scope and limitation of the study in quantitative research

How to Write Limitations of the Study (with examples)

This blog emphasizes the importance of recognizing and effectively writing about limitations in research. It discusses the types of limitations, their significance, and provides guidelines for writing about them, highlighting their role in advancing scholarly research.

Updated on August 24, 2023

No matter how well thought out, every research endeavor encounters challenges. There is simply no way to predict all possible variances throughout the process.

These uncharted boundaries and abrupt constraints are known as limitations in research . Identifying and acknowledging limitations is crucial for conducting rigorous studies. Limitations provide context and shed light on gaps in the prevailing inquiry and literature.

This article explores the importance of recognizing limitations and discusses how to write them effectively. By interpreting limitations in research and considering prevalent examples, we aim to reframe the perception from shameful mistakes to respectable revelations.

What are limitations in research?

In the clearest terms, research limitations are the practical or theoretical shortcomings of a study that are often outside of the researcher’s control . While these weaknesses limit the generalizability of a study’s conclusions, they also present a foundation for future research.

Sometimes limitations arise from tangible circumstances like time and funding constraints, or equipment and participant availability. Other times the rationale is more obscure and buried within the research design. Common types of limitations and their ramifications include:

• Theoretical: limits the scope, depth, or applicability of a study.
• Methodological: limits the quality, quantity, or diversity of the data.
• Empirical: limits the representativeness, validity, or reliability of the data.
• Analytical: limits the accuracy, completeness, or significance of the findings.
• Ethical: limits the access, consent, or confidentiality of the data.

Regardless of how, when, or why they arise, limitations are a natural part of the research process and should never be ignored . Like all other aspects, they are vital in their own purpose.

Why is identifying limitations important?

Whether to seek acceptance or avoid struggle, humans often instinctively hide flaws and mistakes. Merging this thought process into research by attempting to hide limitations, however, is a bad idea. It has the potential to negate the validity of outcomes and damage the reputation of scholars.

By identifying and addressing limitations throughout a project, researchers strengthen their arguments and curtail the chance of peer censure based on overlooked mistakes. Pointing out these flaws shows an understanding of variable limits and a scrupulous research process.

Showing awareness of and taking responsibility for a project’s boundaries and challenges validates the integrity and transparency of a researcher. It further demonstrates the researchers understand the applicable literature and have thoroughly evaluated their chosen research methods.

Presenting limitations also benefits the readers by providing context for research findings. It guides them to interpret the project’s conclusions only within the scope of very specific conditions. By allowing for an appropriate generalization of the findings that is accurately confined by research boundaries and is not too broad, limitations boost a study’s credibility .

Limitations are true assets to the research process. They highlight opportunities for future research. When researchers identify the limitations of their particular approach to a study question, they enable precise transferability and improve chances for reproducibility. 

Simply stating a project’s limitations is not adequate for spurring further research, though. To spark the interest of other researchers, these acknowledgements must come with thorough explanations regarding how the limitations affected the current study and how they can potentially be overcome with amended methods.

How to write limitations

Typically, the information about a study’s limitations is situated either at the beginning of the discussion section to provide context for readers or at the conclusion of the discussion section to acknowledge the need for further research. However, it varies depending upon the target journal or publication guidelines. 

Don’t hide your limitations

It is also important to not bury a limitation in the body of the paper unless it has a unique connection to a topic in that section. If so, it needs to be reiterated with the other limitations or at the conclusion of the discussion section. Wherever it is included in the manuscript, ensure that the limitations section is prominently positioned and clearly introduced.

While maintaining transparency by disclosing limitations means taking a comprehensive approach, it is not necessary to discuss everything that could have potentially gone wrong during the research study. If there is no commitment to investigation in the introduction, it is unnecessary to consider the issue a limitation to the research. Wholly consider the term ‘limitations’ and ask, “Did it significantly change or limit the possible outcomes?” Then, qualify the occurrence as either a limitation to include in the current manuscript or as an idea to note for other projects. 

Writing limitations

Once the limitations are concretely identified and it is decided where they will be included in the paper, researchers are ready for the writing task. Including only what is pertinent, keeping explanations detailed but concise, and employing the following guidelines is key for crafting valuable limitations:

1) Identify and describe the limitations : Clearly introduce the limitation by classifying its form and specifying its origin. For example:

• An unintentional bias encountered during data collection
• An intentional use of unplanned post-hoc data analysis

2) Explain the implications : Describe how the limitation potentially influences the study’s findings and how the validity and generalizability are subsequently impacted. Provide examples and evidence to support claims of the limitations’ effects without making excuses or exaggerating their impact. Overall, be transparent and objective in presenting the limitations, without undermining the significance of the research. 

3) Provide alternative approaches for future studies : Offer specific suggestions for potential improvements or avenues for further investigation. Demonstrate a proactive approach by encouraging future research that addresses the identified gaps and, therefore, expands the knowledge base.

Whether presenting limitations as an individual section within the manuscript or as a subtopic in the discussion area, authors should use clear headings and straightforward language to facilitate readability. There is no need to complicate limitations with jargon, computations, or complex datasets.

Examples of common limitations

Limitations are generally grouped into two categories , methodology and research process .

Methodology limitations

Methodology may include limitations due to:

• Sample size
• Lack of available or reliable data
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic
• Measure used to collect the data
• Self-reported data

The researcher is addressing how the large sample size requires a reassessment of the measures used to collect and analyze the data.

Research process limitations

Limitations during the research process may arise from:

• Access to information
• Longitudinal effects
• Cultural and other biases
• Language fluency
• Time constraints

The author is pointing out that the model’s estimates are based on potentially biased observational studies.

Final thoughts

Successfully proving theories and touting great achievements are only two very narrow goals of scholarly research. The true passion and greatest efforts of researchers comes more in the form of confronting assumptions and exploring the obscure.

In many ways, recognizing and sharing the limitations of a research study both allows for and encourages this type of discovery that continuously pushes research forward. By using limitations to provide a transparent account of the project's boundaries and to contextualize the findings, researchers pave the way for even more robust and impactful research in the future.

Charla Viera, MS

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

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.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Decoding the Scope and Delimitations of the Study in Research

Scope and delimitations of the study are two essential elements of a research paper or thesis that help to contextualize and convey the focus and boundaries of a research study. This allows readers to understand the research focus and the kind of information to expect. For researchers, especially students and early career researchers, understanding the meaning and purpose of the scope and delimitation of a study is crucial to craft a well-defined and impactful research project. In this article, we delve into the core concepts of scope and delimitation in a study, providing insightful examples, and practical tips on how to effectively incorporate them into your research endeavors.

Table of Contents

What is scope and delimitation in research

The scope of a research paper explains the context and framework for the study, outlines the extent, variables, or dimensions that will be investigated, and provides details of the parameters within which the study is conducted. Delimitations in research , on the other hand, refer to the limitations imposed on the study. It identifies aspects of the topic that will not be covered in the research, conveys why these choices were made, and how this will affect the outcome of the research. By narrowing down the scope and defining delimitations, researchers can ensure focused research and avoid pitfalls, which ensures the study remains feasible and attainable.

Example of scope and delimitation of a study

A researcher might want to study the effects of regular physical exercise on the health of senior citizens. This would be the broad scope of the study, after which the researcher would refine the scope by excluding specific groups of senior citizens, perhaps based on their age, gender, geographical location, cultural influences, and sample sizes. These then, would form the delimitations of the study; in other words, elements that describe the boundaries of the research.

The purpose of scope and delimitation in a study

The purpose of scope and delimitation in a study is to establish clear boundaries and focus for the research. This allows researchers to avoid ambiguity, set achievable objectives, and manage their project efficiently, ultimately leading to more credible and meaningful findings in their study. The scope and delimitation of a study serve several important purposes, including:

• Establishing clarity: Clearly defining the scope and delimitation of a study helps researchers and readers alike understand the boundaries of the investigation and what to expect from it.
• Focus and relevance: By setting the scope, researchers can concentrate on specific research questions, preventing the study from becoming too broad or irrelevant.
• Feasibility: Delimitations of the study prevent researchers from taking on too unrealistic or unmanageable tasks, making the research more achievable.
• Avoiding ambiguity: A well-defined scope and delimitation of the study minimizes any confusion or misinterpretation regarding the research objectives and methods.

Given the importance of both the scope and delimitations of a study, it is imperative to ensure that they are mentioned early on in the research manuscript. Most experts agree that the scope of research should be mentioned as part of the introduction and the delimitations must be mentioned as part of the methods section. Now that we’ve covered the scope and delimitation meaning and purpose, we look at how to write each of these sections.

How to write the scope of the study in research

When writing the scope of the study, remain focused on what you hope to achieve. Broadening the scope too much might make it too generic while narrowing it down too much may affect the way it would be interpreted. Ensure the scope of the study is clear, concise and accurate. Conduct a thorough literature review to understand existing literature, which will help identify gaps and refine the scope of your study.

It is helpful if you structure the scope in a way that answers the Six Ws – questions whose answers are considered basic in information-gathering.

Why: State the purpose of the research by articulating the research objectives and questions you aim to address in your study.

What: Outline the specific topic to be studied, while mentioning the variables, concepts, or aspects central to your research; these will define the extent of your study.

Where: Provide the setting or geographical location where the research study will be conducted.

When : Mention the specific timeframe within which the research data will be collected.

Who : Specify the sample size for the study and the profile of the population they will be drawn from.

How : Explain the research methodology, research design, and tools and analysis techniques.

How to write the delimitations of a study in research

When writing the delimitations of the study, researchers must provide all the details clearly and precisely. Writing the delimitations of the study requires a systematic approach to narrow down the research’s focus and establish boundaries. Follow these steps to craft delimitations effectively:

• Clearly understand the research objectives and questions you intend to address in your study.
• Conduct a comprehensive literature review to identify gaps and areas that have already been extensively covered. This helps to avoid redundancies and home in on a unique issue.
• Clearly state what aspects, variables, or factors you will be excluding in your research; mention available alternatives, if any, and why these alternatives were rejected.
• Explain how you the delimitations were set, and they contribute to the feasibility and relevance of your study, and how they align with the research objectives.
• Be sure to acknowledge limitations in your research, such as constraints related to time, resources, or data availability.

Being transparent ensures credibility, while explaining why the delimitations of your study could not be overcome with standard research methods backed up by scientific evidence can help readers understand the context better.

Differentiating between delimitations and limitations

Most early career researchers get confused and often use these two terms interchangeably which is wrong. Delimitations of a study refer to the set boundaries and specific parameters within which the research is carried out. They help narrow down your focus and makes it more relevant to what you are trying to prove.

Meanwhile, limitations in a study refer to the validity and reliability of the research being conducted. They are those elements of your study that are usually out of your immediate control but are still able to affect your findings in some way. In other words, limitation are potential weaknesses of your research.

In conclusion, scope and delimitation of a study are vital elements that shape the trajectory of your research study. The above explanations will have hopefully helped you better understand the scope and delimitations meaning, purpose, and importance in crafting focused, feasible, and impactful research studies. Be sure to follow the simple techniques to write the scope and delimitations of the study to embark on your research journey with clarity and confidence. Happy researching!

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

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

Related Posts

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

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or methodology that impacted or influenced the interpretation of the findings from your research. Study limitations are the constraints placed on the ability to generalize from the results, to further describe applications to practice, and/or related to the utility of findings that are the result of the ways in which you initially chose to design the study or the method used to establish internal and external validity or the result of unanticipated challenges that emerged during the study.

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Theofanidis, Dimitrios and Antigoni Fountouki. "Limitations and Delimitations in the Research Process." Perioperative Nursing 7 (September-December 2018): 155-163. .

Importance of...

Always acknowledge a study's limitations. It is far better that you identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor and have your grade lowered because you appeared to have ignored them or didn't realize they existed.

Keep in mind that acknowledgment of a study's limitations is an opportunity to make suggestions for further research. If you do connect your study's limitations to suggestions for further research, be sure to explain the ways in which these unanswered questions may become more focused because of your study.

Acknowledgment of a study's limitations also provides you with opportunities to demonstrate that you have thought critically about the research problem, understood the relevant literature published about it, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the problem. A key objective of the research process is not only discovering new knowledge but also to confront assumptions and explore what we don't know.

Claiming limitations is a subjective process because you must evaluate the impact of those limitations . Don't just list key weaknesses and the magnitude of a study's limitations. To do so diminishes the validity of your research because it leaves the reader wondering whether, or in what ways, limitation(s) in your study may have impacted the results and conclusions. Limitations require a critical, overall appraisal and interpretation of their impact. You should answer the question: do these problems with errors, methods, validity, etc. eventually matter and, if so, to what extent?

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com.

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

All studies have limitations . However, it is important that you restrict your discussion to limitations related to the research problem under investigation. For example, if a meta-analysis of existing literature is not a stated purpose of your research, it should not be discussed as a limitation. Do not apologize for not addressing issues that you did not promise to investigate in the introduction of your paper.

Here are examples of limitations related to methodology and the research process you may need to describe and discuss how they possibly impacted your results. Note that descriptions of limitations should be stated in the past tense because they were discovered after you completed your research.

Possible Methodological Limitations

• Sample size -- the number of the units of analysis you use in your study is dictated by the type of research problem you are investigating. Note that, if your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to find significant relationships from the data, as statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to ensure a representative distribution of the population and to be considered representative of groups of people to whom results will be generalized or transferred. Note that sample size is generally less relevant in qualitative research if explained in the context of the research problem.
• Lack of available and/or reliable data -- a lack of data or of reliable data will likely require you to limit the scope of your analysis, the size of your sample, or it can be a significant obstacle in finding a trend and a meaningful relationship. You need to not only describe these limitations but provide cogent reasons why you believe data is missing or is unreliable. However, don’t just throw up your hands in frustration; use this as an opportunity to describe a need for future research based on designing a different method for gathering data.
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic -- citing prior research studies forms the basis of your literature review and helps lay a foundation for understanding the research problem you are investigating. Depending on the currency or scope of your research topic, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic. Before assuming this to be true, though, consult with a librarian! In cases when a librarian has confirmed that there is little or no prior research, you may be required to develop an entirely new research typology [for example, using an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design ]. Note again that discovering a limitation can serve as an important opportunity to identify new gaps in the literature and to describe the need for further research.
• Measure used to collect the data -- sometimes it is the case that, after completing your interpretation of the findings, you discover that the way in which you gathered data inhibited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results. For example, you regret not including a specific question in a survey that, in retrospect, could have helped address a particular issue that emerged later in the study. Acknowledge the deficiency by stating a need for future researchers to revise the specific method for gathering data.
• Self-reported data -- whether you are relying on pre-existing data or you are conducting a qualitative research study and gathering the data yourself, self-reported data is limited by the fact that it rarely can be independently verified. In other words, you have to the accuracy of what people say, whether in interviews, focus groups, or on questionnaires, at face value. However, self-reported data can contain several potential sources of bias that you should be alert to and note as limitations. These biases become apparent if they are incongruent with data from other sources. These are: (1) selective memory [remembering or not remembering experiences or events that occurred at some point in the past]; (2) telescoping [recalling events that occurred at one time as if they occurred at another time]; (3) attribution [the act of attributing positive events and outcomes to one's own agency, but attributing negative events and outcomes to external forces]; and, (4) exaggeration [the act of representing outcomes or embellishing events as more significant than is actually suggested from other data].

Possible Limitations of the Researcher

• Access -- if your study depends on having access to people, organizations, data, or documents and, for whatever reason, access is denied or limited in some way, the reasons for this needs to be described. Also, include an explanation why being denied or limited access did not prevent you from following through on your study.
• Longitudinal effects -- unlike your professor, who can literally devote years [even a lifetime] to studying a single topic, the time available to investigate a research problem and to measure change or stability over time is constrained by the due date of your assignment. Be sure to choose a research problem that does not require an excessive amount of time to complete the literature review, apply the methodology, and gather and interpret the results. If you're unsure whether you can complete your research within the confines of the assignment's due date, talk to your professor.
• Cultural and other type of bias -- we all have biases, whether we are conscience of them or not. Bias is when a person, place, event, or thing is viewed or shown in a consistently inaccurate way. Bias is usually negative, though one can have a positive bias as well, especially if that bias reflects your reliance on research that only support your hypothesis. When proof-reading your paper, be especially critical in reviewing how you have stated a problem, selected the data to be studied, what may have been omitted, the manner in which you have ordered events, people, or places, how you have chosen to represent a person, place, or thing, to name a phenomenon, or to use possible words with a positive or negative connotation. NOTE :   If you detect bias in prior research, it must be acknowledged and you should explain what measures were taken to avoid perpetuating that bias. For example, if a previous study only used boys to examine how music education supports effective math skills, describe how your research expands the study to include girls.
• Fluency in a language -- if your research focuses , for example, on measuring the perceived value of after-school tutoring among Mexican-American ESL [English as a Second Language] students and you are not fluent in Spanish, you are limited in being able to read and interpret Spanish language research studies on the topic or to speak with these students in their primary language. This deficiency should be acknowledged.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Senunyeme, Emmanuel K. Business Research Methods. Powerpoint Presentation. Regent University of Science and Technology; ter Riet, Gerben et al. “All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies.” PLOS One 8 (November 2013): 1-6.

Structure and Writing Style

Information about the limitations of your study are generally placed either at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the limitations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an acknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section.

If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations , such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as an exploratory study intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully overcome in a new study.

But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic . If serious limitations exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly defined or that the issue or event under study is too recent and, thus, very little research has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor about possible ways to overcome them or how to revise your study.

When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to:

• Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms;
• Explain why each limitation exists;
• Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the method(s) chosen to acquire or gather the data [cite to other studies that had similar problems when possible];
• Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to the overall findings and conclusions of your study; and,
• If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further research.

Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example, you didn't interview a group of people that you later wish you had]. If this is the case, don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust methodology might address the research problem more effectively in a future study. A underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to show what works, but to demonstrate what doesn't work or what needs further clarification.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Ioannidis, John P.A. "Limitations are not Properly Acknowledged in the Scientific Literature." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007): 324-329; Pasek, Josh. Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed. January 24, 2012. Academia.edu; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

Writing Tip

Don't Inflate the Importance of Your Findings!

After all the hard work and long hours devoted to writing your research paper, it is easy to get carried away with attributing unwarranted importance to what you’ve done. We all want our academic work to be viewed as excellent and worthy of a good grade, but it is important that you understand and openly acknowledge the limitations of your study. Inflating the importance of your study's findings could be perceived by your readers as an attempt hide its flaws or encourage a biased interpretation of the results. A small measure of humility goes a long way!

Another Writing Tip

Negative Results are Not a Limitation!

Negative evidence refers to findings that unexpectedly challenge rather than support your hypothesis. If you didn't get the results you anticipated, it may mean your hypothesis was incorrect and needs to be reformulated. Or, perhaps you have stumbled onto something unexpected that warrants further study. Moreover, the absence of an effect may be very telling in many situations, particularly in experimental research designs. In any case, your results may very well be of importance to others even though they did not support your hypothesis. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that results contrary to what you expected is a limitation to your study. If you carried out the research well, they are simply your results and only require additional interpretation.

Lewis, George H. and Jonathan F. Lewis. “The Dog in the Night-Time: Negative Evidence in Social Research.” The British Journal of Sociology 31 (December 1980): 544-558.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Sample Size Limitations in Qualitative Research

Sample sizes are typically smaller in qualitative research because, as the study goes on, acquiring more data does not necessarily lead to more information. This is because one occurrence of a piece of data, or a code, is all that is necessary to ensure that it becomes part of the analysis framework. However, it remains true that sample sizes that are too small cannot adequately support claims of having achieved valid conclusions and sample sizes that are too large do not permit the deep, naturalistic, and inductive analysis that defines qualitative inquiry. Determining adequate sample size in qualitative research is ultimately a matter of judgment and experience in evaluating the quality of the information collected against the uses to which it will be applied and the particular research method and purposeful sampling strategy employed. If the sample size is found to be a limitation, it may reflect your judgment about the methodological technique chosen [e.g., single life history study versus focus group interviews] rather than the number of respondents used.

Boddy, Clive Roland. "Sample Size for Qualitative Research." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 19 (2016): 426-432; Huberman, A. Michael and Matthew B. Miles. "Data Management and Analysis Methods." In Handbook of Qualitative Research . Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), pp. 428-444; Blaikie, Norman. "Confounding Issues Related to Determining Sample Size in Qualitative Research." International Journal of Social Research Methodology 21 (2018): 635-641; Oppong, Steward Harrison. "The Problem of Sampling in qualitative Research." Asian Journal of Management Sciences and Education 2 (2013): 202-210.

• << Previous: 8. The Discussion
• Next: 9. The Conclusion >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 9:40 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Community Blog

Keep up-to-date on postgraduate related issues with our quick reads written by students, postdocs, professors and industry leaders.

How to Write the Scope of the Study

• By DiscoverPhDs
• August 26, 2020

What is the Scope of the Study?

The scope of the study refers to the boundaries within which your research project will be performed; this is sometimes also called the scope of research. To define the scope of the study is to define all aspects that will be considered in your research project. It is also just as important to make clear what aspects will not be covered; i.e. what is outside of the scope of the study.

Why is the Scope of the Study Important?

The scope of the study is always considered and agreed upon in the early stages of the project, before any data collection or experimental work has started. This is important because it focuses the work of the proposed study down to what is practically achievable within a given timeframe.

A well-defined research or study scope enables a researcher to give clarity to the study outcomes that are to be investigated. It makes clear why specific data points have been collected whilst others have been excluded.

