataset that we introduce in this paper, which we refer to as the MICA dataset, has the potential to address research questions in the areas of science (e.g., knowledge production), library and information science (e.g., scholarly communication), and data archiving (e.g., reproducible workflows).

We constructed the MICA dataset 27 using records available at ICPSR, a large social science data archive at the University of Michigan. Data set creation involved: collecting and enriching metadata for articles indexed in the ICPSR Bibliography of Data-related Literature against the Dimensions AI bibliometric database; gathering usage statistics for studies from ICPSR’s administrative database; processing data curation work logs from ICPSR’s project tracking platform, Jira; and linking data in social science studies and series to citing analysis papers (Fig.  1 ).

Steps to prepare MICA dataset for analysis - external sources are red, primary internal sources are blue, and internal linked sources are green.

Enrich paper metadata

The ICPSR Bibliography of Data-related Literature is a growing database of literature in which data from ICPSR studies have been used. Its creation was funded by the National Science Foundation (Award 9977984), and for the past 20 years it has been supported by ICPSR membership and multiple US federally-funded and foundation-funded topical archives at ICPSR. The Bibliography was originally launched in the year 2000 to aid in data discovery by providing a searchable database linking publications to the study data used in them. The Bibliography collects the universe of output based on the data shared in each study through, which is made available through each ICPSR study’s webpage. The Bibliography contains both peer-reviewed and grey literature, which provides evidence for measuring the impact of research data. For an item to be included in the ICPSR Bibliography, it must contain an analysis of data archived by ICPSR or contain a discussion or critique of the data collection process, study design, or methodology 31 . The Bibliography is manually curated by a team of librarians and information specialists at ICPSR who enter and validate entries. Some publications are supplied to the Bibliography by data depositors, and some citations are submitted to the Bibliography by authors who abide by ICPSR’s terms of use requiring them to submit citations to works in which they analyzed data retrieved from ICPSR. Most of the Bibliography is populated by Bibliography team members, who create custom queries for ICPSR studies performed across numerous sources, including Google Scholar, ProQuest, SSRN, and others. Each record in the Bibliography is one publication that has used one or more ICPSR studies. The version we used was captured on 2021-11-16 and included 94,755 publications.

To expand the coverage of the ICPSR Bibliography, we searched exhaustively for all ICPSR study names, unique numbers assigned to ICPSR studies, and DOIs 32 using a full-text index available through the Dimensions AI database 33 . We accessed Dimensions through a license agreement with the University of Michigan. ICPSR Bibliography librarians and information specialists manually reviewed and validated new entries that matched one or more search criteria. We then used Dimensions to gather enriched metadata and full-text links for items in the Bibliography with DOIs. We matched 43% of the items in the Bibliography to enriched Dimensions metadata including abstracts, field of research codes, concepts, and authors’ institutional information; we also obtained links to full text for 16% of Bibliography items. Based on licensing agreements, we included Dimensions identifiers and links to full text so that users with valid publisher and database access can construct an enriched publication dataset.

Gather study usage data

ICPSR maintains a relational administrative database, DBInfo, that organizes study-level metadata and information on data reuse across separate tables. Studies at ICPSR consist of one or more files collected at a single time or for a single purpose; studies in which the same variables are observed over time are grouped into series. Each study at ICPSR is assigned a DOI, and its metadata are stored in DBInfo. Study metadata follows the Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) Codebook 2.5 standard. DDI elements included in our dataset are title, ICPSR study identification number, DOI, authoring entities, description (abstract), funding agencies, subject terms assigned to the study during curation, and geographic coverage. We also created variables based on DDI elements: total variable count, the presence of survey question text in the metadata, the number of author entities, and whether an author entity was an institution. We gathered metadata for ICPSR’s 10,605 unrestricted public-use studies available as of 2021-11-16 ( https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/pages/membership/or/metadata/oai.html ).