Without this, it is difficult to define an end point for a research project since no limits have been defined on the work that could take place. Similarly, it can also make the approach to answering a research question too open ended.

How do you Write the Scope of the Study?

In order to write the scope of the study that you plan to perform, you must be clear on the research parameters that you will and won’t consider. These parameters usually consist of the sample size, the duration, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the methodology and any geographical or monetary constraints.

Each of these parameters will have limits placed on them so that the study can practically be performed, and the results interpreted relative to the limitations that have been defined. These parameters will also help to shape the direction of each research question you consider.

The term limitations’ is often used together with the scope of the study to describe the constraints of any parameters that are considered and also to clarify which parameters have not been considered at all. Make sure you get the balance right here between not making the scope too broad and unachievable, and it not being too restrictive, resulting in a lack of useful data.

The sample size is a commonly used parameter in the definition of the research scope. For example, a research project involving human participants may define at the start of the study that 100 participants will be recruited. This number will be determined based on an understanding of the difficulty in recruiting participants to studies and an agreement of an acceptable period of time in which to recruit this number.

Any results that are obtained by the research group can then be interpreted by others with the knowledge that the study was capped to 100 participants and an acceptance of this as a limitation of the study. In other words, it is acknowledged that recruiting 100 rather than 1,000 participants has limited the amount of data that could be collected, however this is an acceptable limitation due to the known difficulties in recruiting so many participants (e.g. the significant period of time it would take and the costs associated with this).

Example of a Scope of the Study

The follow is a (hypothetical) example of the definition of the scope of the study, with the research question investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health.

Whilst the immediate negative health problems related to the COVID-19 pandemic have been well documented, the impact of the virus on the mental health (MH) of young adults (age 18-24 years) is poorly understood. The aim of this study is to report on MH changes in population group due to the pandemic.

The scope of the study is limited to recruiting 100 volunteers between the ages of 18 and 24 who will be contacted using their university email accounts. This recruitment period will last for a maximum of 2 months and will end when either 100 volunteers have been recruited or 2 months have passed. Each volunteer to the study will be asked to complete a short questionnaire in order to evaluate any changes in their MH.

From this example we can immediately see that the scope of the study has placed a constraint on the sample size to be used and/or the time frame for recruitment of volunteers. It has also introduced a limitation by only opening recruitment to people that have university emails; i.e. anyone that does not attend university will be excluded from this study.

This may be an important factor when interpreting the results of this study; the comparison of MH during the pandemic between those that do and do not attend university, is therefore outside the scope of the study here. We are also told that the methodology used to assess any changes in MH are via a questionnaire. This is a clear definition of how the outcome measure will be investigated and any other methods are not within the scope of research and their exclusion may be a limitation of the study.

The scope of the study is important to define as it enables a researcher to focus their research to within achievable parameters.

Stay up to date with current information being provided by the UK Government and Universities about the impact of the global pandemic on PhD research studies.

Being a new graduate teaching assistant can be a scary but rewarding undertaking – our 7 tips will help make your teaching journey as smooth as possible.

Starting your PhD can feel like a daunting, exciting and special time. They’ll be so much to think about – here are a few tips to help you get started.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

Browse PhDs Now

Learn about defining your workspace, having a list of daily tasks and using technology to stay connected, all whilst working from home as a research student.

Statistical treatment of data is essential for all researchers, regardless of whether you’re a biologist, computer scientist or psychologist, but what exactly is it?

Ellen is in the third year of her PhD at the University of Oxford. Her project looks at eighteenth-century reading manuals, using them to find out how eighteenth-century people theorised reading aloud.

Dr Hooper gained his PhD in evolutionary biology from the the University of Sheffield. He is now a journalist and writer (last book called Superhuman) and podcast editor at New Scientist.

Join Thousands of Students

Research Limitations 101 📖

A Plain-Language Explainer (With Practical Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | May 2024

Research limitations are one of those things that students tend to avoid digging into, and understandably so. No one likes to critique their own study and point out weaknesses. Nevertheless, being able to understand the limitations of your study – and, just as importantly, the implications thereof – a is a critically important skill.

In this post, we’ll unpack some of the most common research limitations you’re likely to encounter, so that you can approach your project with confidence.

Overview: Research Limitations 101

• What are research limitations ?
• Access – based limitations
• Temporal & financial limitations
• Sample & sampling limitations
• Design limitations
• Researcher limitations
• Key takeaways

What (exactly) are “research limitations”?

At the simplest level, research limitations (also referred to as “the limitations of the study”) are the constraints and challenges that will invariably influence your ability to conduct your study and draw reliable conclusions .

Research limitations are inevitable. Absolutely no study is perfect and limitations are an inherent part of any research design. These limitations can stem from a variety of sources , including access to data, methodological choices, and the more mundane constraints of budget and time. So, there’s no use trying to escape them – what matters is that you can recognise them.

Acknowledging and understanding these limitations is crucial, not just for the integrity of your research, but also for your development as a scholar. That probably sounds a bit rich, but realistically, having a strong understanding of the limitations of any given study helps you handle the inevitable obstacles professionally and transparently, which in turn builds trust with your audience and academic peers.

Simply put, recognising and discussing the limitations of your study demonstrates that you know what you’re doing , and that you’ve considered the results of your project within the context of these limitations. In other words, discussing the limitations is a sign of credibility and strength – not weakness. Contrary to the common misconception, highlighting your limitations (or rather, your study’s limitations) will earn you (rather than cost you) marks.

So, with that foundation laid, let’s have a look at some of the most common research limitations you’re likely to encounter – and how to go about managing them as effectively as possible.

Need a helping hand?

Limitation #1: Access To Information

One of the first hurdles you might encounter is limited access to necessary information. For example, you may have trouble getting access to specific literature or niche data sets. This situation can manifest due to several reasons, including paywalls, copyright and licensing issues or language barriers.

To minimise situations like these, it’s useful to try to leverage your university’s resource pool to the greatest extent possible. In practical terms, this means engaging with your university’s librarian and/or potentially utilising interlibrary loans to get access to restricted resources. If this sounds foreign to you, have a chat with your librarian 🙃

In emerging fields or highly specific study areas, you might find that there’s very little existing research (i.e., literature) on your topic. This scenario, while challenging, also offers a unique opportunity to contribute significantly to your field , as it indicates that there’s a significant research gap .

All of that said, be sure to conduct an exhaustive search using a variety of keywords and Boolean operators before assuming that there’s a lack of literature. Also, remember to snowball your literature base . In other words, scan the reference lists of the handful of papers that are directly relevant and then scan those references for more sources. You can also consider using tools like Litmaps and Connected Papers (see video below).

Limitation #2: Time & Money

Almost every researcher will face time and budget constraints at some point. Naturally, these limitations can affect the depth and breadth of your research – but they don’t need to be a death sentence.

Effective planning is crucial to managing both the temporal and financial aspects of your study. In practical terms, utilising tools like Gantt charts can help you visualise and plan your research timeline realistically, thereby reducing the risk of any nasty surprises. Always take a conservative stance when it comes to timelines, especially if you’re new to academic research. As a rule of thumb, things will generally take twice as long as you expect – so, prepare for the worst-case scenario.

If budget is a concern, you might want to consider exploring small research grants or adjusting the scope of your study so that it fits within a realistic budget. Trimming back might sound unattractive, but keep in mind that a smaller, well-planned study can often be more impactful than a larger, poorly planned project.

If you find yourself in a position where you’ve already run out of cash, don’t panic. There’s usually a pivot opportunity hidden somewhere within your project. Engage with your research advisor or faculty to explore potential solutions – don’t make any major changes without first consulting your institution.

Limitation #3: Sample Size & Composition

As we’ve discussed before , the size and representativeness of your sample are crucial , especially in quantitative research where the robustness of your conclusions often depends on these factors. All too often though, students run into issues achieving a sufficient sample size and composition.

To ensure adequacy in terms of your sample size, it’s important to plan for potential dropouts by oversampling from the outset . In other words, if you aim for a final sample size of 100 participants, aim to recruit 120-140 to account for unexpected challenges. If you still find yourself short on participants, consider whether you could complement your dataset with secondary data or data from an adjacent sample – for example, participants from another city or country. That said, be sure to engage with your research advisor before making any changes to your approach.

A related issue that you may run into is sample composition. In other words, you may have trouble securing a random sample that’s representative of your population of interest. In cases like this, you might again want to look at ways to complement your dataset with other sources, but if that’s not possible, it’s not the end of the world. As with all limitations, you’ll just need to recognise this limitation in your final write-up and be sure to interpret your results accordingly. In other words, don’t claim generalisability of your results if your sample isn’t random.

Limitation #4: Methodological Limitations

As we alluded earlier, every methodological choice comes with its own set of limitations . For example, you can’t claim causality if you’re using a descriptive or correlational research design. Similarly, as we saw in the previous example, you can’t claim generalisability if you’re using a non-random sampling approach.

Making good methodological choices is all about understanding (and accepting) the inherent trade-offs . In the vast majority of cases, you won’t be able to adopt the “perfect” methodology – and that’s okay. What’s important is that you select a methodology that aligns with your research aims and research questions , as well as the practical constraints at play (e.g., time, money, equipment access, etc.). Just as importantly, you must recognise and articulate the limitations of your chosen methods, and justify why they were the most suitable, given your specific context.

Limitation #5: Researcher (In)experience 

A discussion about research limitations would not be complete without mentioning the researcher (that’s you!). Whether we like to admit it or not, researcher inexperience and personal biases can subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) influence the interpretation and presentation of data within a study. This is especially true when it comes to dissertations and theses , as these are most commonly undertaken by first-time (or relatively fresh) researchers.

When it comes to dealing with this specific limitation, it’s important to remember the adage “ We don’t know what we don’t know ”. In other words, recognise and embrace your (relative) ignorance and subjectivity – and interpret your study’s results within that context . Simply put, don’t be overly confident in drawing conclusions from your study – especially when they contradict existing literature.

Cultivating a culture of reflexivity within your research practices can help reduce subjectivity and keep you a bit more “rooted” in the data. In practical terms, this simply means making an effort to become aware of how your perspectives and experiences may have shaped the research process and outcomes.

As with any new endeavour in life, it’s useful to garner as many outsider perspectives as possible. Of course, your university-assigned research advisor will play a large role in this respect, but it’s also a good idea to seek out feedback and critique from other academics. To this end, you might consider approaching other faculty at your institution, joining an online group, or even working with a private coach .

Key Takeaways

Understanding and effectively navigating research limitations is key to conducting credible and reliable academic work. By acknowledging and addressing these limitations upfront, you not only enhance the integrity of your research, but also demonstrate your academic maturity and professionalism.

Whether you’re working on a dissertation, thesis or any other type of formal academic research, remember the five most common research limitations and interpret your data while keeping them in mind.

• Access to Information (literature and data)
• Time and money
• Sample size and composition
• Research design and methodology
• Researcher (in)experience and bias

If you need a hand identifying and mitigating the limitations within your study, check out our 1:1 private coaching service .

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Methodology Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

How To Write Scope and Delimitation of a Research Paper (With Examples)

An effective research paper or thesis has a well-written Scope and Delimitation.  This portion specifies your study’s coverage and boundaries.

Not yet sure about how to write your research’s Scope and Delimitation? Fret not, as we’ll guide you through the entire writing process through this article.

Related: How To Write Significance of the Study (With Examples)

Table of Contents

What is the scope and delimitation of a research paper.

The “Scope and Delimitation” section states the concepts and variables your study covered. It tells readers which things you have included and excluded in your analysis.

This portion tells two things: 1

• The study’s “Scope” – concepts and variables you have explored in your research and;
• The study’s “Delimitation” – the “boundaries” of your study’s scope. It sets apart the things included in your analysis from those excluded.

For example, your scope might be the effectiveness of plant leaves in lowering blood sugar levels. You can “delimit” your study only to the effect of gabi leaves on the blood glucose of Swiss mice.

Where Should I Put the Scope and Delimitation?

This portion is in Chapter 1, usually after the “Background of the Study.”

Why Should I Write the Scope and Delimitation of My Research Paper?

There’s a lot to discover in a research paper or thesis. However, your resources and time dedicated to it are scarce. Thus, given these constraints, you have to narrow down your study. You do this in the Scope and Delimitation.

Suppose you’re studying the correlation between the quantity of organic fertilizer and plant growth . Experimenting with several types of plants is impossible because of several limitations. So, you’ve decided to use one plant type only. 

Informing your readers about this decision is a must. So, you have to state it in your Scope and Delimitation. It also acts as a “disclaimer” that your results are inapplicable to the entire plant kingdom.

What Is the Difference Between Delimitation and Limitation?

People often use the terms “Delimitation” and “Limitation” interchangeably. However, these words differ 2 .

Delimitation refers to factors you set to limit your analysis. It delineates those that are included in your research and those that are excluded. Remember, delimitations are within your control. 

Meanwhile, limitations are factors beyond your control that may affect your research’s results.  You can think of limitations as the “weaknesses” of your study. 

Let’s go back to our previous example. Due to some constraints, you’ve only decided to examine one plant type: dandelions. This is an example of a delimitation since it limits your analysis to dandelions only and not other plant types. Note that the number of plant types used is within your control. 

Meanwhile, your study cannot state that a higher quantity of organic fertilizer is the sole reason for plant growth. That’s because your research’s focus is only on correlation. Since this is already beyond your control, then this is a limitation. 

How To Write Scope and Delimitation: Step-by-Step Guide

To write your research’s Scope and Delimitation section, follow these steps:

1. Review Your Study’s Objectives and Problem Statement

Your study’s coverage relies on its objectives. Thus, you can only write this section if you know what you’re researching. Furthermore, ensure that you understand the problems you ought to answer. 

Once you understand the abovementioned things, you may start writing your study’s Scope and Delimitation.

2. State the Key Information To Explain Your Study’s Coverage and Boundaries

a. The Main Objective of the Research

This refers to the concept that you’re focusing on in your research. Some examples are the following:

• level of awareness or satisfaction of a particular group of people
• correlation between two variables
• effectiveness of a new product
• comparison between two methods/approaches
• lived experiences of several individuals

It’s helpful to consult your study’s Objectives or Statement of the Problem section to determine your research’s primary goal.

b. Independent and Dependent Variables Included

Your study’s independent variable is the variable that you manipulate. Meanwhile, the dependent variable is the variable whose result depends upon the independent variable. Both of these variables must be clear and specific when indicated. 

Suppose you study the relationship between social media usage and students’ language skills. These are the possible variables for the study:

• Independent Variable: Number of hours per day spent on using Facebook
• Dependent Variable: Grade 10 students’ scores in Quarterly Examination in English. 

Note how specific the variables stated above are. For the independent variable, we narrow it down to Facebook only. Since there are many ways to assess “language skills,” we zero in on the students’ English exam scores as our dependent variable. 

c. Subject of the Study

This refers to your study’s respondents or participants. 

In our previous example, the research participants are Grade 10 students. However, there are a lot of Grade 10 students in the Philippines. Thus, we have to select from a specific school only—for instance, Grade 10 students from a national high school in Manila. 

d. Timeframe and Location of the Study

Specify the month(s), quarter(s), or year(s) as the duration of your study. Also, indicate where you will gather the data required for your research. 

e. Brief Description of the Study’s Research Design and Methodology

You may also include whether your research is quantitative or qualitative, the sampling method (cluster, stratified, purposive) applied, and how you conducted the experiment.

Using our previous example, the Grade 10 students can be selected using stratified sampling. Afterward, the researchers may obtain their English quarterly exam scores from their respective teachers. You can add these things to your study’s Scope and Delimitation. 

3. Indicate Which Variables or Factors Are Not Covered by Your Research

Although you’ve already set your study’s coverage and boundaries in Step 2, you may also explicitly mention things you’ve excluded from your research. 

Returning to our previous example, you can state that your assessment will not include the vocabulary and oral aspects of the English proficiency skill. 

Examples of Scope and Delimitation of a Research Paper

1. scope and delimitation examples for quantitative research.

a. Example 1

Research Title

    A Study on the Relationship of the Extent of Facebook Usage on the English Proficiency Level of Grade 10 Students of Matagumpay High School

Scope and Delimitation

(Main Objective)

This study assessed the correlation between the respondents’ duration of Facebook usage and their English proficiency level. 

(Variables used)

The researchers used the number of hours per day of using Facebook and the activities usually performed on the platform to assess the respondents’ extent of Facebook usage. Meanwhile, the respondents’ English proficiency level is limited to their quarterly English exam scores. 

(Subject of the study)

A sample of fifty (50) Grade 10 students of Matagumpay High School served as the study’s respondents. 

(Timeframe and location)

This study was conducted during the Second Semester of the School Year 2018 – 2019 on the premises of Matagumpay High School in Metro Manila. 

(Methodology)

The respondents are selected by performing stratified random sampling to ensure that there will be ten respondents from five Grade 10 classes of the school mentioned above. The researchers administered a 20-item questionnaire to assess the extent of Facebook usage of the selected respondents. Meanwhile, the data for the respondents’ quarterly exam scores were acquired from their English teachers. The collected data are handled with the utmost confidentiality. Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation was applied to quantitatively assess the correlation between the variables.

(Exclusions)

This study didn’t assess other aspects of the respondents’ English proficiency, such as English vocabulary and oral skills. 

Note: The words inside the parentheses in the example above are guides only. They are not included in the actual text.

b. Example 2

  Level of Satisfaction of Grade 11 Students on the Implementation of the Online Learning Setup of Matagumpay High School for SY 2020 – 2021

This study aims to identify students’ satisfaction levels with implementing online learning setups during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Students’ satisfaction was assessed according to teachers’ pedagogy, school policies, and learning materials used in the online learning setup. The respondents included sixty (60) Grade 11 students of Matagumpay High School who were randomly picked. The researchers conducted the study from October 2020 to February 2021. 

Online platforms such as email and social media applications were used to reach the respondents. The researchers administered a 15-item online questionnaire to measure the respondents’ satisfaction levels. Each response was assessed using a Likert Scale to provide a descriptive interpretation of their answers. A weighted mean was applied to determine the respondents’ general satisfaction. 

This study did not cover other factors related to the online learning setup, such as the learning platform used, the schedule of synchronous learning, and channels for information dissemination.

2. Scope and Delimitation Examples for Qualitative Research

  Lived Experiences of Public Utility Vehicle (PUV) Drivers of Antipolo City Amidst the Continuous June 2022 Oil Price Hikes

This research focused on the presentation and discussion of the lived experiences of PUV drivers during the constant oil price hike in June 2022.

The respondents involved are five (5) jeepney drivers from Antipolo City who agreed to be interviewed. The researchers assessed their experiences in terms of the following: (1) daily net income; (2) duration and extent of working; (3) alternative employment opportunity considerations; and (4) mental and emotional status. The respondents were interviewed daily at their stations on June 6 – 10, 2022. 

In-depth one-on-one interviews were used for data collection.  Afterward, the respondents’ first-hand experiences were drafted and annotated with the researchers’ insights. 

The researchers excluded some factors in determining the respondents’ experiences, such as physical and health conditions and current family relationship status. 

 A Study on the Perception of the Residents of Mayamot, Antipolo City on the Political and Socioeconomic Conditions During the Post-EDSA Period (1986 – 1996)

This research aims to discuss the perception of Filipinos regarding the political and socioeconomic economic conditions during the post-EDSA period, specifically during the years 1986 – 1996. 

Ten (10) residents of Mayamot, Antipolo City, who belonged to Generation X (currently 40 – 62 years old), were purposively selected as the study’s respondents. The researchers asked them about their perception of the following aspects during the period mentioned above (1) performance of national and local government; (2) bureaucracy and government services; (3) personal economic and financial status; and (4) wage purchasing power. 

The researchers conducted face-to-face interviews in the respondents’ residences during the second semester of AY 2018 – 2019. The responses were written and corroborated with the literature on the post-EDSA period. 

The following factors were not included in the research analysis: political conflicts and turmoils, the status of the legislative and judicial departments, and other macroeconomic indicators. 

Tips and Warnings

1. use the “5ws and 1h” as your guide in understanding your study’s coverage.

• Why did you write your study?  
• What variables are included?
• Who are your study’s subject
• Where did you conduct the study?
• When did your study start and end?
• How did you conduct the study?

2. Use key phrases when writing your research’s scope

• This study aims to … 
• This study primarily focuses on …
• This study deals with … 
• This study will cover …
• This study will be confined…

3. Use key phrases when writing factors beyond your research’s delimitations

• The researcher(s) decided to exclude …
• This study did not cover….
• This study excluded … 
• These variables/factors were excluded from the study…

4. Don’t forget to ask for help

Your research adviser can assist you in selecting specific concepts and variables suitable to your study. Make sure to consult him/her regularly. 

5. Make it brief

No need to make this section wordy. You’re good to go if you meet the “5Ws and 1Hs”. 

Frequently Asked Questions

1. what are scope and delimitation in tagalog.

In a Filipino research ( pananaliksik ), Scope and Delimitation is called “ Saklaw at Delimitasyon”. 

Here’s an example of Scope and Delimitation in Filipino:

Pamagat ng Pananaliksik

Epekto Ng Paggamit Ng Mga Digital Learning Tools Sa Pag-Aaral Ng Mga Mag-Aaral Ng Mataas Na Paaralan Ng Matagumpay Sa General Mathematics

Sakop at Delimitasyon ng Pag-aaral

Nakatuon ang pananaliksik na ito sa epekto ng paggamit ng mga digital learning aids sa pag-aaral ng mga mag-aaral.

Ang mga digital learning tools na kinonsidera sa pag-aaral na ito ay Google Classroom, Edmodo, Kahoot, at mga piling bidyo mula YouTube. Samantala, ang epekto sa pag-aaral ng mga mag-aaral ng mga nabanggit na digital learning tools ay natukoy sa pamamagitan ng kanilang (1) mga pananaw hinggil sa benepisyo nito sa kanilang pag-aaral sa General Mathematics at (2) kanilang average grade sa asignaturang ito.

Dalawampu’t-limang (25) mag-aaral mula sa Senior High School ng Mataas na Paaralan ng Matagumpay ang pinili para sa pananaliksik na ito. Sila ay na-interbyu at binigyan ng questionnaire noong Enero 2022 sa nasabing paaralan. Sinuri ang resulta ng pananaliksik sa pamamagitan ng mga instrumentong estadistikal na weighted mean at Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Hindi saklaw ng pananaliksik na ito ang ibang mga aspeto hinggil sa epekto ng online learning aids sa pag-aaral gaya ng lebel ng pag-unawa sa aralin at kakayahang iugnay ito sa araw-araw na buhay. 

2. The Scope and Delimitation should consist of how many paragraphs?

Three or more paragraphs will suffice for your study’s Scope and Delimitation. Here’s our suggestion on what you should write for each paragraph:

Paragraph 1: Introduction (state research objective) Paragraph 2: Coverage and boundaries of the research (you may divide this section into 2-3 paragraphs) Paragraph 3 : Factors excluded from the study

• University of St. La Salle. Unit 3: Lesson 3 Setting the Scope and Limitation of a Qualitative Research [Ebook] (p. 12). Retrieved from https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/university-of-st-la-salle/senior-high-school/final-sg-pr1-11-12-unit-3-lesson-3-setting-the-scope-and-limitation-of-a-qualitative-research/24341582
• Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2018). Limitations and Delimitations in the Research Process. Perioperative Nursing (GORNA), 7(3), 155–162. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2552022

Written by Jewel Kyle Fabula

in Career and Education , Juander How

Jewel Kyle Fabula

Jewel Kyle Fabula is a Bachelor of Science in Economics student at the University of the Philippines Diliman. His passion for learning mathematics developed as he competed in some mathematics competitions during his Junior High School years. He loves cats, playing video games, and listening to music.

Browse all articles written by Jewel Kyle Fabula

Copyright Notice

All materials contained on this site are protected by the Republic of the Philippines copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published, or broadcast without the prior written permission of filipiknow.net or in the case of third party materials, the owner of that content. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright, or other notice from copies of the content. Be warned that we have already reported and helped terminate several websites and YouTube channels for blatantly stealing our content. If you wish to use filipiknow.net content for commercial purposes, such as for content syndication, etc., please contact us at legal(at)filipiknow(dot)net

Setting Limits and Focusing Your Study: Exploring scope and delimitation

As a researcher, it can be easy to get lost in the vast expanse of information and data available. Thus, when starting a research project, one of the most important things to consider is the scope and delimitation of the study. Setting limits and focusing your study is essential to ensure that the research project is manageable, relevant, and able to produce useful results. In this article, we will explore the importance of setting limits and focusing your study through an in-depth analysis of scope and delimitation.

Company Name 123

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, cu usu cibo vituperata, id ius probo maiestatis inciderint, sit eu vide volutpat.

Sign Up for More Insights

Table of Contents

Scope and Delimitation – Definition and difference

Scope refers to the range of the research project and the study limitations set in place to define the boundaries of the project and delimitation refers to the specific aspects of the research project that the study will focus on.

In simpler words, scope is the breadth of your study, while delimitation is the depth of your study.

Scope and delimitation are both essential components of a research project, and they are often confused with one another. The scope defines the parameters of the study, while delimitation sets the boundaries within those parameters. The scope and delimitation of a study are usually established early on in the research process and guide the rest of the project.

Types of Scope and Delimitation

Significance of Scope and Delimitation

Setting limits and focusing your study through scope and delimitation is crucial for the following reasons:

• It allows researchers to define the research project’s boundaries, enabling them to focus on specific aspects of the project. This focus makes it easier to gather relevant data and avoid unnecessary information that might complicate the study’s results.
• Setting limits and focusing your study through scope and delimitation enables the researcher to stay within the parameters of the project’s resources.
• A well-defined scope and delimitation ensure that the research project can be completed within the available resources, such as time and budget, while still achieving the project’s objectives.

5 Steps to Setting Limits and Defining the Scope and Delimitation of Your Study

There are a few steps that you can take to set limits and focus your study.

1. Identify your research question or topic

The first step is to identify what you are interested in learning about. The research question should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). Once you have a research question or topic, you can start to narrow your focus.

2. Consider the key terms or concepts related to your topic

What are the important terms or concepts that you need to understand in order to answer your research question? Consider all available resources, such as time, budget, and data availability, when setting scope and delimitation.

The scope and delimitation should be established within the parameters of the available resources. Once you have identified the key terms or concepts, you can start to develop a glossary or list of definitions.

3. Consider the different perspectives on your topic

There are often different perspectives on any given topic. Get feedback on the proposed scope and delimitation. Advisors can provide guidance on the feasibility of the study and offer suggestions for improvement.

It is important to consider all of the different perspectives in order to get a well-rounded understanding of your topic.

4. Narrow your focus

Be specific and concise when setting scope and delimitation. The parameters of the study should be clearly defined to avoid ambiguity and ensure that the study is focused on relevant aspects of the research question.

This means deciding which aspects of your topic you will focus on and which aspects you will eliminate.

5. Develop the final research plan

Revisit and revise the scope and delimitation as needed. As the research project progresses, the scope and delimitation may need to be adjusted to ensure that the study remains focused on the research question and can produce useful results. This plan should include your research goals, methods, and timeline.

Examples of Scope and Delimitation

To better understand scope and delimitation, let us consider two examples of research questions and how scope and delimitation would apply to them.

Research question: What are the effects of social media on mental health?

Scope: The scope of the study will focus on the impact of social media on the mental health of young adults aged 18-24 in the United States.

Delimitation: The study will specifically examine the following aspects of social media: frequency of use, types of social media platforms used, and the impact of social media on self-esteem and body image.

Research question: What are the factors that influence employee job satisfaction in the healthcare industry?

Scope: The scope of the study will focus on employee job satisfaction in the healthcare industry in the United States.

Delimitation: The study will specifically examine the following factors that influence employee job satisfaction: salary, work-life balance, job security, and opportunities for career growth.

Setting limits and defining the scope and delimitation of a research study is essential to conducting effective research. By doing so, researchers can ensure that their study is focused, manageable, and feasible within the given time frame and resources. It can also help to identify areas that require further study, providing a foundation for future research.

So, the next time you embark on a research project, don’t forget to set clear limits and define the scope and delimitation of your study. It may seem like a tedious task, but it can ultimately lead to more meaningful and impactful research. And if you still can’t find a solution, reach out to Enago Academy using #AskEnago and tag @EnagoAcademy on Twitter , Facebook , and Quora .

Frequently Asked Questions

The scope in research refers to the boundaries and extent of a study, defining its specific objectives, target population, variables, methods, and limitations, which helps researchers focus and provide a clear understanding of what will be investigated.

Delimitation in research defines the specific boundaries and limitations of a study, such as geographical, temporal, or conceptual constraints, outlining what will be excluded or not within the scope of investigation, providing clarity and ensuring the study remains focused and manageable.

To write a scope; 1. Clearly define research objectives. 2. Identify specific research questions. 3. Determine the target population for the study. 4. Outline the variables to be investigated. 5. Establish limitations and constraints. 6. Set boundaries and extent of the investigation. 7. Ensure focus, clarity, and manageability. 8. Provide context for the research project.

To write delimitations; 1. Identify geographical boundaries or constraints. 2. Define the specific time period or timeframe of the study. 3. Specify the sample size or selection criteria. 4. Clarify any demographic limitations (e.g., age, gender, occupation). 5. Address any limitations related to data collection methods. 6. Consider limitations regarding the availability of resources or data. 7. Exclude specific variables or factors from the scope of the study. 8. Clearly state any conceptual boundaries or theoretical frameworks. 9. Acknowledge any potential biases or constraints in the research design. 10. Ensure that the delimitations provide a clear focus and scope for the study.

What is an example of delimitation of the study?

Thank you 💕

Thank You very simplified🩷

Thanks, I find this article very helpful

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Promoting Research

Graphical Abstracts Vs. Infographics: Best practices for using visual illustrations for increased research impact

Dr. Sarah Chen stared at her computer screen, her eyes staring at her recently published…

• Publishing Research

10 Tips to Prevent Research Papers From Being Retracted

Research paper retractions represent a critical event in the scientific community. When a published article…

• Industry News

Google Releases 2024 Scholar Metrics, Evaluates Impact of Scholarly Articles

Google has released its 2024 Scholar Metrics, assessing scholarly articles from 2019 to 2023. This…

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Improving Research Manuscripts Using AI-Powered Insights: Enago reports for effective research communication

Language Quality Importance in Academia AI in Evaluating Language Quality Enago Language Reports Live Demo…

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Demystifying the Role of Confounding Variables in Research

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Reporting Research
• AI in Academia
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

Stating the Obvious: Writing Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

During the process of writing your thesis or dissertation, you might suddenly realize that your research has inherent flaws. Don’t worry! Virtually all projects contain restrictions to your research. However, being able to recognize and accurately describe these problems is the difference between a true researcher and a grade-school kid with a science-fair project. Concerns with truthful responding, access to participants, and survey instruments are just a few of examples of restrictions on your research. In the following sections, the differences among delimitations, limitations, and assumptions of a dissertation will be clarified.

Delimitations

Delimitations are the definitions you set as the boundaries of your own thesis or dissertation, so delimitations are in your control. Delimitations are set so that your goals do not become impossibly large to complete. Examples of delimitations include objectives, research questions, variables, theoretical objectives that you have adopted, and populations chosen as targets to study. When you are stating your delimitations, clearly inform readers why you chose this course of study. The answer might simply be that you were curious about the topic and/or wanted to improve standards of a professional field by revealing certain findings. In any case, you should clearly list the other options available and the reasons why you did not choose these options immediately after you list your delimitations. You might have avoided these options for reasons of practicality, interest, or relativity to the study at hand. For example, you might have only studied Hispanic mothers because they have the highest rate of obese babies. Delimitations are often strongly related to your theory and research questions. If you were researching whether there are different parenting styles between unmarried Asian, Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic women, then a delimitation of your study would be the inclusion of only participants with those demographics and the exclusion of participants from other demographics such as men, married women, and all other ethnicities of single women (inclusion and exclusion criteria). A further delimitation might be that you only included closed-ended Likert scale responses in the survey, rather than including additional open-ended responses, which might make some people more willing to take and complete your survey. Remember that delimitations are not good or bad. They are simply a detailed description of the scope of interest for your study as it relates to the research design. Don’t forget to describe the philosophical framework you used throughout your study, which also delimits your study.

Limitations

Limitations of a dissertation are potential weaknesses in your study that are mostly out of your control, given limited funding, choice of research design, statistical model constraints, or other factors. In addition, a limitation is a restriction on your study that cannot be reasonably dismissed and can affect your design and results. Do not worry about limitations because limitations affect virtually all research projects, as well as most things in life. Even when you are going to your favorite restaurant, you are limited by the menu choices. If you went to a restaurant that had a menu that you were craving, you might not receive the service, price, or location that makes you enjoy your favorite restaurant. If you studied participants’ responses to a survey, you might be limited in your abilities to gain the exact type or geographic scope of participants you wanted. The people whom you managed to get to take your survey may not truly be a random sample, which is also a limitation. If you used a common test for data findings, your results are limited by the reliability of the test. If your study was limited to a certain amount of time, your results are affected by the operations of society during that time period (e.g., economy, social trends). It is important for you to remember that limitations of a dissertation are often not something that can be solved by the researcher. Also, remember that whatever limits you also limits other researchers, whether they are the largest medical research companies or consumer habits corporations. Certain kinds of limitations are often associated with the analytical approach you take in your research, too. For example, some qualitative methods like heuristics or phenomenology do not lend themselves well to replicability. Also, most of the commonly used quantitative statistical models can only determine correlation, but not causation.

Assumptions

Assumptions are things that are accepted as true, or at least plausible, by researchers and peers who will read your dissertation or thesis. In other words, any scholar reading your paper will assume that certain aspects of your study is true given your population, statistical test, research design, or other delimitations. For example, if you tell your friend that your favorite restaurant is an Italian place, your friend will assume that you don’t go there for the sushi. It’s assumed that you go there to eat Italian food. Because most assumptions are not discussed in-text, assumptions that are discussed in-text are discussed in the context of the limitations of your study, which is typically in the discussion section. This is important, because both assumptions and limitations affect the inferences you can draw from your study. One of the more common assumptions made in survey research is the assumption of honesty and truthful responses. However, for certain sensitive questions this assumption may be more difficult to accept, in which case it would be described as a limitation of the study. For example, asking people to report their criminal behavior in a survey may not be as reliable as asking people to report their eating habits. It is important to remember that your limitations and assumptions should not contradict one another. For instance, if you state that generalizability is a limitation of your study given that your sample was limited to one city in the United States, then you should not claim generalizability to the United States population as an assumption of your study. Statistical models in quantitative research designs are accompanied with assumptions as well, some more strict than others. These assumptions generally refer to the characteristics of the data, such as distributions, correlational trends, and variable type, just to name a few. Violating these assumptions can lead to drastically invalid results, though this often depends on sample size and other considerations.

Click here to cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2024 PhDStudent.com. All rights reserved. Designed by Divergent Web Solutions, LLC .

• Privacy Policy

Home » Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and Examples

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Scope of the Research

Scope of research refers to the range of topics, areas, and subjects that a research project intends to cover. It is the extent and limitations of the study, defining what is included and excluded in the research.

The scope of a research project depends on various factors, such as the research questions , objectives , methodology, and available resources. It is essential to define the scope of the research project clearly to avoid confusion and ensure that the study addresses the intended research questions.

How to Write Scope of the Research

Writing the scope of the research involves identifying the specific boundaries and limitations of the study. Here are some steps you can follow to write a clear and concise scope of the research:

• Identify the research question: Start by identifying the specific question that you want to answer through your research . This will help you focus your research and define the scope more clearly.
• Define the objectives: Once you have identified the research question, define the objectives of your study. What specific goals do you want to achieve through your research?
• Determine the population and sample: Identify the population or group of people that you will be studying, as well as the sample size and selection criteria. This will help you narrow down the scope of your research and ensure that your findings are applicable to the intended audience.
• Identify the variables: Determine the variables that will be measured or analyzed in your research. This could include demographic variables, independent variables , dependent variables , or any other relevant factors.
• Define the timeframe: Determine the timeframe for your study, including the start and end date, as well as any specific time intervals that will be measured.
• Determine the geographical scope: If your research is location-specific, define the geographical scope of your study. This could include specific regions, cities, or neighborhoods that you will be focusing on.
• Outline the limitations: Finally, outline any limitations or constraints of your research, such as time, resources, or access to data. This will help readers understand the scope and applicability of your research findings.

Examples of the Scope of the Research

Some Examples of the Scope of the Research are as follows:

Title : “Investigating the impact of artificial intelligence on job automation in the IT industry”

Scope of Research:

This study aims to explore the impact of artificial intelligence on job automation in the IT industry. The research will involve a qualitative analysis of job postings, identifying tasks that can be automated using AI. The study will also assess the potential implications of job automation on the workforce, including job displacement, job creation, and changes in job requirements.

Title : “Developing a machine learning model for predicting cyberattacks on corporate networks”

This study will develop a machine learning model for predicting cyberattacks on corporate networks. The research will involve collecting and analyzing network traffic data, identifying patterns and trends that are indicative of cyberattacks. The study aims to build an accurate and reliable predictive model that can help organizations identify and prevent cyberattacks before they occur.

Title: “Assessing the usability of a mobile app for managing personal finances”

This study will assess the usability of a mobile app for managing personal finances. The research will involve conducting a usability test with a group of participants, evaluating the app’s ease of use, efficiency, and user satisfaction. The study aims to identify areas of the app that need improvement, and to provide recommendations for enhancing its usability and user experience.

Title : “Exploring the effects of mindfulness meditation on stress reduction among college students”

This study aims to investigate the impact of mindfulness meditation on reducing stress levels among college students. The research will involve a randomized controlled trial with two groups: a treatment group that receives mindfulness meditation training and a control group that receives no intervention. The study will examine changes in stress levels, as measured by self-report questionnaires, before and after the intervention.

Title: “Investigating the impact of social media on body image dissatisfaction among young adults”

This study will explore the relationship between social media use and body image dissatisfaction among young adults. The research will involve a cross-sectional survey of participants aged 18-25, assessing their social media use, body image perceptions, and self-esteem. The study aims to identify any correlations between social media use and body image dissatisfaction, and to determine if certain social media platforms or types of content are particularly harmful.

When to Write Scope of the Research

Here is a guide on When to Write the Scope of the Research:

• Before starting your research project, it’s important to clearly define the scope of your study. This will help you stay focused on your research question and avoid getting sidetracked by irrelevant information.
• The scope of the research should be determined by the research question or problem statement. It should outline what you intend to investigate and what you will not be investigating.
• The scope should also take into consideration any limitations of the study, such as time, resources, or access to data. This will help you realistically plan and execute your research.
• Writing the scope of the research early in the research process can also help you refine your research question and identify any gaps in the existing literature that your study can address.
• It’s important to revisit the scope of the research throughout the research process to ensure that you stay on track and make any necessary adjustments.
• The scope of the research should be clearly communicated in the research proposal or study protocol to ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the research objectives and limitations.
• The scope of the research should also be reflected in the research design, methods, and analysis plan. This will ensure that the research is conducted in a systematic and rigorous manner that is aligned with the research objectives.
• The scope of the research should be written in a clear and concise manner, using language that is accessible to all stakeholders, including those who may not be familiar with the research topic or methodology.
• When writing the scope of the research, it’s important to be transparent about any assumptions or biases that may influence the research findings. This will help ensure that the research is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner.
• The scope of the research should be reviewed and approved by the research supervisor, committee members, or other relevant stakeholders. This will ensure that the research is feasible, relevant, and contributes to the field of study.
• Finally, the scope of the research should be clearly stated in the research report or dissertation to provide context for the research findings and conclusions. This will help readers understand the significance of the research and its contribution to the field of study.

Purpose of Scope of the Research

Purposes of Scope of the Research are as follows:

• Defines the boundaries and extent of the study.
• Determines the specific objectives and research questions to be addressed.
• Provides direction and focus for the research.
• Helps to identify the relevant theories, concepts, and variables to be studied.
• Enables the researcher to select the appropriate research methodology and techniques.
• Allows for the allocation of resources (time, money, personnel) to the research.
• Establishes the criteria for the selection of the sample and data collection methods.
• Facilitates the interpretation and generalization of the results.
• Ensures the ethical considerations and constraints are addressed.
• Provides a framework for the presentation and dissemination of the research findings.

Advantages of Scope of the Research

Here are some advantages of having a well-defined scope of research:

• Provides clarity and focus: Defining the scope of research helps to provide clarity and focus to the study. This ensures that the research stays on track and does not deviate from its intended purpose.
• Helps to manage resources: Knowing the scope of research allows researchers to allocate resources effectively. This includes managing time, budget, and personnel required to conduct the study.
• Improves the quality of research: A well-defined scope of research helps to ensure that the study is designed to achieve specific objectives. This helps to improve the quality of the research by reducing the likelihood of errors or bias.
• Facilitates communication: A clear scope of research enables researchers to communicate the goals and objectives of the study to stakeholders, such as funding agencies or participants. This facilitates understanding and enhances cooperation.
• Enables replication : A well-defined scope of research makes it easier to replicate the study in the future. This allows other researchers to validate the findings and build upon them, leading to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
• Increases the relevance of research: Defining the scope of research helps to ensure that the study is relevant to the problem or issue being investigated. This increases the likelihood that the findings will be useful and applicable to real-world situations.
• Reduces the risk of scope creep : Scope creep occurs when the research expands beyond the original scope, leading to an increase in the time, cost, and resources required to complete the study. A clear definition of the scope of research helps to reduce the risk of scope creep by establishing boundaries and limitations.
• Enhances the credibility of research: A well-defined scope of research helps to enhance the credibility of the study by ensuring that it is designed to achieve specific objectives and answer specific research questions. This makes it easier for others to assess the validity and reliability of the study.
• Provides a framework for decision-making : A clear scope of research provides a framework for decision-making throughout the research process. This includes decisions related to data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

Scope of the Research Vs Scope of the Project

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Future Research – Thesis Guide

Research Techniques – Methods, Types and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and...

Research Summary – Structure, Examples and...

Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

APA Research Paper Format – Example, Sample and...

Frequently asked questions

How do i determine scope of research.

Scope of research is determined at the beginning of your research process , prior to the data collection stage. Sometimes called “scope of study,” your scope delineates what will and will not be covered in your project. It helps you focus your work and your time, ensuring that you’ll be able to achieve your goals and outcomes.

Defining a scope can be very useful in any research project, from a research proposal to a thesis or dissertation . A scope is needed for all types of research: quantitative , qualitative , and mixed methods .