To link study usage data with study-level metadata records, we joined study metadata from DBinfo on study usage information, which included total study downloads (data and documentation), individual data file downloads, and cumulative citations from the ICPSR Bibliography. We also gathered descriptive metadata for each study and its variables, which allowed us to summarize and append recoded fields onto the study-level metadata such as curation level, number and type of principle investigators, total variable count, and binary variables indicating whether the study data were made available for online analysis, whether survey question text was made searchable online, and whether the study variables were indexed for search. These characteristics describe aspects of the discoverability of the data to compare with other characteristics of the study. We used the study and series numbers included in the ICPSR Bibliography as unique identifiers to link papers to metadata and analyze the community structure of dataset co-citations in the ICPSR Bibliography 32 .

Process curation work logs

Researchers deposit data at ICPSR for curation and long-term preservation. Between 2016 and 2020, more than 3,000 research studies were deposited with ICPSR. Since 2017, ICPSR has organized curation work into a central unit that provides varied levels of curation that vary in the intensity and complexity of data enhancement that they provide. While the levels of curation are standardized as to effort (level one = less effort, level three = most effort), the specific curatorial actions undertaken for each dataset vary. The specific curation actions are captured in Jira, a work tracking program, which data curators at ICPSR use to collaborate and communicate their progress through tickets. We obtained access to a corpus of 669 completed Jira tickets corresponding to the curation of 566 unique studies between February 2017 and December 2019 28 .

To process the tickets, we focused only on their work log portions, which contained free text descriptions of work that data curators had performed on a deposited study, along with the curators’ identifiers, and timestamps. To protect the confidentiality of the data curators and the processing steps they performed, we collaborated with ICPSR’s curation unit to propose a classification scheme, which we used to train a Naive Bayes classifier and label curation actions in each work log sentence. The eight curation action labels we proposed 28 were: (1) initial review and planning, (2) data transformation, (3) metadata, (4) documentation, (5) quality checks, (6) communication, (7) other, and (8) non-curation work. We note that these categories of curation work are very specific to the curatorial processes and types of data stored at ICPSR, and may not match the curation activities at other repositories. After applying the classifier to the work log sentences, we obtained summary-level curation actions for a subset of all ICPSR studies (5%), along with the total number of hours spent on data curation for each study, and the proportion of time associated with each action during curation.

Data Records

The MICA dataset 27 connects records for each of ICPSR’s archived research studies to the research publications that use them and related curation activities available for a subset of studies (Fig.  2 ). Each of the three tables published in the dataset is available as a study archived at ICPSR. The data tables are distributed as statistical files available for use in SAS, SPSS, Stata, and R as well as delimited and ASCII text files. The dataset is organized around studies and papers as primary entities. The studies table lists ICPSR studies, their metadata attributes, and usage information; the papers table was constructed using the ICPSR Bibliography and Dimensions database; and the curation logs table summarizes the data curation steps performed on a subset of ICPSR studies.

Studies (“ICPSR_STUDIES”): 10,605 social science research datasets available through ICPSR up to 2021-11-16 with variables for ICPSR study number, digital object identifier, study name, series number, series title, authoring entities, full-text description, release date, funding agency, geographic coverage, subject terms, topical archive, curation level, single principal investigator (PI), institutional PI, the total number of PIs, total variables in data files, question text availability, study variable indexing, level of restriction, total unique users downloading study data files and codebooks, total unique users downloading data only, and total unique papers citing data through November 2021. Studies map to the papers and curation logs table through ICPSR study numbers as “STUDY”. However, not every study in this table will have records in the papers and curation logs tables.

Papers (“ICPSR_PAPERS”): 94,755 publications collected from 2000-08-11 to 2021-11-16 in the ICPSR Bibliography and enriched with metadata from the Dimensions database with variables for paper number, identifier, title, authors, publication venue, item type, publication date, input date, ICPSR series numbers used in the paper, ICPSR study numbers used in the paper, the Dimension identifier, and the Dimensions link to the publication’s full text. Papers map to the studies table through ICPSR study numbers in the “STUDY_NUMS” field. Each record represents a single publication, and because a researcher can use multiple datasets when creating a publication, each record may list multiple studies or series.

Curation logs (“ICPSR_CURATION_LOGS”): 649 curation logs for 563 ICPSR studies (although most studies in the subset had one curation log, some studies were associated with multiple logs, with a maximum of 10) curated between February 2017 and December 2019 with variables for study number, action labels assigned to work description sentences using a classifier trained on ICPSR curation logs, hours of work associated with a single log entry, and total hours of work logged for the curation ticket. Curation logs map to the study and paper tables through ICPSR study numbers as “STUDY”. Each record represents a single logged action, and future users may wish to aggregate actions to the study level before joining tables.