To define your scope of research, consider the following:

• Budget constraints or any specifics of grant funding
• Your proposed timeline and duration
• Specifics about your population of study, your proposed sample size , and the research methodology you’ll pursue
• Any inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Any anticipated control , extraneous , or confounding variables that could bias your research if not accounted for properly.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

• Translators
• Graphic Designers

Please enter the email address you used for your account. Your sign in information will be sent to your email address after it has been verified.

Exploring Scope and Delimitation in Academic Research

Academic research is a meticulous process that requires precise planning and clear boundaries. Two pivotal components in this process are the scope and delimitations of the study. The definitions and establishment of these parameters are instrumental in ensuring that the research is effective, manageable, and yields relevant results.

The "scope" of a research project refers to the areas that the study will cover. It is the breadth and depth of the investigation. It defines the subject matter, the geographical location, the time frame, and the issues that the study will explore. Essentially, the scope delineates what the researcher aims to cover in the study.

On the other hand, "delimitations" are the boundaries or limitations set by the researcher. They define what the study will not include. Delimitations could involve the choice of research methodology , the selection of respondents, the duration of the study, and more. They help in confining the study to a manageable size while excluding peripheral elements.

Understanding and correctly implementing scope and delimitations are vital to ensuring your research is well-defined and focused, facilitating higher accuracy and relevancy in your findings.

Importance of scope in research

"Scope" in research refers to the comprehensive extent of study—it outlines the parameters of what will be explored and addressed. It defines the topic of the research , the geographical region under study, the timeframe considered, and the issues that the study will address. The scope of a research project is vital because it determines the depth and breadth of your investigation.

Defining the scope of research is a fundamental step in the research process for several reasons. First, it provides a roadmap for the study, giving the researcher clear guidelines about what to include and exclude. Without a well-defined scope, research can become unmanageably vast or lose its focus.

Second, the scope ensures the research's relevance and applicability. It helps the researcher maintain a tight focus on the study's central question , ensuring that all aspects of the research contribute to answering this question. This focus aids in avoiding irrelevant diversions that could dilute the final conclusions.

Finally, a well-defined scope can help ensure the efficient use of resources. Research involves considerable time, effort, and often financial resources. By providing clear boundaries, the scope ensures these resources are utilized effectively without wasted effort on peripheral issues.

Suppose a research study is looking at the impacts of social media usage on mental health. If the scope is too broad—like examining all social media platforms' effects on all demographic groups worldwide—then the research can quickly become unwieldy and hard to manage. It would involve vast amounts of data, requiring considerable time, resources, and computational power to analyze effectively.

However, if the scope is narrowed down—such as investigating the impact of Instagram usage on the mental health of teenagers in a specific city over the past five years—the research becomes far more manageable. This specific focus allows for a more in-depth analysis and likely will provide more meaningful, actionable results. This example illustrates the importance of appropriately defining the scope of research for its successful execution.

Determining the scope of your research

Setting the scope of your research project is a critical and delicate task. Below are steps, tips, and common mistakes to avoid when determining the scope of your research:

Steps to define the scope

• Identify Your Topic: The first step involves identifying and understanding your research topic. This knowledge will serve as a basis for determining the breadth and depth of your study.
• Define Your Research Questions: The research questions are the heart of your study. They will help you determine the specific areas your research should cover.
• Establish Boundaries: Clearly establish the geographical, temporal, and topical boundaries of your research. These boundaries will guide the range of your study.
• Choose Your Methodology: Decide on the research methods you will use as these will directly impact the scope of your study.

Tips for a manageable scope

• Stay Focused: Stay concentrated on your research questions. Do not stray into areas that aren't directly relevant.
• Be Realistic: Consider the resources (time, money, manpower) available. Ensure your scope is feasible given these resources.
• Seek Guidance: Consult with your academic advisor or peers for feedback on your proposed scope.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Overly Broad Scope: Avoid setting an overly broad scope which could result in an unmanageable and unfocused study.
• Too Narrow Scope: Conversely, a scope that is too narrow may miss important aspects of the research topic.
• Ignoring Resources: Not taking into account available resources when setting the scope can lead to a project that is impossible to complete.

Defining the scope of your research is a delicate balance, requiring careful consideration of your research questions, resources, and the depth and breadth of investigation needed to answer these questions effectively.

Importance of delimitations in research

In the context of academic research, "delimitations" refers to the choices made by the researcher which define the boundaries of the study. These are the variables that lead the researcher to narrow the scope of the study from its potential vastness to a manageable size.

Delimitations might include the geographic area where the study is confined, the participants involved in the study, the methodology used, the time period considered, or the specific incidents or aspects the study will focus on. Essentially, delimitations are the self-imposed limitations on the scope of the study.

Defining the delimitations of a research project is crucial for several reasons. Firstly, they establish the context or setting in which the study occurs. This, in turn, allows for the work to be reproduced in a similar context for verification or refutation in future studies.

Secondly, delimitations provide a way to narrow the scope of the research to a manageable size, thus avoiding the pitfall of an overly ambitious project. They help researchers to stay focused on the main research questions and prevent diversion into irrelevant aspects.

Finally, clearly defined delimitations enhance the credibility of the research. They offer transparency about the research design and methodology, which adds to the validity of the results.

For instance, in a research study examining the impact of technology on student achievement in a certain district, examples of delimitations might include focusing only on public schools, considering only high school students, and confining the study to a particular school year. These choices help to focus the research and ensure its manageability. Therefore, delimitations play a pivotal role in structuring and guiding an effective and efficient research study.

Setting delimitations for your research

Establishing appropriate delimitations for your research project is an important part of research design. Here are some steps, guidelines, and common mistakes to consider when setting your research delimitations:

Steps to establish delimitations

• Identify the boundaries: Begin by deciding the geographical region, time period, and subject matter your research will cover.
• Determine Your Research Population: Identify the specific population your study will focus on. This could be based on age, profession, geographical location, etc.
• Choose Your Research Methods: Decide the specific methods you will use to collect and analyze data, as these decisions will also set limitations on your study.

Guidelines for choosing delimitations

• Align with Your Research Objectives: The delimitations should be in line with your research questions and objectives. They should help focus your study without detracting from its goals.
• Be Practical: Consider the resources available, including time, funds, and access to data. Your delimitations should be feasible given these constraints.
• Seek Input: Consult with your research advisor or peers. Their feedback can help ensure your delimitations are appropriate and well thought out.

Common errors to avoid:

• Unrealistic Delimitations: Be wary of setting delimitations that are too stringent or ambitious to be feasible given your resources and timeframe.
• Undefined Delimitations: Avoid leaving your delimitations vague or undefined. This can lead to scope creep, where your project expands beyond its initial plan, making it unmanageable.
• Ignoring Delimitations: Once set, stick to your delimitations. Deviating from them can lead to a loss of focus and can compromise the integrity of your results.

Setting delimitations is a crucial step in research planning. Properly defined delimitations can make your research project more manageable, maintain your focus, and ensure the effective use of your resources.

The interplay between scope and delimitations

The relationship between scope and delimitations in academic research is a dynamic and interdependent one. Each aspect serves to shape and refine the other, ultimately leading to a focused, feasible, and effective research design.

The scope of a research project describes the breadth and depth of the investigation—what it aims to cover and how far it intends to delve into the subject matter. The delimitations, on the other hand, identify the boundaries and constraints of the study—what it will not cover.

As such, the scope and delimitations of a research study are intimately connected. When the scope of a study is broad, the delimitations must be carefully considered to ensure the project remains manageable and focused. Conversely, when the scope is narrow, the delimitations might be less constraining, but they still play a critical role in defining the specificity of the research.

Balancing the scope and delimitations is crucial for an efficient research design. Too broad a scope without carefully defined delimitations can lead to a study that is unwieldy and lacks depth. On the other hand, a very narrow scope with overly rigid delimitations might result in a study that overlooks important aspects of the research topic.

Thus, researchers must strive to maintain a balance—establishing a scope that is wide enough to fully explore the research topic, but also setting appropriate delimitations to ensure the study remains feasible and focused. In doing so, the research will be well-structured and yield meaningful, relevant findings.

Role of scope and delimitations in research validity

Scope and delimitations are fundamental aspects of research design that directly influence the validity, reliability, and replicability of a study.

Research validity refers to the degree to which a study accurately reflects or measures the concept that the researcher intends to investigate. A well-defined scope is critical to research validity because it clearly delineates what the study will cover. This clear definition ensures that the research focuses on relevant aspects of the topic and that the findings accurately reflect the concept under investigation.

Similarly, carefully thought-out delimitations contribute to research validity by identifying what the study will not cover. This clarity helps to prevent the study from straying into irrelevant areas, ensuring that the research stays focused and relevant.

In addition to contributing to research validity, scope and delimitations also influence the reliability and replicability of a study. Reliability refers to the consistency of a study's results, while replicability refers to the ability of other researchers to repeat the study and obtain similar results.

A clearly defined scope makes a study more reliable by providing a detailed outline of the areas covered by the research. This clarity makes it more likely that the study will produce consistent results. Moreover, clearly defined delimitations enhance the replicability of a study by providing explicit boundaries for the research, which makes it easier for other researchers to repeat the study in a similar context.

In summary, a well-defined scope and carefully thought-out delimitations contribute significantly to the validity, reliability, and replicability of academic research. They ensure that the research is focused, that the findings are relevant and accurate, and that the study can be reliably repeated by other researchers.

Examples of scope and delimitation in well-known research

• The Milgram Experiment: Stanley Milgram's famous psychology experiment sought to understand obedience to authority figures. The scope of this study was clearly defined—it focused on how far individuals would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person. However, delimitations were set to ensure manageability. Participants were delimited to male individuals, and the experiment was confined to a controlled laboratory setting. These delimitations allowed Milgram to manage the research effectively while maintaining the depth of his study on human behavior.
• The Framingham Heart Study: This ongoing cardiovascular study began in 1948 and is aimed at identifying common factors that contribute to cardiovascular disease. The scope of the research is broad, covering many aspects of lifestyle, medical history, and physical characteristics. However, the study set clear delimitations: it initially only involved adult residents of Framingham, Massachusetts. This geographical delimitation made this broad-scope study manageable and eventually yielded influential results that shaped our understanding of heart disease.
• The Marshmallow Test: This well-known study by Walter Mischel explored delayed gratification in children. The scope was clearly defined: the study aimed to understand the ability of children to delay gratification and how it related to future success. The delimitations of the study included the age of the participants (preschool children), the setting (a controlled experiment with a treat), and the measure of future success (academic achievement, ability to cope with stress, etc.). These delimitations helped keep the study focused and manageable.

In all these examples, the researchers set a clear scope to outline the focus of their studies and used delimitations to restrict the boundaries. This balance between scope and delimitation was key in conducting successful and influential research.

In academic research, defining the scope and delimitations is a pivotal step in designing a robust and effective study. The scope outlines the breadth and depth of the investigation, offering a clear direction for the research. Meanwhile, delimitations set the boundaries of the study, ensuring that the research remains focused and manageable. Together, they play a crucial role in enhancing the validity, reliability, and replicability of a study.

Understanding the interplay between scope and delimitations is key to conducting efficient research. A well-defined scope paired with thoughtfully set delimitations contribute to a study's feasibility and its potential to yield meaningful and applicable results. Mistakes in setting the scope and delimitations can lead to unwieldy, unfocused research or a study that overlooks important aspects of a research question.

Reviewing famous studies, like the Milgram Experiment, the Framingham Heart Study, and the Marshmallow Test, we observe how a balanced approach to setting scope and delimitations can result in influential and valuable findings. Therefore, researchers should give careful thought to defining the scope and delimitations of their studies, keeping in mind their research questions, available resources, and the need for balance between breadth and focus. By doing so, they pave the way for successful and impactful research outcomes.

Header image by Kübra Arslaner .

Part 1. Overview Information

National Institutes of Health ( NIH )

National Institute on Aging ( NIA )

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism ( NIAAA )

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases ( NIAMS )

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development ( NICHD )

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke ( NINDS )

R15 Research Enhancement Award (REA)

• April 4, 2024  - Overview of Grant Application and Review Changes for Due Dates on or after January 25, 2025. See Notice NOT-OD-24-084 .
• August 31, 2022 - Implementation Changes for Genomic Data Sharing Plans Included with Applications Due on or after January 25, 2023. See Notice  NOT-OD-22-198 .
• August 5, 2022 - Implementation Details for the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy. See Notice  NOT-OD-22-189 .

See Part 2, Section III. 3. Additional Information on Eligibility.

The purpose of this HEAL Initiative program is to: (1) support basic and mechanistic pain research from R15-eligible undergraduate-focused serving institutions, health professional schools or graduate schools; (2) promote integrated, interdisciplinary research partnerships between Principal Investigators (PIs) from R15-eligible institutions and investigators from U.S. domestic institutions; and (3) enhance the pain research environment at the R15-eligible institution for health professional students, undergraduate and/or graduate students through active engagement in pain research.

Applications in response to this notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) should include plans to accomplish these goals. Specifically, applications should include a rigorous plan for conducting basic and mechanistic pain research in the Research Strategy section of the application . In addition, a research partnership between the PI’s institution and at least one investigator from a separate U.S. domestic institution that provides resources and/or expertise that will enhance the proposed pain research program must be included in a separate Team Management Plan. The proposed partnership will be a sub-award agreement(s) with at least one partnering institution, which does not need to be R15-eligible. The budget of all sub-awards must not exceed one third of the total budget. Furthermore, applications must include a Facilities & Other Resources document that demonstrates active involvement of health professional students, undergraduate and/or graduate students from the R15-eligible institution(s) in the proposed pain research projects.

This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) requires a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP).

 30 days before application due date.

All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. 

Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.

No late applications will be accepted for this Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO).

Not Applicable

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the  How to Apply - Application Guide , except where instructed to do otherwise (in this NOFO or in a Notice from NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts ).

Conformance to all requirements (both in the How to Apply - Application Guide and the NOFO) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the How to Apply - Application Guide , follow the program-specific instructions.

Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.

• Use the NIH ASSIST system to prepare, submit and track your application online.
• Use an institutional system-to-system (S2S) solution to prepare and submit your application to Grants.gov and eRA Commons to track your application. Check with your institutional officials regarding availability.
• Use Grants.gov Workspace to prepare and submit your application and eRA Commons to track your application.

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section i. notice of funding opportunity description.

Applications in response to this notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) should include plans to accomplish these goals. Specifically, applications should include a rigorous plan for conducting basic and mechanistic pain research projects in the Research Strategy section of the application. In addition, a research partnership between the PI’s institution and at least one investigator from a separate U.S. domestic institution that provides resources and/or expertise that will enhance the proposed pain research program must be included in a separate Team Management Plan. The proposed partnership will be a sub-award agreement(s) with at least one partnering institution, which does not need to be R15-eligible. The budget of all sub-awards must not exceed one third of the total budget. Furthermore, applications must include a Facilities & Other Resources document   that demonstrates active involvement of health professional students or undergraduate and/or graduate students from the R15-eligible institution(s) in the proposed pain research projects.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Helping to End Addiction Long-term ® Initiative, or NIH HEAL Initiative ® , bolsters research across NIH to (1) improve treatment for opioid misuse and addiction and (2) enhance pain management. More information about the NIH HEAL Initiative is available at  https://heal.nih.gov/ . Research shows that diverse teams working together and capitalizing on innovative ideas and distinct perspectives outperform homogeneous teams. Scientists and trainees from diverse backgrounds and life experiences bring different perspectives, creativity, and individual enterprise to address complex scientific problems. See  the Notice of NIH’s Interest in Diversity ( NOT-OD-20-031 ) for more details. Promoting diversity in the pain research workforce is crucial to promoting future scientific advances in this area and to achieve the NIH HEAL Initiative’s workforce development goals.The initiative has funded multiple pain workforce enhancement programs that support early-career investigators. Despite these efforts, the NIH HEAL Initiative can benefit from additionally supporting  R-15 eligible institutions that involve undergraduate, graduate or health professional school/colleges students in pain research.

Since Fiscal Year (FY) 1985, NIH has made a special effort to stimulate research at educational institutions that provide baccalaureate and/or advanced degrees for a significant number of the nation’s research scientists who have not been major recipients of NIH support. NIH has implemented two parent award programs, the Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA) program ( PAR-21-155 ) and Research Enhancement Award Program (REAP) ( PAR-22-060 ), to provide research experiences to health professional or undergraduate and/or graduate students pursuing biomedical or behavioral research at U.S. higher education institutions. Utilizing these two programs will further promote a diverse pain research workforce. This  Pain Research Enhancement Program (“PREP”) will further support meritorious collaborative pain research from designated educational levels  in the NIH HEAL Initiative, using the NIH Research Enhancement Award programs as a guide. Specifically, this NOFO aims to support new scientific solutions to the national opioid public health crisis byestablishing new research partnerships that will lead to research experiences for undergraduate, graduate, and health professional students,  to further enhance the pool of potential participants in the pain research pipeline.

Program Objectives:

The purpose of this HEAL Initiative program is to: (1) support basic and mechanistic pain research from R15-eligible undergraduate-focused serving institutions, health professional schools or graduate schools; (2) promote integrated, interdisciplinary research partnerships between Principal Investigators (PIs) from R15-eligible institutions and investigators from U.S. domestic institutions; and (3) enhance the pain research environment at the R15-eligible institution for health professional students, undergraduate and/or graduate students through active engagement in pain research. Successful applications will include plans detailing how they intend to accomplish all three goals. Please refer to Section III for specific R15 eligibility information. Although preliminary data are not required for an R15 application, they may be included if available. The scientific foundation for the proposed research should be based on published research and/or any available preliminary data.

Objective 1: Develop Small-Scale Basic and Mechanistic Pain Research Projects

Proposed research projects should be hypothesis driven and use a rigorous scientific design to generate research data/evidence and advance scientific knowledge. Applications should include objectives that are attainable within the 3-year grant period.

Pain research projects may include, but are not limited to, the study of: nociception and/or pain processing in non-pain populations, acute pain, cancer pain, chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, chronic pain, diabetic neuropathy, eye pain, gynecologic pain, headache, musculoskeletal pain, myofascial pain, obstetric pain, osteoarthritis, pain conditions across the lifespan (including in the context of aging), pain co-occurring with substance use disorders (SUDs), painful disorders of the orofacial region, painful neuropathy, post-stroke pain, post-surgical pain, sickle cell pain, and/or visceral pain. Innovative pain research topics that propose an interdisciplinary mechanistic pain research are considered high program priority under this initiative.

Projects may focus on basic  pain research with pre-clinical ( e.g., animal or in silico ) models or involve research participants ( e.g., observational studies, epidemiological studies, secondary data analyses, or device development). Alternatively, investigators may propose a mechanistic and/or “Basic Experimental Studies involving Humans” (BESH) clinical trial as described below.  Clinical trials designed primarily to determine the safety, tolerability, and/or clinical efficacy of an intervention will be considered non-responsive to this NOFO and withdrawn without review .

For this NOFO, only the following types of clinical trials will be supported:

• Basic Experimental Studies with Humans (BESH) ,  defined as basic research studies involving humans that seek to understand the fundamental aspects of phenomena
• Mechanistic trials ,  defined as studies designed to understand a biological or behavioral process, the pathophysiology of a disease, or the mechanism of action of an intervention (i.e., how an intervention works, but not if it works or is safe)

NIH defines a clinical trial as a research study in which one or more human subjects are prospectively assigned to one or more interventions (which may include placebo or other control) to evaluate the effects of those interventions on health-related biomedical or behavioral outcomes ( https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-015.html ). For further clarification on how NIH defines the different types of clinical trials, please refer to the following resources:

• NOT-OD-15-015: Notice of Revised NIH Definition of Clinical Trial
• NIH's Definition of a Clinical Trial
• Decision Tree for NIH Clinical Trial Definition
• Guidance for Basic Experimental Studies with Humans (BESH) Funding Opportunities
• NIH Definition of Clinical Trial Case Studies

Objective 2: Promote Integrated, Interdisciplinary Research Partnerships

A second key objective of this NOFO is to promote new research partnerships among investigators at R15-eligible institutions with separate (legally distinct) investigators at domestic research institutions. Investigators can have a multitude of research expertise that aligns with the proposed research projects and/or resources that can be shared to enhance the proposed research. Applications must propose a collaboration with at least one sub-award holder from a separate U.S. domestic research institution and should include details of how the collaboration will enhance the R15-research program must be described. Applications are permitted to have a subaward to a non-R15-eligible institution. However, it is expected that PD/PI(s) from R15-eligible institution(s) will lead the proposed project and complete most of the research at the R15-eligible institution. As such, PI(s) from R15-eligible institutions must serve as the contact program director (PD)/PI for the project. Additionally, no more than one third of the total budget for the project may be used by the identified sub-award institution.

Applications that propose new interdisciplinary are considered a high program priority under this NOFO. Interdisciplinary partnership could include, but are not limited to, any two or more areas of research expertise from the following:

• Clinical pain management (e.g., nonpharmacologic or pharmacologic interventions)
• Clinical pain research
• Preclinical/basic pain biology and modeling
• Specific disease and/or pathological conditions (either human or preclinical models)
• Animal behavior
• Artificial intelligence
• Data science

In addition, a Team Management Plan is required as part of Objective 2.  Studies of team science have highlighted the need for effective management structures to achieve program goals. Many resources exist to aid in developing effective team-based programs (e.g., the  National Cancer Institute Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide ). The Team Management Plan focuses on management of the whole team/key personnel. Because teams will likely include individuals from widely divergent scientific backgrounds, teams must have a shared vision and a defined plan for communication and management of shared responsibilities, interpersonal interactions, and professional credit. The Team Management Plan should be included as an attachment (three pages maximum) to this application. It should address how the research team, including the PI from R15-eligible Instiution and collaborator(s), will work together to accomplish program objectives. See the application instructions for “Other Attachments” on the SF424(R&R) Other Project Information in Section IV.2 Instructions for Application Submission for details. The Team Management Plan should address the following points:

• Organizational structure and team composition and roles
• Shared leadership, contributions, and distributed responsibility for decision-making
• Resource sharing and allocation
• Credit assignment and/or intellectual property (IP) rights
• Coordination and communication plans
• Intra-team data sharing, archiving, and preservation

Objective 3: Enhance the Research Environment by Engaging Students

The third objective of this program is to enhance the pain research environment at the R15-eligible institution by engaging and providing research opportunities to health professional students or undergraduate and/or graduate students. A Facilities & Other Resources document is required to describe how the proposed research will enhance the pain research environment at the R15-eligible institution. Two-thirds of the proposed research project team should comprise personnel from the R15-eligible institutions, including health professional students, or graduate students or undergraduate students from the primary R15-eligible institution. Although the proposed research project must be led by the identified PD/PI, applications with strong and innovative student engagement are of high program priority.  If participating students have not yet been identified, the number and academic stage of those to be involved should be provided. Applications should identify which aspects of the proposed research will include student participation. Student involvement may include participation in the design of experiments, collection and analysis of data, execution and troubleshooting of experiments, participation in research meetings, and discussion of future research directions. When applicable, it is highly desirable that student participation also include presentation of research at local and/or national meetings (including the HEAL Annual Scientific Meeting and "Positively Uniting Researchers of Pain to Opine, Synthesize, & Engage" {PURPOSE} meeting), publication of journal articles, and collaborative interactions. By engaging in these activities and collaborating on pain-focused research projects at early stages of training, students will be better prepared and motivated to pursue careers in  pain research. Please see Section III for a list of eligible students.

This NOFO  aims to support pain research grants, not training or fellowship program s. As such, applications should not include training plans such as didactic training or non-research activities related to professional development.  Likewise, applications should not include independent student research projects. For applications that propose a clinical trial, the PD/PI must be the responsible individual of record for oversight of the trial though students can take part in all components of a clinical trial. Oversight includes (but is not limited to): interacting with relevant Institutional Review Board (IRB) staff; reviewing all informed consent documents; reporting potential serious adverse events; and maintaining responsibility for patient safety. However, the student can gain experience in all these components in conjunction with the individual leading the trial. Applications submitted to this NOFO may include additional investigators to those outlined above, including additional collaborators or consultants, or other individuals such as high school students, post-baccalaureate participants, postdoctoral fellows, or clinical fellows. However, involvement of such individuals does not fulfill the goal of enhancing the R15-eligible institutional environment and should account for less than one third of the overall proposed project team.

Additional Information

Non-responsiveness Criteria:

Applications deemed to be non-responsive will not proceed to review and will be withdrawn. Applications with one or more of the following characteristics are considered non-responsive to this NOFO:

• Research that does not address the NIH HEAL Initiative mission to enhance pain management.
• Failure to describe a proposed Research plan and specific aims primarily led by a PI from a R15-eligible Institution.
• Omission of a domestic research partnership and accompanying sub award(s), or that include sub-award(s) that account for more than one third of the total project budget.
• Failure to include the required Facilities & Other Resources document and Other Attachments, including a Team Management Planand, letters of support, including a letter of support from the identified subaward holder(s) and a letter of support from the R15-eligible institution’s provost. Please see s ection IV.2 “Instructions for Application Submission” for details. 
• Proposing a clinical trial addressing safety, tolerability, efficacy, and/or effectiveness of pharmacologic, behavioral, biologic, surgical, or device (invasive or noninvasive) interventions.

Contacting Program Officers Prior to Submission

Applicants are strongly encouraged to consult with  program staff as plans for an application are being developed.

Rigor and Reproducibility

NIH strives for rigor and transparency in all research it funds. For this reason, the NIH HEAL Initiative   explicitly emphasizes the NIH application instructions related to rigor and transparency ( https://grants.nih.gov/policy/reproducibility/guidance.htm ) and provides additional guidance from individual NIH institutes and centers (ICs) to the scientific community. For example, the biological rationale for the proposed experiments must be based on rigorous and robust supporting data, which means that data should be collected via methods that minimize the risk of bias and be reported in a transparent manner. If previously published or preliminary studies do not meet these standards, applicants should address how the current study design addresses the deficiencies in rigor and transparency. Proposed experiments should likewise be designed in a manner that minimizes the risk of bias and ensures validity of experimental results.

Proposed research projects should incorporate adequate methodological rigor where applicable, including but not limited to a clear rationale for the chosen model(s) and primary/secondary endpoint(s), clear descriptions of tools and parameters, blinding, randomization, adequate sample size, prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria, appropriate handling of missing data and outliers, appropriate controls, pre-planned analyses, and appropriate quantitative techniques.

Applications should also clearly indicate the exploratory vs. confirmatory components of the study, consider study limitations, and plan for transparent reporting of all methods, analyses, and results so that other investigators can evaluate the quality of the work and potentially perform replications. NIH intends to maximize the impact of NIH HEAL Initiative-supported projects through broad and rapid data sharing and immediate access to publications ( https://heal.nih.gov/about/public-access-data ). Guidelines for complying with the HEAL Public Access and Data Sharing Policy can be found at  https://heal.nih.gov/data/complying-heal-data-sharing-policy . More details about NIH HEAL Initiative data sharing are described in Section IV.

Clinical Trial Accrual Policy:

For applications that are proposing to conduct a clinical trial, a series of clinical recruitment milestones detailing completion of the clinical trial and providing contingency plans to proactively confront potential delays or disturbances in attaining the clinical recruitment milestones must be included along with a study timeline in the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form. Continuation of the award is conditional upon satisfactory progress, availability of funds, and scientific priorities of the NIH HEAL Initiative. If, at any time, recruitment falls significantly below the projected milestones for recruitment, NIH will consider ending support and negotiating an orderly phaseout of the award. NIH retains the option of periodic external peer review of progress. NIH program staff will closely monitor progress at all stages for milestones, accrual, and safety.  

Expected Activities of Coordination

NIH HEAL Initiative awardees are strongly encouraged to cooperate and coordinate their activities. It is expected that NIH HEAL Initiative awardees will cooperate and coordinate their activities after post award by participating in PD/PI meetings, including:

NIH HEAL Initiative Scientific Meeting Attendance

Applicants and students are highly encouraged to attend the annual NIH HEAL Initiative Scientific Meetings. The NIH HEAL Initiative hosts an annual meeting of more than 800 NIH HEAL Initiative-funded researchers across the initiative’s research portfolio and career stage spectrum, NIH staff, people with lived and living experience, community partners advising initiative-funded projects, advocacy groups, and other stakeholders to

• Share research advances and cutting-edge science
• Discover opportunities, challenges, and approaches to build on the initiative’s progress
• Connect and explore collaboration with other NIH HEAL Initiative-funded researchers and collaborators to enhance initiative-funded research.

Annual National Pain Scientists Career Development Program (PURPOSE) Meeting

Applicants and students are also highly encouraged to enroll in the HEAL Initiative: Positively Uniting Researchers of Pain to Opine, Synthesize, and Engage (PURPOSE) network and attend its annual meetings. Details can be found at https://painresearchers.com . The HEAL R24 Coordinating Center for National Pain Scientists works to improve the collaboration between basic, translational, and clinical researchers who do not regularly collaborate or work together. One function of the HEAL R24 Coordinating Center for National Pain Scientists is to organize an annual meeting for established scientists as well as early-career pain investigators. This annual meeting facilitates the creation of a network of pain research mentors and mentees as well as fostering communication between scientists and clinicians of different disciplines and providing enhanced mentorship, leadership courses, and any additional training that might be helpful for early-career scientists. R15 recipients are encouraged to attend the annual PURPOSE meeting, either virtually or in person.

See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.

Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) The NIH recognizes that teams comprised of investigators with diverse perspectives working together and capitalizing on innovative ideas and distinct viewpoints outperform homogeneous teams. There are many benefits that flow from a scientific workforce rich with diverse perspectives, including: fostering scientific innovation, enhancing global competitiveness, contributing to robust learning environments, improving the quality of the research, advancing the likelihood that underserved populations participate in, and benefit from research, and enhancing public trust. To support the best science, the NIH encourages inclusivity in research guided by the consideration of diverse perspectives. Broadly, diverse perspectives can include but are not limited to the educational background and scientific expertise of the people who perform the research; the populations who participate as human subjects in research studies; and the places where research is done. This NOFO requires a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP), which will be assessed as part of the scientific and technical peer review evaluation.  Assessment of applications containing a PEDP are based on the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project. Consistent with federal law, the race, ethnicity, or sex (including gender identify, sexual orientation, or transgender status) of a researcher, award participant, or trainee will not be considered during the application review process or when making funding decisions.  Applications that fail to include a PEDP will be considered incomplete and will be administratively withdrawn before review. The PEDP will be submitted as Other Project Information as an attachment (see Section IV).  Applicants are strongly encouraged to read the NOFO instructions carefully and view the available PEDP guidance materials .

Investigators proposing NIH-defined clinical trials may refer to the Research Methods Resources website for information about developing statistical methods and study designs.

Section II. Award Information

Grant: A financial assistance mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity.

The  OER Glossary  and the How to Apply - Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this NOFO.

Optional: Accepting applications that either propose or do not propose clinical trial(s).

Need help determining whether you are doing a clinical trial?

The NIH HEAL Initiative intends to commit an estimated total of $1.25 million to fund up to three awards per year for FY 2025, FY 2026, and FY 2027. Support for this funding opportunity is contingent upon annual NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications

Applicants may request up to $375,000 in direct costs for the entire project period. No more than one third of total project costs may go to non-R15-eligible institutions. Annual inflationary increases are not allowed.

The scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum project period is 3 years. 

NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this NOFO.

Section III. Eligibility Information

1. eligible applicants eligible organizations higher education institutions public/state controlled institutions of higher education private institutions of higher education the following types of higher education institutions are always encouraged to apply for nih support as public or private institutions of higher education: hispanic-serving institutions historically black colleges and universities (hbcus) tribally controlled colleges and universities (tccus) alaska native and native hawaiian serving institutions asian american native american pacific islander serving institutions (aanapisis) in addition, applicant organizations must meet the following criteria at the time of submission: the applicant organization must be an accredited public or nonprofit private school that grants baccalaureate or advanced degrees in health professions (see section below for more details) or biomedical and behavioral sciences. the application must be submitted by the eligible organization with a unique entity identifier (such as uei or duns) and a unique nih era institutional profile file (ipf) number. at the time of application submission, determination of eligibility will be based in part on nih institutional support. a year is defined as a federal fiscal year: from october 1 through september 30.   note that collaborating subawardees do not need to adhere to the r15 eligibility criteria stated above. however, they must be separate legal entities that fulfill the terms of an eligible subaward agreement. for this particular nofo, they must also be u.s. domestic institutions. more details can be found at https://grants.nih.gov/policy/subawards . undergraduate focused institutions: at the time of application submission, all the non-health professional components of the institution combined must not have received support from the nih totaling more than $6 million per year (in both direct and f&a/indirect costs) in 4 of the last 7 years. for institutions composed of multiple schools and colleges, the $6 million funding limit is based on the amount of nih funding received by all the non-health professional schools and colleges within the institution as a whole. note that all activity codes are included in this calculation except the following: c06, s10, and all activity codes starting with a g. help determining the organization funding level can be found at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/determing-organization-funding-levels-r15-eligibility.pdf    an academic component is any school/college that is not a health professional school or college. a qualifying academic component (i.e., school/college) within an institution (e.g., school of arts and sciences) has greater undergraduate student enrollment than graduate student enrollment. all types of health professional schools and colleges are not eligible to apply and are not considered in this calculation.  for institutions with multiple campuses, eligibility can be considered for each individual campus (e.g., main, satellite, etc.) only if separate ueis and nih ipf numbers are established for each campus. for institutions that use one uei or nih ipf number for all campuses, eligibility is determined for all campuses (e.g., main, satellite, etc.) combined.   health professional and graduate schools   at the time of application submission, all components of the institution combined must not have received support from the nih totaling more than $6 million per year (in both direct and f&a/indirect costs) in 4 of the last 7 years. for institutions composed of multiple schools and colleges, the $6 million funding limit is based on the amount of nih funding received by all of the schools and colleges within the institution as a whole. note that all activity codes are included in this calculation except the following: c06, s10, and all activity codes starting with a g. a graduate school offers advanced degrees, beyond the undergraduate level, in an academic discipline including m.a., m.s., and ph.d. degrees. health professional schools and colleges are accredited institutions that provide education and training leading to a health professional degree, including but not limited to: b.s.n., m.s.n., d.n.p., m.d., d.d.s., d.o., pharm.d., d.v.m., o.d., d.p.t., d.c., n.d., d.p.m., m.o.t., o.t.d., d.p.t., m.s.-s.l.p., c.sc.d., s.l.p.d., au.d., m.s.p.o., m.s.a.t., and m.p.h. eligible health professional schools/colleges may include schools or colleges of nursing, medicine, dentistry, osteopathy, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, public health, optometry, allied health, chiropractic, naturopathy, podiatry, rehabilitation medicine, physical therapy, orthotics and prosthetics, kinesiology, occupational therapy, and psychology. accreditation must be provided by a body approved for such purpose by the secretary of education. for institutions with multiple campuses, eligibility can be considered for each individual campus (e.g., main, satellite, etc.) only if a unique identifier number and nih ipf number are established for each campus. for institutions that use one identifier number or nih ipf number for all campuses, eligibility is determined for all campuses (e.g., main, satellite, etc.) together. additional eligibility guidance a signed letter is required from the provost or similar official with institution-wide responsibility verifying the eligibility of the applicant institution at the time of application submission according to the eligibility criteria indicated above. see the application instructions for “other attachments” on the sf424(r&r) other project information form in section iv.2 instructions for application submission. final eligibility will be validated by nih prior to award. to assist in determining eligibility, organizations are encouraged to use the nih report website under nih awards by location & organization . a prep application must provide evidence of a subaward to a separate institution , and the grantee may partner with a non-r15-eligible institution. however, applicants should keep the goals of the prep in mind when preparing the application, which include strengthening the research environment of eligible institutions and engaging students from eligible institutions in pain research. it is expected that the project, and two-thirds of the total project budget, will be directed by the pd(s)/pi(s) at r15-eligible institution(s). a letter of support from each collaborator is required verifying the research collaboration at the time of application submission according to the eligibility criteria indicated above. the letter(s) should detail how the proposed research partnership will help to accomplish the proposed pain research project, enhance the r15-eligible institution’s research program, and promote synergy from an integrated, interdisciplinary research partnership(s) among the multiple proposed institutions. see the application instructions for “other attachments” on the sf424(r&r) other project information form in section iv.2 instructions for application submission. foreign organizations non-domestic (non-u.s.) entities (foreign organizations) are not eligible to apply. non-domestic (non-u.s.) components of u.s. organizations are not eligible to apply. foreign components, as defined in the nih grants policy statement , are allowed.  required registrations applicant organizations applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the how to apply - application guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. all registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission, please reference nih grants policy statement section 2.3.9.2 electronically submitted applications for additional information system for award management (sam) – applicants must complete and maintain an active registration, which requires renewal at least annually . the renewal process may require as much time as the initial registration. sam registration includes the assignment of a commercial and government entity (cage) code for domestic organizations which have not already been assigned a cage code. nato commercial and government entity (ncage) code – foreign organizations must obtain an ncage code (in lieu of a cage code) in order to register in sam. unique entity identifier (uei) - a uei is issued as part of the sam.gov registration process. the same uei must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application. era commons - once the unique organization identifier is established, organizations can register with era commons in tandem with completing their grants.gov registrations; all registrations must be in place by time of submission. era commons requires organizations to identify at least one signing official (so) and at least one program director/principal investigator (pd/pi) account in order to submit an application. grants.gov – applicants must have an active sam registration in order to complete the grants.gov registration. program directors/principal investigators (pd(s)/pi(s)) all pd(s)/pi(s) must have an era commons account.  pd(s)/pi(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in era commons. if the pd/pi is also the organizational signing official, they must have two distinct era commons accounts, one for each role. obtaining an era commons account can take up to 2 weeks. eligible individuals (program director/principal investigator) any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the program director(s)/principal investigator(s) (pd(s)/pi(s)) is invited to work with their organization to develop an application for support. individuals from diverse backgrounds, including individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and women are always encouraged to apply for nih support. see, reminder: notice of nih's encouragement of applications supporting individuals from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups as well as individuals with disabilities , not-od-22-019 . for institutions/organizations proposing multiple pds/pis, visit the multiple program director/principal investigator policy and submission details in the senior/key person profile (expanded) component of the how to apply - application guide . to be eligible for support under a prep grant, the pd(s)/pi(s) must meet the following additional criteria: each pd/pi must have a primary appointment at either an r15-eligible institution, including professional or graduate schools, undergraduate-focused organizations, or a college within the applicant institution, as defined in “eligible organizations,” above. if proposing multiple pd(s)/pi(s), each pd/pi must be at an r15-eligible institution. each pd/pi may not be the pd/pi of an active nih research grant, including another r15 grant, at the time of award of a prep grant, although they may be one of the key personnel for an active nih grant held by another pd/pi. each pd/pi may not be awarded support under more than one r15 grant at a time, although he or she may have support under successive new or renewal grants. 2. cost sharing.

This NOFO does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 1.2 Definition of Terms.

3. Additional Information on Eligibility

Number of Applications

Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.

The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, per NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.7.4 Submission of Resubmission Application . This means that the NIH will not accept:

• A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
• A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.
• An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see  NIH Grants Policy Statement 2.3.9.4 Similar, Essentially Identical, or Identical Applications ).

Section IV. Application and Submission Information

1. requesting an application package.

The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this NOFO. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the  How to Apply - Application Guide  except where instructed in this notice of funding opportunity to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the How to Apply - Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

Letter of Intent

Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.

By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information , prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:

• Descriptive title of proposed activity
• Name(s), address(es), and telephone number(s) of the PD(s)/PI(s)
• Names of other key personnel
• Participating institution(s)
• Number and title of this funding opportunity

The letter of intent should be sent to:

Jessica McKlveen, PhD National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health (NCCIH) Telephone: 301-594-8018 Email:  [email protected]

Page Limitations

All page limitations described in the How to Apply – Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.

The following section supplements the instructions found in the How to Apply – Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this NOFO.

SF424(R&R) Cover

All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.

SF424(R&R) Project/Performance Site Locations

Sf424(r&r) other project information.

Facilities & Other Resources (Required):

• A profile of the scientific background, academic level, and expertise of the students of the applicant institution and any information or estimate of the number who have obtained a health professional baccalaureate or advanced degree and gone on to obtain an academic or professional doctoral or other advanced degree in the health-related sciences during the last 5 years.
• Description of plans to build a broad team of prospective researchers, including students, with a variety of backgrounds, expertise, and skills, and to arrive at major decisions, accounting for different points of view. Personnel from the primary R15-eligible institution(s) should compose a two-thirds majority of the project team .
• Description of the special characteristics of the applicant institution that make it appropriate for an PREP grant awarded through this NOFO to: (1) support the efforts by R15-eligible principal investigators (PIs) at undergraduate-focused institutions or health professional schools and graduate schools to conduct small-scale basic and mechanistic pain research projects; (2) promote integrated, interdisciplinary research partnerships between R15-eligible PIs and additional investigators from U.S. domestic institutions; and (3) enhance the pain research environment at the R15-eligible institution for health professional students or undergraduate and/or graduate students by actively engaging them in the proposed pain research projects.
• Description of the likely impact of a PREP grant on the ability of the PD(s)/PI(s) to engage students in research.
• Description of the likely impact of a PREP grant on the research environment of the applicant institution.
• Description of the likely impact of the PREP grant on the ability of health professional or undergraduate and/or graduate students at the institution to gain experience conducting biomedical research.
• Description of the resources of the grantee institution available for the proposed research (e.g., equipment, supplies, laboratory space, release time, matching funds).
• Although the majority of the research project should be conducted at the R15-eligible institution, the use of special facilities or equipment at another institution is permitted. For any proposed research sites other than the applicant institution, provide a brief description of the resources and access students will need and have to these resources.

Applications without a Facilities & Other Resources document will be withdrawn. 

Other Attachments:

Applications that fail to include the following three required ‘other’ attachments will be considered incomplete and will be withdrawn.

1.Team Management Plan (Required three pages maximum):

A key goal of this program is to establish new research partnerships among R15-eligible investigators and other domestic research centers, programs, or institutions with complementary research expertise and/or resources. To ensure that prospective research teams fit the goals of the PREP, a team management plan is required. Applications with team management plans that exceed the three-page limit will be withdrawn.

As an “Other Attachment” entitled Team-Management-Plan.pdf, applications should describe how the research collaborators will function to accomplish program objectives. Team management approaches raised in the subsections listed below should be described in the plan. Note that a “Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan” may also be submitted as a separate attachment, and if it is included the information in that plan should not be duplicated here. Whereas the Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan focuses on leadership by and interactions across the PD/PIs, the Team Management Plan focuses on management of the whole team/key personnel. Applicants are encouraged to consult resources to aid in developing effective team-based programs (see e.g., the  NCI Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide ).