Entity-relation diagram.

Technical Validation

We report on the reliability of the dataset’s metadata in the following subsections. To support future reuse of the dataset, curation services provided through ICPSR improved data quality by checking for missing values, adding variable labels, and creating a codebook.

All 10,605 studies available through ICPSR have a DOI and a full-text description summarizing what the study is about, the purpose of the study, the main topics covered, and the questions the PIs attempted to answer when they conducted the study. Personal names (i.e., principal investigators) and organizational names (i.e., funding agencies) are standardized against an authority list maintained by ICPSR; geographic names and subject terms are also standardized and hierarchically indexed in the ICPSR Thesaurus 34 . Many of ICPSR’s studies (63%) are in a series and are distributed through the ICPSR General Archive (56%), a non-topical archive that accepts any social or behavioral science data. While study data have been available through ICPSR since 1962, the earliest digital release date recorded for a study was 1984-03-18, when ICPSR’s database was first employed, and the most recent date is 2021-10-28 when the dataset was collected.

Curation level information was recorded starting in 2017 and is available for 1,125 studies (11%); approximately 80% of studies with assigned curation levels received curation services, equally distributed between Levels 1 (least intensive), 2 (moderately intensive), and 3 (most intensive) (Fig.  3 ). Detailed descriptions of ICPSR’s curation levels are available online 35 . Additional metadata are available for a subset of 421 studies (4%), including information about whether the study has a single PI, an institutional PI, the total number of PIs involved, total variables recorded is available for online analysis, has searchable question text, has variables that are indexed for search, contains one or more restricted files, and whether the study is completely restricted. We provided additional metadata for this subset of ICPSR studies because they were released within the past five years and detailed curation and usage information were available for them. Usage statistics including total downloads and data file downloads are available for this subset of studies as well; citation statistics are available for 8,030 studies (76%). Most ICPSR studies have fewer than 500 users, as indicated by total downloads, or citations (Fig.  4 ).

ICPSR study curation levels.

ICPSR study usage.

A subset of 43,102 publications (45%) available in the ICPSR Bibliography had a DOI. Author metadata were entered as free text, meaning that variations may exist and require additional normalization and pre-processing prior to analysis. While author information is standardized for each publication, individual names may appear in different sort orders (e.g., “Earls, Felton J.” and “Stephen W. Raudenbush”). Most of the items in the ICPSR Bibliography as of 2021-11-16 were journal articles (59%), reports (14%), conference presentations (9%), or theses (8%) (Fig.  5 ). The number of publications collected in the Bibliography has increased each decade since the inception of ICPSR in 1962 (Fig.  6 ). Most ICPSR studies (76%) have one or more citations in a publication.

ICPSR Bibliography citation types.

ICPSR citations by decade.

Usage Notes

The dataset consists of three tables that can be joined using the “STUDY” key as shown in Fig.  2 . The “ICPSR_PAPERS” table contains one row per paper with one or more cited studies in the “STUDY_NUMS” column. We manipulated and analyzed the tables as CSV files with the Pandas library 36 in Python and the Tidyverse packages 37 in R.

The present MICA dataset can be used independently to study the relationship between curation decisions and data reuse. Evidence of reuse for specific studies is available in several forms: usage information, including downloads and citation counts; and citation contexts within papers that cite data. Analysis may also be performed on the citation network formed between datasets and papers that use them. Finally, curation actions can be associated with properties of studies and usage histories.

This dataset has several limitations of which users should be aware. First, Jira tickets can only be used to represent the intensiveness of curation for activities undertaken since 2017, when ICPSR started using both Curation Levels and Jira. Studies published before 2017 were all curated, but documentation of the extent of that curation was not standardized and therefore could not be included in these analyses. Second, the measure of publications relies upon the authors’ clarity of data citation and the ICPSR Bibliography staff’s ability to discover citations with varying formality and clarity. Thus, there is always a chance that some secondary-data-citing publications have been left out of the bibliography. Finally, there may be some cases in which a paper in the ICSPSR bibliography did not actually obtain data from ICPSR. For example, PIs have often written about or even distributed their data prior to their archival in ICSPR. Therefore, those publications would not have cited ICPSR but they are still collected in the Bibliography as being directly related to the data that were eventually deposited at ICPSR.