Organizational structure and team composition: The Team Management Plan should clearly show the organizational structure and composition of the proposed project team. Two-thirds of the proposed research project team should be health professional students trainees or graduate students or undergraduate from the primary R15-eligible institution. The plan should describe a management structure based on project objectives that effectively promote the proposed research. The structure should account for team composition, institutional resources, and policies that conform with PREP objectives outlined in Section I.

Shared leadership, contributions, and distributed responsibility for decision-making: The Team Management Plan should include a description of how the proposed collaborators will work together to direct the overall scientific team to leverage the diverse perspectives, expertise, and skills of the team members to successfully accomplish the goals of the project. One key consideration is that teams employing multidisciplinary approaches and having diverse areas of intellectual and technical expertise are more productive if the process for making decisions incorporates different points of view. The Team Management Plan should describe how major decisions will be made or how conflicts will be resolved.

Resource sharing and allocation across the team: Applications should describe management and decision-making processes that promote collective input for allocation of program resources with flexibility when resources may need to be dynamically reallocated to achieve programmatic goals. A plan for how intra-team, institutional, and regional resources that are integral to the team goals will be shared and made accessible to team members should also be included.

Credit assignment: A plan for how credit and IP will be shared, especially with the R15 institution’s students, should be included. Methods for attributing contributions to publications should be described to enable individual professional assessment in joint projects.

Coordination and communication plans: Practical aspects should be described, including frequency and logistics of real-time communication across all key personnel, consultants, scholars, early-stage investigators etc., and other significant contributors regardless of effort level.

An important and meaningful impact of team science may come from shaping the next generation of pain scientists. Because of the interdisciplinary expertise of the research groups, students are exposed to and can learn a variety of scientific approaches and methodologies, resulting in multifaceted early-stage investigators. Plans for how students trainees will be immersed in and benefit from different approaches taken by the collective team program should be described. This could include shared mentorship, inter-laboratory meetings, all-hands tutorials, shared meeting and document space, inter-laboratory visits, and student presentations.

2. Provost Letter(s) of Support: The application must include a PDF-formatted letter named “ProvostLetter.pdf” (without quotation marks). For MPI applications a signed provost letter is required from each involved institution. The letter must be signed by the provost or similar official with institution-wide responsibility attesting to the following information:

For Undergraduate Focused Institutions:

• The eligible academic component(s) (i.e., the college/school level) must have more undergraduates than graduate students as of the date of submission.
• All the non-health professional components of the institution together have received support from the NIH totaling no more than $6 million per year (in both direct and F&A/indirect costs) in 4 of the last 7 years, as described in Section III, "Eligible Organization".
• Validation that the PD/PI has (or in the case of a multiple PD/PI application that all PD(s)/PI(s) have) a primary appointment at the qualifying component (i.e., the college/school level).  

For Health Professional and Graduate Schools:

• The eligible academic component(s) (i.e., the college/school level) must be a health professional or graduate school that awards health professional baccalaureate or advanced degrees in biomedical and/or biobehavioral sciences.
• All components of the institution together have received support from NIH totaling no more than $6 million per year (in both direct and F&A/indirect costs) in 4 of the last 7 years, as described in Section III, “Eligible Organization.”
• Validation that the PD/PI has (or in the case of a multiple PD/PI application that all PD(s)/PI(s) have) a primary appointment at the qualifying component (i.e., the college/school level).

3. Collaborator Letter(s) of Support:  Applications must include additional PDF-formatted letter(s) from collaborating subaward holder(s) named “CollaboratorLetter_ Initials .pdf” (without quotation marks). For multiple collaborators, a signed letter is required from each involved collaborator. Note that collaborators do not need to meet the R15-eligibility criteria outlined above. The letter should demonstrate the collaborator's willingness to collaborate with the study lead as well as briefly outline their contributions to the project that will result in a well-integrated, interdisciplinary research approach to the understanding of pain. If the proposed collaboration is a new research partnership among investigators, this information should also be included.

Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP)

• In an "Other Attachment" entitled "Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives," all applicants must include a summary of actionable strategies to advance the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project through expanded inclusivity.
• Applicants should align their proposed strategies for PEDP with the research strategy section, providing a holistic and integrated view of how enhancing diverse perspectives and inclusivity are buoyed throughout the application.
• The PEDP will vary depending on the scientific aims, expertise required, the environment and performance site(s), as well as how the project aims are structured.
• Actionable strategies using defined approaches for the inclusion of diverse perspectives in the project;
• Description of how the PEDP will advance the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project;
• Anticipated timeline of proposed PEDP activities;
• Evaluation methods for assessing the progress and success of PEDP activities.

Examples of items that advance inclusivity in research and may be appropriate for a PEDP can include, but are not limited to:

• Partnerships with different types of institutions and organizations (e.g., research-intensive; undergraduate-focused; HBCUs; emerging research institutions; community-based organizations).
• Project frameworks that enable communities and researchers to work collaboratively as equal partners in all phases of the research process.
• Outreach and planned engagement activities to enhance recruitment of individuals from diverse groups as human subjects in clinical trials, including those from underrepresented backgrounds.
• Description of planned partnerships that may enhance geographic and regional diversity.
• Outreach and recruiting activities intended to diversify the pool of applicants for research training programs, such as outreach to prospective applicants from groups underrepresented in the biomedical sciences, for example, individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, those with disabilities, those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and women.
• Plans to utilize the project infrastructure (i.e., research and structure) to enhance the research environment and support career-advancing opportunities for junior, early- and mid-career researchers.
• Transdisciplinary research projects and collaborations among researchers from fields beyond the biological sciences, such as physics, engineering, mathematics, computational biology, computer and data sciences, as well as bioethics.

Examples of items that are not appropriate in a PEDP include, but are not limited to:

• Selection or hiring of personnel for a research team based on their race, ethnicity, or sex (including gender identify, sexual orientation, or transgender status).
• A training or mentorship program limited to certain researchers based on their race, ethnicity, or sex (including gender identify, sexual orientation, or transgender status).

For further information on the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP), please see PEDP guidance materials .

SF424(R&R) Senior/Key Person Profile

R&r or modular budget.

• The total budget for all years of the proposed project must be requested in Budget Period 1. Do not complete Budget Periods 2 or 3. They are not required and will not be accepted with the application.
• Applicants submitting an application with direct costs of $250,000 or less (total for all years, excluding consortium Facilities and Administrative [F&A] costs) must use the Modular Budget.
• Applicants submitting an application with direct costs of $250,001 - $375,000 (total for all years, excluding consortium Facilities and Administrative [F&A] costs) must use the R&R Budget.
• Students must be compensated for their participation in the laboratory's research and in accord with institutional policies. Student salaries can be requested in the R15 budget, or other resources at the university can be used to pay them for their participation. Undergraduate students who are compensated from the R15 grant or other institutional funds should receive at least the national minimum wage . Compensation through course credit hours towards graduation is allowable, but must be justified. If universities/colleges provide room and board for summer research students, details must be provided in the application.
• NIH does not fund stipends for undergraduates on R15 awards.

Budget Justification:

Personnel Justification: Since a primary objective of the PREP is to expose and incorporate students into multidisciplinary pain research, PD(s)/PI(s) must include health professional or undergraduate and/or graduate students from the applicant institution/applicant component in the proposed research. Students from the R15-eligible institution should compose the majority of the research team (two thirds or more). Indicate aspects of the proposed research in which students will participate. If participating students have not yet been identified, the number and academic level of those to be involved should be provided. Collaborators or consultants for the project should provide additional budget information, including their names, their organizational affiliations, and the services they will perform.

PEDP implementation costs: Applicants may include allowable costs associated with PEDP implementation (as outlined in the Grants Policy Statement section 7): https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/html5/section_7/7.1_general.htm.

R&R Subaward Budget

Phs 398 cover page supplement, phs 398 research plan.

All instructions in the  How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:

Research Strategy:  

The research strategy must address how the proposed project intends to accomplish all three objectives of this program, including: 1) Supporting the efforts by R15-eligible principal investigators (PIs) at undergraduate-focused institutions OR health professional schools and graduate schools to conduct small-scale basic and mechanistic pain research; (2) promoting integrated, interdisciplinary research partnerships between R15-eligible PIs and additional investigators from U.S. domestic institutions; and (3) enhancing the pain research environment at the R15-eligible institution for health professional students or undergraduate and/or graduate students by actively engaging them in the proposed pain research projects.

Applications should include a detailed description of a research approach that will  produce rigorous data that can be disseminated and advance our basic and mechanistic understanding of pain.  Additionally, the research strategy should detail how the proposed research partnership includes sufficient integrative pain expertise and related resources and/or institutional infrastructure that increase the likelihood of success. The application should detail how the proposed scientific research and proposed program and research partnership will have a substantial effect on strengthening the research environment at the proposed applicant’s institution.

Applications should provide details on how the research project will be directed by the R15-eligible PI and how two-thirds of the research project will be conducted at the R15-eligible institution. The research strategy should detail how the research team will recruit additional prospective investigators, including students, from a range of backgrounds, skills, and expertise for the broad pool of researchers who may apply to participate and contribute to the project. Applications should include details about how the investigators will cooperate and coordinate their activities with other HEAL investigators at PD/PI meetings, including (but not limited to) other investigators in the R15 program, the HEAL Annual Scientific and PURPOSE meetings.Proposed PD/PI(s) should include evidence of experience supervising students in previous research efforts, as well as describing any innovative approaches to engage students in the proposed pain research project. Applications should provide additional details outlining student involvement in the research project by addressing the following questions:

• How will students engage in conducting hands-on rigorous research?
• How will students participate in research activities such as planning, execution, and/or analysis of the research?
• Are there any additional plans for student involvement, such as presentation at local or national meetings, participation in publication of research findings, and development of, or participation in, collaborative activities?
• How will the project provide students with adequate opportunities to improve their research capabilities and support their progress toward a future career in pain research?
• Note-The purpose of this program is to support pain research projects, not student training. Formal training plans (e.g., non-research activities, didactic training, seminars) should not be provided, although a brief description of activities related to enhancing students’ research capabilities and progress (e.g., the use of individual development plans) is permitted. Furthermore, applications should not include independent student research projects.

Resource Sharing Plan : Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the  How to Apply - Application Guide .

Other Plan(s): 

All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:

• All applicants planning research (funded or conducted in whole or in part by NIH) that results in the generation of scientific data are required to comply with the instructions for the Data Management and Sharing Plan. All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, must address a Data Management and Sharing Plan. 

The NIH HEAL Initiative has additional requirements that must be addressed in the Data Management and Sharing Plan. All HEAL-generated data must be shared through the HEAL Initiative Data Ecosystem following HEAL’s compliance guidance ( https://heal.nih.gov/data/complying-heal-data-sharing-policy ). Specifically, HEAL applicants must include:

• Plans to submit data and metadata (and code, if applicable) to a HEAL-compliant data repository ( https://www.healdatafair.org/resources/guidance/selection ) and follow requirements of the selected repository.
• Plans to register your study with the HEAL platform within one year of award ( https://heal.github.io/platform-documentation/study-registration/ ).
• Plans to submit HEAL-defined study-level metadata within one year of award (HTTP ://github.com/HEAL/heal-metadata-schemas/blob/main/for-investigators-how-to/study-level-metadata-fields/study-metadata-schema-for-humans.pdf ) and  https://heal.github.io/platform-documentation/slmd_submission/ .
• Plans to submit data dictionaries to the HEAL Data Ecosystem, if applicable.
• HEAL pain clinical studies must include a plan to use HEAL core Common Data Elements (CDEs) ( https://heal.nih.gov/data/common-data-elements ). NIH HEAL Initiative clinical studies that are using copyrighted questionaries are required to obtain licenses for use prior to initiating data collection. Licenses must be shared with the HEAL CDE team and the program officer prior to use of copyrighted materials.
• To the extent possible, all other (nonpain) HEAL studies conducting clinical trials or research involving human subjects are expected to use questionnaires by the HEAL Common Data Elements (CDE) Program ( https://heal.nih.gov/data/common-data-elements ) if applicable and relevant to their research.
• Studies using CDEs, regardless of whether they are part of the HEAL repository, will be required to report which questionnaires are being used.
• To the extent possible, NIH HEAL Initiative awardees are expected to integrate broad data sharing consent language into their informed consent forms.

The NIH HEAL Initiative has developed additional details and resources to fulfill these requirements ( https://www.healdatafair.org/resources/road-map ). Budgeting guidance for data sharing can be found in NOT-OD-21-015 and the NIH Scientific Data Sharing site .

Appendix:  Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the How to Apply - Application Guide .

• No publications or other material, with the exception of blank questionnaires or blank surveys, may be included in the Appendix.

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

When involving human subjects research, clinical research, and/or NIH-defined clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the How to Apply - Application Guide , with the following additional instructions:

If you answered “Yes” to the question “Are Human Subjects Involved?” on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.

Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

Section 2 - Study Population Characteristics

2.5 Recruitment and Retention Plan

Describe the following: 

• Recruitment milestones; 
• The planned recruitment methods, including use of contact lists (participants and/or sites), databases or other pre-screening resources, advertisements, outreach, media / social media and referral networks or groups;
• If there are known participant or study-related barriers to accrual or participation (based on literature or prior experience), please list these barriers and describe plans to address them to optimize success; 
• Contingency plans for participant accrual if enrollment significantly lags behind accrual benchmarks; 5) participant retention and adherence strategies; and 6) possible competition from other trials for study participants.

2.7 Study Timeline

Include a table or graph of the overall study timeline. This is expected to be a visual representation (such as a Gantt chart) of recruitment milestones and key project management activities. A narrative is not expected in this section.

The study timeline should include recruitment milestones that need to be met throughout the life cycle of the clinical trial to ensure its success, and the subtasks that will be used to reach the recruitment milestones. In the timeline, the study duration is expected to be displayed in months. The timeline should include, but is not limited to, the following:

(a) When the study opens to enrollment (b) When recruitment milestones (see below) are met (c) What subtasks are needed to reach of the recruitment milestones (d) When final transfer of the data will occur (e) When analysis of the study data will occur (f) When the primary study manuscript will be submitted for publication

Delayed Onset Study

Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start). All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.

PHS Assignment Request Form

3. unique entity identifier and system for award management (sam).

See Part 2. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov

4. Submission Dates and Times

Part I.  contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday , the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.

Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons , NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time.  If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.9.2 Electronically Submitted Applications .

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the How to Apply – Application Guide .

5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

6. Funding Restrictions

All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 7.9.1 Selected Items of Cost .

Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the How to Apply - Application Guide . Paper applications will not be accepted.

Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Apply – Application Guide . If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII .

Important reminders:

All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile form . Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this NOFO for information on registration requirements.

The applicant organization must ensure that the unique entity identifier provided on the application is the same identifier used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the How to Apply - Application Guide .

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Applications must include a PEDP submitted as Other Project Information as an attachment. Applications that fail to include a PEDP will be considered incomplete and will be administratively withdrawn before review.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by components of participating organizations , NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.

In order to expedite review, applicants are requested to notify the NCCIH Referral Office by email at  [email protected] when the application has been submitted. Please include the NOFO and title, PD/PI name, and title of the application.

Recipients or subrecipients must submit any information related to violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award. See Mandatory Disclosures, 2 CFR 200.113 and NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 4.1.35 .

Send written disclosures to the NIH Chief Grants Management Officer listed on the Notice of Award for the IC that funded the award and to the HHS Office of Inspector Grant Self Disclosure Program at [email protected] . 

Post Submission Materials

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy

The following post-submission materials will be accepted: Team Management Plan (e.g., due to the hiring, replacement, or loss of an investigator).

Section V. Application Review Information

1. criteria.

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.  Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

For this particular NOFO, note the following:

The purpose of this HEAL Initiative program is to (1) support the efforts by R15-eligible principal investigators (PIs) at primarily undergraduate-focused serving institutions or health professional schools and graduate schools to conduct small-scale basic and mechanistic pain research projects ; (2) promote integrated, interdisciplinary research partnerships between R15-eligible PIs and investigators from U.S. domestic institutions; and (3) enhance the pain research environment at the R15-eligible institution for health professional students or undergraduate and/or graduate students by actively engaging them in the proposed pain research projects.

Applications in response to this notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) should include plans to accomplish these goals. Specifically, applications should include a rigorous plan for conducting basic and mechanistic pain research projects in the Research Strategy section of the application . In addition, a research partnership between the PI’s institution and at least one investigator from a separate U.S. domestic institution that provides resources and/or expertise that will enhance the proposed pain research program must be included in a separate Team Management Plan. The proposed partnership will be a sub-award agreement(s) with at least one partnering institution, which does not need to be R15-eligible. The budget of all sub-awards must not exceed one third of the total budget. Furthermore, applications must include a Facilities & Other Resources document  that demonstrates active involvement of health professional students or undergraduate and/or graduate students from the R15-eligible institution(s) in the proposed pain research projects.

Although preliminary data are not required for an R15 application, they may be included if available. The scientific foundation for the proposed research should be based on published research and/or any available preliminary data.

A proposed Clinical Trial application may include study design, methods, and intervention that are not by themselves innovative but address important questions or unmet needs. Additionally, the results of the clinical trial may indicate that further clinical development of the intervention is unwarranted or lead to new avenues of scientific investigation.

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).As part of the overall impact score, reviewers should consider and indicate how the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives affects the scientific merit of the project.

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

In addition, for applications involving clinical trials

Are the scientific rationale and need for a clinical trial to test the proposed hypothesis or intervention well supported by preliminary data, clinical and/or preclinical studies, or information in the literature or knowledge of biological mechanisms? For trials focusing on clinical or public health endpoints, is this clinical trial necessary for testing the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention that could lead to a change in clinical practice, community behaviors or health care policy? For trials focusing on mechanistic, behavioral, physiological, biochemical, or other biomedical endpoints, is this trial needed to advance scientific understanding?

Specific to this NOFO:

Taking into consideration the type of R15-eligible institution the application has been submitted from, if funded, will this grant have a substantial effect on strengthening the research environment at the applicant institution and exposing students to research ?

Does the project adequately describe how the research partnership will advance our understanding of pain conditions? 

If the aims of the project are achieved, will the project yield rigorous data that can be disseminated and is likely to be important to the field?

Will the proposed collaboration appropriately improve the R15 institutional environment in a manner to support more students to engage in pain research at that institution?

Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

With regard to the proposed leadership for the project, do the PD/PI(s) and key personnel have the expertise, experience, and ability to organize, manage and implement the proposed clinical trial and meet milestones and timelines? Do they have appropriate expertise in study coordination, data management and statistics? For a multicenter trial, is the organizational structure appropriate and does the application identify a core of potential center investigators and staffing for a coordinating center?

Does the application provide details about how the research project will be directed by the R15-eligible PI and how two-thirds of the research project will be conducted at the R15-eligible institution?

Is it clear how the applicant intends to recruit additional prospective investigators, including students, from a range of backgrounds, skills, and expertise for the pool of researchers who may apply to address the proposed scientific problem?

Will the combined scientific expertise (of the proposed collaborative research team) likely result in a well-integrated, interdisciplinary research approach to the understanding of pain?

Does the team of investigators include sufficient integrative pain expertise for the proposed research?

How appropriate is the PD/PI’'s experience in supervising and engaging students in research?

Does the application include details about how the investigators will cooperate and coordinate their activities with other HEAL investigators at PD/PI meetings, including (but not limited to) other investigators in the R15 program, the HEAL Annual Scientific and PURPOSE meetings?

Team Management Plan (Attachment):

How fair and adequate are the governance processes for decision making, conflict resolution, and resource allocation outlined in the plan? 

How effective is the plan for team leadership and management with sufficient examples of distributed responsibility?

How well would the program leadership create a sustainable environment for maintaining cohesiveness, productivity, and shared vision?

How adequate are the management plans for shared professional credit?

If shared research resources will be utilized, how adequate are the plans for resource sharing and allocation to ensure that all team members will have the access they require?

How well does the plan include examples of team coordination and communication?

How clearly does the plan include details about which personnel are available at the R15-eligible institution(s), including health professional students or graduate students or undergraduate students, that would compose a two-thirds majority of the project team and how they would contribute to the research project?

How well does the management plan outline how the collaborative partnership will supervise and engage students?

Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

Does the design/research plan include innovative elements, as appropriate, that enhance its sensitivity, potential for information or potential to advance scientific knowledge or clinical practice?

Does the proposed research include innovative interdisciplinary pain research topics?

Is the proposed research partnership a new collaboration between investigators?

Are innovative approaches for engaging health professional or undergraduate and/or graduate students in research proposed?

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects? 

If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Does the application adequately address the following, if applicable

Study Design

Is the study design justified and appropriate to address primary and secondary outcome variable(s)/endpoints that will be clear, informative and relevant to the hypothesis being tested? Is the scientific rationale/premise of the study based on previously well-designed preclinical and/or clinical research? Given the methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions, is the study design adequately powered to answer the research question(s), test the proposed hypothesis/hypotheses, and provide interpretable results? Is the trial appropriately designed to conduct the research efficiently? Are the study populations (size, gender, age, demographic group), proposed intervention arms/dose, and duration of the trial, appropriate and well justified?

Are potential ethical issues adequately addressed? Is the process for obtaining informed consent or assent appropriate? Is the eligible population available? Are the plans for recruitment outreach, enrollment, retention, handling dropouts, missed visits, and losses to follow-up appropriate to ensure robust data collection? Are the planned recruitment timelines feasible and is the plan to monitor accrual adequate? Has the need for randomization (or not), masking (if appropriate), controls, and inclusion/exclusion criteria been addressed? Are differences addressed, if applicable, in the intervention effect due to sex/gender and race/ethnicity?

Are the plans to standardize, assure quality of, and monitor adherence to, the trial protocol and data collection or distribution guidelines appropriate? Is there a plan to obtain required study agent(s)? Does the application propose to use existing available resources, as applicable?

Data Management and Statistical Analysis

Are planned analyses and statistical approach appropriate for the proposed study design and methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions? Are the procedures for data management and quality control of data adequate at clinical site(s) or at center laboratories, as applicable? Have the methods for standardization of procedures for data management to assess the effect of the intervention and quality control been addressed? Is there a plan to complete data analysis within the proposed period of the award?

Taking into consideration the type of R15-eligible institution the application has been submitted from, how suitable are the plans for ensuring that students are well integrated into the research program?

How will this project provide students with a high-quality research experience focused on the execution, analysis, and reporting of the study? 

Would students have adequate opportunities to present at national or local meetings, publish research findings, and/or participate in other collaborative activities? 

Would the proposed research project provide adequate opportunities for students to improve their research capabilities and support their progress toward a biomedical research career? 

Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

If proposed, are the administrative, data coordinating, enrollment and laboratory/testing centers, appropriate for the trial proposed?

Does the application adequately address the capability and ability to conduct the trial at the proposed site(s) or centers? Are the plans to add or drop enrollment centers, as needed, appropriate?

If international site(s) is/are proposed, does the application adequately address the complexity of executing the clinical trial?

If multi-sites/centers, is there evidence of the ability of the individual site or center to: (1) enroll the proposed numbers; (2) adhere to the protocol; (3) collect and transmit data in an accurate and timely fashion; and, (4) operate within the proposed organizational structure?

Does the "Facilities & Other Resources" attachment describe strong and innovative approaches to how students or trainees will participate in the research project?

Does the application demonstrate appropriate plans to recruit health professional or undergraduate and/or graduate students from diverse backgrounds to participate in the research project?

Does the application provide a plan to aid students at the R15-eligible institution/academic component to pursue careers in the biomedical sciences?

Do(es) the PD/PI(s) have sufficient time and institutional support to conduct the proposed project?

Is there synergy to be gained from the integrated, interdisciplinary research partnership(s) among the multiple proposed institutions?

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.

Specific to applications involving clinical trials

Is the study timeline described in detail, taking into account start-up activities, the anticipated rate of enrollment, and planned follow-up assessment? Is the projected timeline feasible and well justified? Does the project incorporate efficiencies and utilize existing resources (e.g., CTSAs, practice-based research networks, electronic medical records, administrative database, or patient registries) to increase the efficiency of participant enrollment and data collection, as appropriate?

Are potential challenges and corresponding solutions discussed (e.g., strategies that can be implemented in the event of enrollment shortfalls)?

Specific to this NOFO: Are the clinical trial recruitment milestones feasible given the proposed study timeline?

For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects .

When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research .

The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following three points: (1) a complete description of all proposed procedures including the species, strains, ages, sex, and total numbers of animals to be used; (2) justifications that the species is appropriate for the proposed research and why the research goals cannot be accomplished using an alternative non-animal model; and (3) interventions including analgesia, anesthesia, sedation, palliative care, and humane endpoints that will be used to limit any unavoidable discomfort, distress, pain and injury in the conduct of scientifically valuable research. Methods of euthanasia and justification for selected methods, if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals, is also required but is found in a separate section of the application. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals Section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animals Section.

Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.

Not applicable. 

Not applicable.  

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.

Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).

Reviewers will comment on whether the Resource Sharing Plan(s) (e.g., Sharing Model Organisms ) or the rationale for not sharing the resources, is reasonable.

For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.

Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

2. Review and Selection Process Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by NCCIH, in accordance with NIH peer review policies and practices , using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons. As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique. Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score. Appeals of initial peer review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this NOFO. Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this NOFO. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions: Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project, including the PEDP, as determined by scientific peer review Availability of funds. Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities. Please note that reviewers will not consider race, ethnicity, age, or sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation or transgender status) of a researcher, award participant, or trainee, even in part, in providing critiques, scores, or funding recommendations. NIH will not consider such factors in making its funding decisions. If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the  NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.5.1. Just-in-Time Procedures . This request is not a Notice of Award nor should it be construed to be an indicator of possible funding. Prior to making an award, NIH reviews an applicant’s federal award history in SAM.gov to ensure sound business practices. An applicant can review and comment on any information in the Responsibility/Qualification records available in SAM.gov.  NIH will consider any comments by the applicant in the Responsibility/Qualification records in SAM.gov to ascertain the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and performance record of managing Federal awards per 2 CFR Part 200.206 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.”  This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships. 3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the  eRA Commons . Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.

Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the  NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.4.4 Disposition of Applications .

Section VI. Award Administration Information

1. award notices.

A Notice of Award (NoA) is the official authorizing document notifying the applicant that an award has been made and that funds may be requested from the designated HHS payment system or office. The NoA is signed by the Grants Management Officer and emailed to the recipient’s business official.

In accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.

Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in  Section IV.6. Funding Restrictions . Any pre-award costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the applicant's own risk.  For more information on the Notice of Award, please refer to the  NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 5. The Notice of Award and NIH Grants & Funding website, see  Award Process.

Individual awards are based on the application submitted to, and as approved by, the NIH and are subject to the IC-specific terms and conditions identified in the NoA.

ClinicalTrials.gov: If an award provides for one or more clinical trials. By law (Title VIII, Section 801 of Public Law 110-85), the "responsible party" must register and submit results information for certain “applicable clinical trials” on the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System Information Website ( https://register.clinicaltrials.gov ). NIH expects registration and results reporting of all trials whether required under the law or not. For more information, see https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/index.htm

Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that all protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the recipient must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.

Data and Safety Monitoring Requirements: The NIH policy for data and safety monitoring requires oversight and monitoring of all NIH-conducted or -supported human biomedical and behavioral intervention studies (clinical trials) to ensure the safety of participants and the validity and integrity of the data. Further information concerning these requirements is found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/data_safety.htm and in the application instructions (SF424 (R&R) and PHS 398).

Investigational New Drug or Investigational Device Exemption Requirements: Consistent with federal regulations, clinical research projects involving the use of investigational therapeutics, vaccines, or other medical interventions (including licensed products and devices for a purpose other than that for which they were licensed) in humans under a research protocol must be performed under a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational new drug (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE).

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

The following Federal wide and HHS-specific policy requirements apply to awards funded through NIH:

• The rules listed at 2 CFR Part 200 , Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
• All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the terms and conditions in the Notice of Award (NoA). The NoA includes the requirements of this NOFO. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Recipients, and Activities .
• HHS recognizes that NIH research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this NOFO.

All federal statutes and regulations relevant to federal financial assistance, including those highlighted in  NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 4 Public Policy Requirements, Objectives and Other Appropriation Mandates.

Recipients are responsible for ensuring that their activities comply with all applicable federal regulations.  NIH may terminate awards under certain circumstances.  See  2 CFR Part 200.340 Termination and  NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 8.5.2 Remedies for Noncompliance or Enforcement Actions: Suspension, Termination, and Withholding of Support . 

3. Data Management and Sharing

Consistent with the 2023 NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing, when data management and sharing is applicable to the award, recipients will be required to adhere to the Data Management and Sharing requirements as outlined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement . Upon the approval of a Data Management and Sharing Plan, it is required for recipients to implement the plan as described.

HEAL Data Sharing Requirements

NIH intends to maximize the impact of NIH HEAL Initiative-supported projects through broad and rapid data sharing. All NIH HEAL Initiative award recipients, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, are required to comply with the HEAL Public Access and Data Sharing Policy. NIH HEAL Initiative award recipients must follow all requirements and timelines developed through the HEAL Initiative Data Ecosystem ( https://heal.nih.gov/about/heal-data-ecosystem ), as described in the initiative’s  compliance guidance (See “Already Funded” section:  https://heal.nih.gov/data/complying-heal-data-sharing-policy ):   

1. Select a HEAL-compliant data repository ( https://www.healdatafair.org/resources/guidance/selection )

• Data generated by NIH HEAL Initiative-funded projects must be submitted to study-appropriate, HEAL-compliant data repositories to ensure the data is accessible via the HEAL Initiative Data Ecosystem.
• Some repositories require use of specific data dictionaries or structured data elements, so knowing your repository’s requirements up front can help reduce the burden of preparing data for submission.
• HEAL-funded awardees must follow requirements for selected repository.

2. Within one year of award,  register your study with the HEAL platform ( https://heal.github.io/platform-documentation/study-registration/ )

• This process will connect the platform to information about your study and data, including metadata, and identify the selected repository. HEAL requests initial submission within one year of award, with annual updates, and to be updated in accordance with any release of study data.

3.  Within one year of award, submit HEAL-specific study-level metadata.

• Some of the required study-level metadata ( https://github.com/HEAL/heal-metadata-schemas/blob/main/for-investigators-how-to/study-level-metadata-fields/study-metadata-schema-for-humans.pdf ) will be autopopulated as part of the registration process.  

4. Submit data and metadata (and code, if applicable) to HEAL-compliant repository

• At the completion of the study and/or when prepared to make the final data deposits in the repositor(ies) of choice, ensure your  study registration ( https://heal.github.io/platform-documentation/study-registration/ ) is complete.
• Submit data dictionaries to the HEAL data ecosystem, if applicable.
• The NIH HEAL Initiative expects data sharing timelines to align with timeline requirements stated in the Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing ( NOT-OD-21-013 ).

6. Additional Requirements for NIH HEAL Initiative studies conducting clinical research or research involving human subjects.

These studies must meet the following additional requirements:

• NIH HEAL Initiative trials that are required to register in clinicaltrials.gov should reference support from and inclusion in the NIH HEAL Initiative by including the standardized term “the HEAL Initiative ( https://heal.nih.gov/ )” in the Study Description Section.
• Studies that wish to use questionnaires not already included in the HEAL CDE repository should consult with their program official and the HEAL CDE team. New questionnaires will be considered for inclusion in the repository on a case-by-case basis and only when appropriate justification is provided.
• NIH HEAL Initiative clinical studies that are using copyrighted questionaries are required to obtain licenses for use prior to initiating data collection. Licenses must be shared with the HEAL CDE team and the program officer prior to use of copyrighted materials. For additional information, visit the HEAL CDE Program ( https://heal.nih.gov/data/common-data-elements ).
• To the extent possible, all other (nonpain) HEAL studies conducting clinical trials or research involving human subjects are expected to use questionnaires by the HEAL CDE Program ( https://heal.nih.gov/data/common-data-elements ) if applicable and relevant to their research.

Additional details, resources, and tools to assist with data-related activities can be found at https://www.healdatafair.org .  Budgeting guidance for data sharing can be found in  NOT-OD-21-015 and the  NIH Scientific Data Sharing site .

All data collected as part of the NIH HEAL Initiative are collected under a Certificate of Confidentiality and entitled to the protections thereof. Institutions who receive data and/or materials from this award for performance of activities under this award are required to use the data and/or materials only as outlined by the NIH HEAL Initiative, in a manner that is consistent with applicable state and Federal laws and regulations, including any informed consent requirements and the terms of the institution’s NIH funding, including NOT-OD-17-109 and 42 U.S.C. 241(d). Failure to adhere to this criterion may result in enforcement actions.

4. Reporting

Progress reports for multi-year funded awards are due annually on or before the anniversary of the budget/project period start date of award. The reporting period for multi-year funded award progress report is the calendar year preceding the anniversary date of the award. Information on the content of the progress report and instructions on how to submit the report using the RPPR are posted at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/myf.htm

• Recipients will provide updates at least annually on implementation of the PEDP.

( To follow the next section ):

Report and ensure immediate public access to HEAL-funded publications

Publications resulting from NIH HEAL Initiative-funded studies must be immediately publicly available upon publication. 

• For manuscripts published in journals that are not immediately open access, authors should arrange with journals in advance to pay for immediate open access. 
• Costs to ensure manuscripts are immediately publicly available upon publication should be included in budget requests. 

Prior to publication, the NIH HEAL Initiative expects investigators to alert their program officers of upcoming manuscripts to ensure coordination of communication and outreach efforts.

Award recipients and their collaborators are required to acknowledge NIH HEAL Initiative support by referencing in the acknowledgment sections of any relevant publication:

“This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health through the NIH HEAL Initiative ( https://heal.nih.gov ) under award number [include specific grant/contract/award number; with NIH grant number(s) in this format: R01GM987654].” 

A final RPPR, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 8.6 Closeout . NIH NOFOs outline intended research goals and objectives. Post award, NIH will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described at 2 CFR Part 200.301.

Section VII. Agency Contacts

We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.

eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)

Finding Help Online:  https://www.era.nih.gov/need-help  (preferred method of contact) Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)

General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and NIH grant resources) Email:  [email protected]  (preferred method of contact) Telephone: 301-480-7075

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace) Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726 Email:  [email protected]

Alex Tuttle, Ph.D. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) Phone: 301-814-6115 Email:  [email protected]

Mark Egli, Ph.D. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) Phone: 301-594-6382 E-mail: [email protected]

Rebecca N Lenzi, Ph.D. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES (NIAMS) Phone: (301) 402-2446 E-mail: [email protected]

Rene Etcheberrigaray, M.D. National Institute on Aging (NIA) Phone: 301-451-9798 Email: [email protected]

Susan Marden, PhD, RN Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Telephone: 301-435-6838 Email: [email protected]  

Elizabeth Sypek, PhD National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Email:  [email protected]

Examine your eRA Commons account for review assignment and contact information (information appears 2 weeks after the submission due date).

Debbie Chen National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) Phone: 301-594-3788 Email:  [email protected]

Judy Fox National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) Telephone: 301-443-4704 Email:  [email protected]

Erik Edgerton NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES (NIAMS) Phone: 301-594-7760 E-mail: [email protected]

Ryan Blakeney National Institute on Aging (NIA) Phone: 301-451-9802 Email: [email protected]

Margaret Young Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Telephone: 301-642-4552 Email: [email protected]

Section VIII. Other Information

Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts . All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 2 CFR Part 200.

Profiling mathematics teacher educators' readiness for digital technology integration: evidence from Zambia

• Open access
• Published: 04 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Angel Mukuka   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0292-1324 1 &
• Jogymol Kalariparampil Alex   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0118-760X 2  

Research on Mathematics Teacher Educators (MTEs) is crucial for enhancing the professional development of prospective mathematics teachers. However, there is a dearth of recent studies focusing on MTEs’ preparedness for technology integration, particularly within the Zambian educational context, and the wider Sub-Saharan African region. This study assessed the readiness of MTEs in Zambia to effectively integrate digital technology into mathematics education, examining their perceived technological proficiency and familiarity, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. Using a predominantly quantitative cross sectional research design, responses were gathered from 104 MTEs across 16 colleges of education and 12 universities in Zambia through an online semi-structured questionnaire. The findings revealed that, on average, MTEs exhibited low to moderate familiarity with various mathematics-related software applications, e-learning management systems, and web-based video conferencing tools. Although technological proficiency and perceived ease of use were somewhat lacking, MTEs demonstrated awareness of the value of digital technology and expressed willingness to ensure that preservice mathematics teachers acquire the necessary information and skills for technology integration in mathematics teaching and learning. Furthermore, willingness to use technology in the classroom was significantly predicted by perceived usefulness of, and proficiency with, various digital tools. The study also revealed that individuals tend to perceive technology as easier to use as they become more technologically proficient. In light of these findings, it is suggested that access to technological support not only enhances MTEs’ perception of technology’s ease of use but also positively influences their inclination to incorporate it into instructional strategies.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Mathematics education faces persistent challenges worldwide, with many students at both school and tertiary levels perceiving it as one of the most challenging subjects. This trend is prominently reflected in both national and international assessments of student achievement in mathematics, consistently indicating subpar performance among students, albeit with notable exceptions observed in select East Asian countries (Bethell, 2016 ; Mullis et al., 2012 , 2020 ; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2019 ). The emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in recent years has exacerbated concerns surrounding academic performance in mathematics, highlighting the urgency for proactive measures to address potential future crises (Mukuka et al., 2021 ). The pivotal role of digital technology in mathematics education has become increasingly evident, not only during the COVID-19 era but since the advent of the twenty-first century. Digital tools have reshaped how we engage with information, altering our learning processes and prompting a re-evaluation of pedagogical practices (Chorney, 2018 ; Gravemeijer et al., 2017 ; Traore, 2021 ). This evolution is particularly pertinent for preservice teachers, who are poised to become change agents in the classroom. However, challenges persist, particularly in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where inadequate resources hinder the adoption of technology-based instruction (Iyamuremye et al., 2022 ; Jita & Sintema, 2022 ). Despite its potential, there remains a dearth of recent information regarding mathematics teacher educators’ (MTEs) readiness to integrate digital technology into their teaching practices, particularly in Zambia where no such study has been conducted (Mukuka, 2024 ). Research conducted by Appova and Taylor ( 2019 ) also indicates that this trend is quite prominent in other settings.

Given MTEs’ pivotal role in shaping the next generation of mathematics teachers, it is imperative to understand their readiness to use digital technology in their pedagogical practices. This study aimed to profile MTEs’ readiness for effective integration of digital technology in mathematics education by evaluating their perceived technological proficiency and familiarity, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. By examining these factors, we sought to uncover the current landscape of digital technology integration in mathematics teacher education and inform efforts to enhance MTEs’ preparedness in this critical domain. Therefore, we sought answers to the following research questions:

What are MTEs’ perceptions of their technological proficiency, familiarity, usefulness, and ease of using digital technology in mathematics education?

To what extent do MTEs’ technological proficiency, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of using digital technology influence their willingness to support preservice mathematics teachers in acquiring the necessary skills for effective technology integration in their future classrooms?

Literature review

The definition of “technology” has varied depending on the situation, and it is a very broad construct. Our study focuses on digital technology, which at times, is referred to as “technology” in this text. In accordance with Freiman’s ( 2014 ) simplistic perspective, we define digital technology as that which encompasses ‘hardware’ devices that are physically present (such as tablets, computers, printers, smartphones, projectors, etc.) along with ‘software’ or applications that provide user interfaces for such hardware. According to Sinclair and Robutti ( 2020 , p. 245), digital technology serves two roles in mathematics education. The first is to assist in the organization of the teacher’s work (by, for example, producing worksheets, printing tests, keeping track of students’ grades, etc.). The second is to encourage cutting-edge methods for creating and presenting mathematics lessons. In the context of this study, we place a greater emphasis on the latter, particularly mathematics software and other relevant digital tools and applications that offer user-friendly interfaces, within the teaching and learning process.

Role of digital technology in mathematics education

Literature is replete with studies that have highlighted the transformative potential of digital tools in reshaping pedagogical practices and enhancing learning outcomes in mathematics at both school and tertiary levels of education (Alex & Mukuka, 2024 ; Clark-Wilson et al., 2020 ; Drijvers & Sinclair, 2023 ). As indicated earlier, one area of focus within this paper concerns MTEs’ perceptions of their proficiency to use various digital applications, ranging from social media platforms to mathematics software. Specifically, the term ‘perceived technology proficiency’ refers to self-assessed confidence and ability to understand and use technology in mathematics teacher educational settings. This means that the term does not encompass dimensions such as actual skill levels and practical experience with technology.

Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, YouTube, and other online forums have emerged as spaces for educators and students to engage in collaborative learning, share resources, and seek assistance with mathematical concepts (Baya’a & Daher, 2015 ). These platforms facilitate asynchronous communication and enable learners to access support outside of traditional classroom settings, fostering a sense of community and collaboration among learners. In their study of a group of preservice mathematics teachers in Zambia, Mulenga and Marbàn ( 2020 ) found that social media plays a significant role in shaping the future of mathematics education, particularly regarding its integration into teaching practices and its potential to foster collaborative and innovative learning environments.

Similarly, video conferencing technologies have revolutionized the delivery of mathematics lessons, particularly in contexts where physical classroom attendance is limited or impractical. This was more pronounced and quite evident during the COVID-19 era where platforms like Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams, among others enabled educators to conduct virtual mathematics lessons, demonstrations, and tutorials, thereby overcoming geographical barriers and expanding access to quality education (Asad et al., 2022 ; Betthäuser et al., 2023 ; Mukuka et al., 2021 ). There have been calls on the need to continue utilizing such initiatives, especially that such technologies have proved useful even in the post-COVID-19 era (Camilleri & Camilleri, 2022 ; Ng & Fang, 2023 ; Nikou, 2021 ).

In addition to communication and collaboration tools, mathematics educators have increasingly embraced specialized software applications designed to facilitate mathematical exploration and problem-solving. Programs such as GeoGebra, PHET simulations, Excel, and Graphmatica, among others offer dynamic visualization tools, computational capabilities, and interactive features that enhance students’ conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills (Gökçe & Güner, 2022 ; Uwurukundo et al., 2022 ; Yohannes & Chen, 2023 ). Research shows that these software applications provide opportunities for hands-on exploration of mathematical concepts, allowing learners to manipulate variables, plot graphs, and analyze data in real-time (Bokhove & Drijvers, 2012 ; Chorney, 2018 ; Hussein et al., 2022 ).