In summary, the MICA dataset contains relationships between two main types of entities – papers and studies – which can be mined. The tables in the MICA dataset have supported network analysis (community structure and clique detection) 30 ; natural language processing (NER for dataset reference detection) 32 ; visualizing citation networks (to search for datasets) 38 ; and regression analysis (on curation decisions and data downloads) 29 . The data are currently being used to develop research metrics and recommendation systems for research data. Given that DOIs are provided for ICPSR studies and articles in the ICPSR Bibliography, the MICA dataset can also be used with other bibliometric databases, including DataCite, Crossref, OpenAlex, and related indexes. Subscription-based services, such as Dimensions AI, are also compatible with the MICA dataset. In some cases, these services provide abstracts or full text for papers from which data citation contexts can be extracted for semantic content analysis.

Code availability

The code 27 used to produce the MICA project dataset is available on GitHub at https://github.com/ICPSR/mica-data-descriptor and through Zenodo with the identifier https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8432666 . Data manipulation and pre-processing were performed in Python. Data curation for distribution was performed in SPSS.

He, L. & Han, Z. Do usage counts of scientific data make sense? An investigation of the Dryad repository. Library Hi Tech 35 , 332–342 (2017).

Article   Google Scholar  

Brickley, D., Burgess, M. & Noy, N. Google dataset search: Building a search engine for datasets in an open web ecosystem. In The World Wide Web Conference - WWW ‘19 , 1365–1375 (ACM Press, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2019).

Buneman, P., Dosso, D., Lissandrini, M. & Silvello, G. Data citation and the citation graph. Quantitative Science Studies 2 , 1399–1422 (2022).

Chao, T. C. Disciplinary reach: Investigating the impact of dataset reuse in the earth sciences. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 48 , 1–8 (2011).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Parr, C. et al . A discussion of value metrics for data repositories in earth and environmental sciences. Data Science Journal 18 , 58 (2019).

Eschenfelder, K. R., Shankar, K. & Downey, G. The financial maintenance of social science data archives: Four case studies of long–term infrastructure work. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 73 , 1723–1740 (2022).

Palmer, C. L., Weber, N. M. & Cragin, M. H. The analytic potential of scientific data: Understanding re-use value. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 48 , 1–10 (2011).

Zimmerman, A. S. New knowledge from old data: The role of standards in the sharing and reuse of ecological data. Sci. Technol. Human Values 33 , 631–652 (2008).

Cragin, M. H., Palmer, C. L., Carlson, J. R. & Witt, M. Data sharing, small science and institutional repositories. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 368 , 4023–4038 (2010).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Fear, K. M. Measuring and Anticipating the Impact of Data Reuse . Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan (2013).

Borgman, C. L., Van de Sompel, H., Scharnhorst, A., van den Berg, H. & Treloar, A. Who uses the digital data archive? An exploratory study of DANS. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 52 , 1–4 (2015).

Pasquetto, I. V., Borgman, C. L. & Wofford, M. F. Uses and reuses of scientific data: The data creators’ advantage. Harvard Data Science Review 1 (2019).

Gregory, K., Groth, P., Scharnhorst, A. & Wyatt, S. Lost or found? Discovering data needed for research. Harvard Data Science Review (2020).

York, J. Seeking equilibrium in data reuse: A study of knowledge satisficing . Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan (2022).

Kilbride, W. & Norris, S. Collaborating to clarify the cost of curation. New Review of Information Networking 19 , 44–48 (2014).

Robinson-Garcia, N., Mongeon, P., Jeng, W. & Costas, R. DataCite as a novel bibliometric source: Coverage, strengths and limitations. Journal of Informetrics 11 , 841–854 (2017).

Qin, J., Hemsley, J. & Bratt, S. E. The structural shift and collaboration capacity in GenBank networks: A longitudinal study. Quantitative Science Studies 3 , 174–193 (2022).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Acuna, D. E., Yi, Z., Liang, L. & Zhuang, H. Predicting the usage of scientific datasets based on article, author, institution, and journal bibliometrics. In Smits, M. (ed.) Information for a Better World: Shaping the Global Future. iConference 2022 ., 42–52 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022).

Zeng, T., Wu, L., Bratt, S. & Acuna, D. E. Assigning credit to scientific datasets using article citation networks. Journal of Informetrics 14 , 101013 (2020).

Koesten, L., Vougiouklis, P., Simperl, E. & Groth, P. Dataset reuse: Toward translating principles to practice. Patterns 1 , 100136 (2020).

Du, C., Cohoon, J., Lopez, P. & Howison, J. Softcite dataset: A dataset of software mentions in biomedical and economic research publications. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 72 , 870–884 (2021).

Aryani, A. et al . A research graph dataset for connecting research data repositories using RD-Switchboard. Sci Data 5 , 180099 (2018).

Färber, M. & Lamprecht, D. The data set knowledge graph: Creating a linked open data source for data sets. Quantitative Science Studies 2 , 1324–1355 (2021).

Perry, A. & Netscher, S. Measuring the time spent on data curation. Journal of Documentation 78 , 282–304 (2022).

Trisovic, A. et al . Advancing computational reproducibility in the Dataverse data repository platform. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Practical Reproducible Evaluation of Computer Systems , P-RECS ‘20, 15–20, https://doi.org/10.1145/3391800.3398173 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2020).

Borgman, C. L., Scharnhorst, A. & Golshan, M. S. Digital data archives as knowledge infrastructures: Mediating data sharing and reuse. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 70 , 888–904, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24172 (2019).

Lafia, S. et al . MICA Data Descriptor. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8432666 (2023).

Lafia, S., Thomer, A., Bleckley, D., Akmon, D. & Hemphill, L. Leveraging machine learning to detect data curation activities. In 2021 IEEE 17th International Conference on eScience (eScience) , 149–158, https://doi.org/10.1109/eScience51609.2021.00025 (2021).

Hemphill, L., Pienta, A., Lafia, S., Akmon, D. & Bleckley, D. How do properties of data, their curation, and their funding relate to reuse? J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 73 , 1432–44, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24646 (2021).

Lafia, S., Fan, L., Thomer, A. & Hemphill, L. Subdivisions and crossroads: Identifying hidden community structures in a data archive’s citation network. Quantitative Science Studies 3 , 694–714, https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00209 (2022).

ICPSR. ICPSR Bibliography of Data-related Literature: Collection Criteria. https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/pages/ICPSR/citations/collection-criteria.html (2023).

Lafia, S., Fan, L. & Hemphill, L. A natural language processing pipeline for detecting informal data references in academic literature. Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59 , 169–178, https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.614 (2022).

Hook, D. W., Porter, S. J. & Herzog, C. Dimensions: Building context for search and evaluation. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 3 , 23, https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00023 (2018).

https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/thesaurus (2002). ICPSR. ICPSR Thesaurus.

https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/files/datamanagement/icpsr-curation-levels.pdf (2020). ICPSR. ICPSR Curation Levels.

McKinney, W. Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python. In van der Walt, S. & Millman, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference , 56–61 (2010).

Wickham, H. et al . Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software 4 , 1686 (2019).

Fan, L., Lafia, S., Li, L., Yang, F. & Hemphill, L. DataChat: Prototyping a conversational agent for dataset search and visualization. Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60 , 586–591 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the ICPSR Bibliography staff, the ICPSR Data Curation Unit, and the ICPSR Data Stewardship Committee for their support of this research. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant 1930645. This project was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services LG-37-19-0134-19.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48104, USA

Libby Hemphill, Sara Lafia, David Bleckley & Elizabeth Moss

School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48104, USA

Libby Hemphill & Lizhou Fan

School of Information, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

Andrea Thomer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

L.H. and A.T. conceptualized the study design, D.B., E.M., and S.L. prepared the data, S.L., L.F., and L.H. analyzed the data, and D.B. validated the data. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Libby Hemphill .

Ethics declarations

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.

Hemphill, L., Thomer, A., Lafia, S. et al. A dataset for measuring the impact of research data and their curation. Sci Data 11 , 442 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03303-2

Download citation

Received : 16 November 2023

Accepted : 24 April 2024

Published : 03 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03303-2

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

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.