Opportunities and challenges of technology integration

Drawing from the preceding section, it is evident that many studies have explored the effectiveness of technology-based instruction in mathematics education, revealing promising outcomes. Research indicates that integrating digital applications such as social media platforms, online video conferencing tools, and specialized mathematics software applications into mathematics instruction enhances students’ engagement, motivation, and conceptual understanding (Drijvers & Sinclair, 2023 ; Mensah & Ampadu, 2024 ). Although digital tools such as social media platforms, web-based conferencing tools, and learning management systems are not typically classified as ‘mathematics action technologies’ that directly support learners in making sense of mathematical ideas (Lee & Hollebrands, 2008 ), it is noteworthy that such tools could be used for communication purposes. Additionally, they can serve as mediums for delivering mathematics lessons. This utilization fosters a sense of community and collaboration among learners and teachers. On the other hand, specialized mathematics software applications like GeoGebra, Graphmatica, and PHET simulations, among others, provide visual representations of abstract mathematical concepts. This results in enhanced accessibility and comprehension of abstract mathematical concepts for students. Lee and Hollebrands ( 2008 ) emphasize the importance of preparing teachers to use appropriate technology in teaching mathematics, aligning with the observation by Mensah and Ampadu ( 2024 ) that computer-assisted instruction promotes student-centered approaches and active engagement. Furthermore, technology-based instruction offers customized educational experiences designed to meet the unique needs and learning preferences of each student (Castillo & Polly, 2024 ).

Amidst the aforementioned roles and opportunities, integration of digital technology into mathematics education faces significant challenges. Studies by Sacristán ( 2017 ) and Timotheou et al. ( 2023 ) highlight the multifaceted interplay of factors that influence the impact of digital technologies on education and are crucial for effective change. These factors encompass the availability and quality of infrastructure, adequacy of educational technology, sufficiency of technological resources, efficacy of professional development initiatives, teachers’ self-efficacy in utilizing technology, and their attitudes toward it. In resource-constrained environments, accessing technology poses a major hurdle, with many schools lacking essential infrastructure like stable electricity and internet connectivity necessary for digital tool implementation (Drijvers & Sinclair, 2023 ). Additionally, both teachers and learners must possess digital literacy skills for effective technology utilization (Viberg et al., 2023 ). However, teachers often lack the requisite training and support to develop these competencies especially in low-resource settings. Even when digital tools and skills are available, integrating them into the curriculum in a manner that enhances learning presents some challenges (Adnan et al., 2024 ; Luneta, 2022 ). Moreover, equity concerns arise, most students do not have equitable access to digital resources outside of school, college or university, potentially exacerbating disparities in learning outcomes (Gottschalk & Weise, 2023 ).

In the context of SSA region, these challenges are particularly evident. For example, a study conducted by Agieyi ( 2021 ) on the integration of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) into schools in this region revealed efforts to enhance teachers’ ICT skills, yet significant obstacles hindered classroom implementation. These barriers include inadequate training opportunities, insufficient technical support, and a lack of time allocated in the school schedule for ICT involvement. Similarly, in Zambia, despite initiatives aimed at leveraging technology in education, its impact has been constrained by challenges related to infrastructure, teacher training, curriculum integration, and self-efficacy beliefs among others (Bethell, 2016 ; Bwalya & Rutegwa, 2023 ; Mukuka et al., 2021 ).

Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive approach that includes improving infrastructure, providing teacher training, and developing curriculum guidelines for the effective use of digital tools in mathematics education (Sacristán, 2017 ). It also requires addressing equity issues to ensure that all students can benefit from the advantages that digital technology can offer in mathematics education. The highlighted challenges also point to a renewed emphasis on the need to revisit the ways in which preservice mathematics teachers are being prepared to teach mathematics with technology as highlighted by McCulloch et al. ( 2021 ). This means that MTEs need to be proficient with technology-based instruction. However, there is little information available about the depth and breadth of MTEs’ proficiency and perspectives in fostering future teachers’ technological skills, not only in Zambia but across SSA and beyond (Appova & Taylor, 2019 ; Bethell, 2016 ; Luneta, 2022 ).

Most studies that have been conducted on technology integration in mathematics classrooms have concentrated on preservice and in-service teachers, even in well-resourced settings. While this has been an important step in the right direction, it suffices to pinpoint that teacher educators’ expertise should be a priority since teacher educators are the ones who get to interact with student teachers before they are sent into schools to teach. Additionally, teacher educators are in a better position to facilitate the creation of instructional strategies that are required for sustainable futures and to train prospective teachers in how to address some of the highlighted challenges. This is why this study focuses on profiling MTEs’ readiness with the integration of digital technology in their classroom practice as they train future teachers of mathematics.

There is also a need to hear MTEs’ views with regards to their familiarity with, and access to, various digital facilities as well as their willingness to equip their students (preservice teachers) with relevant digital skills. According to Fütterer et al. ( 2023 ), “familiarity with technology refers to the level of knowledge and experience that students and teachers have with various forms of technology, such as smart tablet computers or educational software”. Technology familiarity in the context of this study primarily refers to MTEs’ access to, and use of, various mathematics-related software, e-learning management systems, video conferencing tools, and social media platforms.

Understanding the current state of MTEs’ readiness with technology integration aligns with calls for initiatives to enhance mathematics teacher preparation (Alex & Mukuka, 2024 ) and acknowledges their role as agents of change (Chapman, 2021 ). Additionally, it affirms the necessity for MTEs to possess relevant knowledge beyond the scope of preservice teachers (Beswick & Goos, 2018 ). In Zambia, there is a lack of studies on MTEs’ capacity for integrating technology-based instruction. This exploratory study aims to fill that gap by examining the current situation. Our goal is to inform efforts to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ learning experiences. Furthermore, we aim to identify the necessary enhancements to MTEs’ technological skills in order to generate findings that are particularly relevant to lower-resourced contexts in developing education systems.

Theoretical perspectives

This study employed the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as a framework to explore the factors shaping MTEs’ readiness to assist preservice mathematics teachers in acquiring essential skills for effective technology integration. In addition to TAM, the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework was utilized to provide a comprehensive understanding of MTEs’ readiness for technology integration. These models complemented each other, enabling the examination of MTEs’ familiarity, proficiency, and perceptions regarding the utility and ease of using digital technologies in mathematics classrooms. While the TAM provided insights into MTEs’ perceptions of technology adoption, the TPACK framework allowed for an exploration of how MTEs’ pedagogical expertise intersected with their perceived technological proficiency. This holistic view of MTEs’ readiness for technology integration aimed to discern the current landscape of digital technology utilization among MTEs in Zambia and how their perceptions influence their support for preservice teachers. Insights from this research are also anticipated to inform initiatives aimed at enhancing technology integration in mathematics education.

Technology acceptance model

TAM stands as a pivotal framework for understanding the factors influencing individuals’ acceptance or rejection of technology (Marangunić & Granić, 2015 ). Introduced by Fred Davis in 1989, TAM posits that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are key determinants of individuals’ willingness to adopt technology (Davis, 1989 ). This model suggests that an individual’s decision to use technology is primarily influenced by its perceived usefulness and ease of use (Davis, 1989 ).

TAM proposes a three-step process for technology acceptance, where external elements (like system design features) initiate cognitive reactions (such as perceived ease of use and usefulness), leading to an emotional response (attitude toward using technology/intention), which then influences usage behavior (Davis, 1989 , 1993 ). Perceived ease of use and usefulness constitute the anticipation of positive behavioral results and the belief that the behavior will not be effort intensive. Davis ( 1989 ) defined perceived usefulness as the individual’s perception of how much the usage of a specific technology enhances performance. Perceived ease of use was characterized as the degree to which an individual perceives using a specific system as being uncomplicated.

External variables are system characteristics that impact users’ perceptions of ease of use and usefulness (Marangunić & Granić, 2015 ). In the realm of mathematics education, these external variables encompass factors like facilitating conditions within the user’s environment, which encourage system utilization. Such conditions may include resource availability, technical infrastructure, user competence, self-efficacy beliefs, and access to ICT tools (Bwalya & Rutegwa, 2023 ; Joo et al., 2018 ; Perienen, 2020 ). In this study, MTEs’ proficiency with digital technology was considered an external variable that could influence their perception of technology’s usefulness and ease of use.

Although TAM has evolved into different versions, such as TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000 ), TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008 ), and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003 ), we applied the original version (as illustrated in Fig.  1 ). This was due to its simplicity and alignment with our research objectives. This model’s straightforward approach made it the most suitable choice for this study. Specifically, we focused on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use to investigate MTEs’ readiness for technology integration. The original TAM also allows for the inclusion of external variables, such as MTEs’ technology proficiency, which was assessed through the TPACK model as discussed later in this article.

Venkatesh and Davis ( 1996 ) Version of TAM (Source, Rondan-Cataluña et al., 2015 , p. 792)

Technological pedagogical content knowledge

As alluded to earlier, the TPACK model was used to understand the level of MTEs’ perceived proficiency with technology integration. This framework offers a structured approach to describe the knowledge essential for teachers to effectively incorporate technology into their teaching methodologies. Mishra and Koehler ( 2006 ) articulate that TPACK aims to tackle the complex nature of teacher knowledge, highlighting the necessary information teachers must possess to integrate technology into their instructional practices. Building upon Shulman’s ( 1986 ) Pedagogical Content Knowledge, the TPACK framework comprises seven components, as illustrated in Fig.  2 . Each of these components encompasses distinct facets of knowledge crucial for effective technology integration in teaching, from understanding subject matter and pedagogical techniques to leveraging technology to transform both content and pedagogy. Furthermore, the TPACK model has been utilized by prior researchers from different settings to evaluate teacher competency in technology integration ( see Aldemir et al., 2023 ; Clark-Wilson et al., 2020 ; Joo et al., 2018 ; Njiku, 2024 ). This highlights its relevance in assessing MTEs’ proficiency in incorporating technology. Illustrated in Fig.  2 , TPACK not only examines individual domains but also their intersections, providing a comprehensive perspective on the competencies that are imperative for successful technology integration in teaching practices.

(Reproduced with permission from the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org)

TPACK Framework

While Joo et al. ( 2018 ) included all 7 TPACK model components as well as self-efficacy as external factors, this study only focused on technology components (TK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK) since MTEs’ mastery of mathematics content was not within the confines of this study. In addition, it was believed that MTEs’ familiarity with a range of digital technologies was cardinal because lack of access to technology is likely to restrict one’s acquaintance with various digital tools (Fütterer et al., 2023 ). Although concerns with access to various digital tools and platforms have been recognized in an earlier study (Mukuka et al., 2021 ), no study has been conducted in Zambia to profile MTEs’ readiness to integrate technology into their pedagogical practices.

Hypothesized relationships among study variables

The conceptual model that is shown in Fig.  3 illustrates the structural connections among the variables that were investigated for providing answers to the second research question. As discussed earlier, these structural relationships were informed by insights from the TAM model (Fig.  1 ). Additionally, we enhanced our understanding by incorporating proficiency with digital technology as an external variable, assessed using the TPACK framework (Fig.  2 ).

Hypothesized structural relationships among the studied constructs [Adapted from Joo et al., 2018 ]

In line with the conceptual model depicted in Fig.  3 , and the second research question, the following hypotheses were formulated and tested at the 5% level of significance.

Hypothesis 1 (H1)

Proficiency with digital technology has a positive influence on MTEs’ perceived usefulness of technology in mathematics teaching.

Hypothesis 2 (H2)

Proficiency with digital technology positively affects MTEs’ perceived ease of using technology in mathematics teaching.

Hypothesis 3 (H3)

Willingness to support the development of technological skills among preservice teachers is positively influenced by MTEs’ proficiency, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of using technology in mathematics teaching and learning.

Research design and setting

This paper reports the findings from an exploratory study that aimed to profile MTEs’ perspectives regarding digital technology integration. A cross sectional survey design was employed. According to Creswell ( 2014 ), cross sectional survey designs are well-suited for exploratory research because they provide an overview of the situation without requiring long-term data collection. With our limited budget and personnel, this design allowed us to survey MTEs across different provinces, covering a wide geographic area within a short period of time. The survey respondents were mathematics teacher educators (lecturers) teaching at either private or public colleges and universities across the 10 provinces of Zambia. Teachers in Zambia undergo training to teach mathematics across four distinct educational levels: early childhood, primary, junior secondary, and senior secondary education. Early childhood education caters to children aged 3 to 6 years, while primary education (Grades 1–7) serves children aged 7 to 13, and secondary education caters to learners aged 14 to 18 (Ministry of Education, 2000 ; Ministry of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education [MOESVTEE], 2013 ). It is noteworthy that these age ranges are not absolute, with exceptions occurring in certain situations. For instance, some children may enter grade one at 6 or even 5 years, especially in urban areas, while delays in entering the primary education are common in rural areas where early childhood education centers are scarce.

Additionally, there is no specialized training for teachers at the early childhood and primary education levels; teachers trained for these levels receive training in all subjects, including mathematics. Conversely, teachers trained for junior and senior secondary levels undergo specialized training to teach specific subjects. Nonetheless, the focus of this research was on educators at the tertiary level who train prospective teachers in mathematics instruction for junior and senior secondary levels. As noted in prior literature (e.g., Tabakamulamu et al., 2007 ), two distinct pathways exist for teaching mathematics at the secondary school level: one through colleges of education and another through universities. Teachers who graduate from colleges of education with a diploma are certified to teach mathematics to students in grades 8 and 9. University-trained teachers, on the other hand get a bachelor’s degree and are eligible to teach mathematics to students in both junior and senior secondary schools (Grades 8–12). A bachelor’s degree holder with relevant teaching experience is also eligible to teach at a college of education; whereas, a master’s degree is required minimum qualification to teach at the university. This means that a bachelor’s degree with relevant experience is the minimum qualification to teach at a college of education.

Research participants and data collection

The survey was created in Google Form and sent to the targeted respondents online. Snowball and convenience sampling techniques were deemed appropriate for selecting the study participants. The researchers were aware of the discrepancy between the study approach employed and the sampling techniques used. Quantitative studies demand probability (random) sampling techniques, albeit qualitative research fares well with non-probability sampling techniques like the ones employed in this study. Since participation in the study was entirely voluntary and the researchers aimed to recruit as many participants as possible, the nature of the study precluded the use of random sampling. The MTEs who could easily be identified were sent a link to a questionnaire, and they then forwarded it to other individuals in their departments and other institutions. Researchers also worked closely with officials in the Ministry of Education to identify more respondents. As referenced in another source (Mukuka, 2024 ), the process of data collection took place between mid-June 2023 and early August 2023. During this period, the authors concluded their data collection efforts, feeling they had explored all available avenues and could no longer gather further responses.

Using the sampling method outlined above, 104 MTEs from 16 colleges of education and 12 universities, across all the 10 provinces of Zambia turned up for the study. Although our sample size met the 10-times minimum sample size rule for structural equation modeling analysis (Barclay et al., 1995 ), we were cognizant of the fact that this rule has been criticized for its failure to account for the population size and other power analysis procedures (Hair et al., 2021 ; Kock & Hadaya, 2018 ). As reported elsewhere (Mukuka, 2024 ), our justification of the sufficiency of this sample lies in its representativeness of the population being studied. First, the population of MTEs in accredited teacher education institutions is comparatively small in contrast to the population of teacher educators in other subject combinations. Second, this sample covers all the 10 provinces of Zambia. Since the bulk of teacher training institutions have been established in two provinces (Lusaka and Copperbelt) that are largely urban, we did not anticipate receiving many responses from other provinces that are predominantly rural and have fewer teacher training institutions. Nonetheless, all the ten provinces have been represented in the sample. Third, participation in the study was voluntary. Only those willing to participate turned up to complete the questionnaire. Above all, this sample size aligns with the suggested inverse approach to power analysis as advised by Hair et al. ( 2021 ) and Kock and Hadaya ( 2018 ), considering the path coefficients derived from analogous previous research (Joo, et al., 2018 ). Thus, it is improbable that an alternative sample from this population would yield markedly different results.

Among the 104 respondents, 82 (78.8%) were male; while, 22 (21.2%) were female. It was further noted that 51 (49%) were from colleges of education; while, 44 (42.3%) came from universities and 9 (8.7%) did not disclose the institutional level at which they were teaching. In terms of qualifications, 73 (70.2%) of the respondents were master’s degree holders; while, 23 (22.1%) had bachelor’s degrees and only 6 (5.8%) had doctorate degrees. It was also noted that 2 (1.9%) did not disclose their qualifications. Regarding the institutional ownership, 70 (67.3%) came from public institutions; while, 33 (31.7%) came from privately owned institutions and only one respondent did not disclose. Among participants, the range of teaching experience spanned from 1 to 37 years, with an average of 9.5 years and standard deviation of 6.8 years.

Formulation and validation of questionnaire items

The questionnaire items were sourced from reputable and dependable academic references, integrating foundational principles from TAM (Davis, 1989 ) and TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 ). Furthermore, insights were gleaned from other studies that explored similar constructs and utilized the TAM and/or TPACK frameworks ( See , Camilleri & Camilleri, 2022 ; Joo et al., 2018 ; Schmid et al., 2020 ; Schmidt et al., 2009 ; Taylor & Todd, 1995 ). Structurally, the questionnaire encompassed four sections: demographic data (previously addressed in the preceding sub-section), familiarity with diverse digital technologies, proficiency in technology-based instruction within mathematics classrooms, and perceptions regarding the usefulness, ease of use, and willingness to incorporate technology within the classroom setting. The names of variables, item quantities, and reliability values derived for the current study are shown in Table  1 .

A five-point Likert scale gauged MTEs’ familiarity with technology. MTEs were tasked with indicating their level of familiarity with various digital technologies pertinent to mathematics classrooms, rating from 1 (not at all familiar) to 5 (completely familiar). Familiarity was categorized into three components: selected mathematics software (SMS), e-learning management systems and web-based conferencing tools (eLMS-CT), and social media platforms (SMP). The seven SMS applications that were explored included GeoGebra, PHET simulations, Excel, Graphmatica, Photo math, Geometer’s sketch pad, and Microsoft math solver. The six eLMS-CT included Zoom, Google Meet/Google classroom, Moodle e-learning management, Webex cisco, Clanned online learning platform, and Microsoft teams. Facebook, WhatsApp, and YouTube constituted SMPs. The selection of these technologies was predicated on both the researchers’ understanding of the most prevalent and extensively utilized tools and the existing literature in mathematics education research. We were aware that simply asking respondents to indicate their familiarity with various digital technologies might not provide a comprehensive understanding of their utilization in mathematics classrooms. Therefore, in addition to rating their familiarity, respondents were also presented with two open-ended questions. These questions prompted them to specify the particular digital tools they had previously used and the specific mathematics topics for which these technologies were employed.

Proficiency in incorporating technology-based instruction within mathematics classrooms was evaluated by utilizing four out of the seven components of the TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 ; Schmid et al., 2020 ; Schmidt et al., 2009 ). These components encompass TK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK, as outlined in the provided questionnaire, openly accessible in a data repository at ( https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/3x8gs6nkk8/1 ). It is worth noting that only the four components related to technology were employed, as the study did not delve into MTEs’ proficiency in mathematical content. Respondents were asked to express their agreement level with the provided statements using a scale from 1 (indicating strong disagreement) to 5 (indicating strong agreement). These statements pertained to their perceived competencies in digital technologies such as computers, tablets, mobile phones, and projectors, among others. Nonetheless, the potential limitations of self-reported questionnaire items in assessing technological proficiency have been acknowledged. It is also important to understand that this study adopted an exploratory approach, aiming to glean insights that could serve as a foundation for future research endeavors in the Zambian context, where such investigations have not been previously conducted. In the final segment of the questionnaire, MTEs were prompted to express their level of agreement concerning perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PE), and inclination toward integrating technology (IT) into their instructional methods (Davis, 1989 ; Taylor & Todd, 1995 ).

Before dissemination to the target participants, the questionnaire underwent scrutiny by a select group of experienced colleagues to identify potential weaknesses. This group comprised two seasoned scholars and three PhD candidates actively involved in research on technology integration in mathematics education. As detailed elsewhere (Mukuka, 2024 ), these colleagues were tasked with assessing the clarity, relevance, sufficiency, and coherence of the questionnaire items. Following their feedback via email and phone discussions, the instrument underwent refinement and was made available in both hard copy and online formats. Although a hard copy version was accessible, the questionnaire was primarily administered via a Google Form, with the link shared among identified MTEs who, in turn, disseminated it among their colleagues within their respective departments.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics, and partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) were employed as methods of data analysis. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27 was used to generate descriptive statistics. PLS-SEM, on the other hand, was employed to evaluate the significance of the structural relationships hypothesized in Fig.  3 .

First, reliability analysis was carried out in SPSS version 27 using Cronbach Alpha. This was done to guarantee internal consistency among all the items chosen to assess a specific variable/construct. Since all the Cronbach Alpha values displayed in Table  1  exceeded the suggested cutoff point of 0.7 (Adams & Wieman, 2010 ; Taber, 2018 ), it can be inferred that all the items on each variable were internally consistent. It was deemed reasonable to compute descriptive statistics like the mean, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis for each construct rather than performing it for every individual item. Skewness and kurtosis offered some insights into the nature of the distribution of data; whereas, standard deviation indicated how data values were distributed around the mean. Based on skewness and kurtosis values displayed in Table  2 , each variable’s departure from normality falls within the acceptable range of random fluctuations (Kline, 2009 ).

On the other hand, PLS-SEM was used to uncover major predictors of MTEs’ willingness to incorporate digital technology in their classroom practice, with a view to improving prospective mathematics teachers’ competencies and skills in regard to digital technology integration. The fact that proficiency, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and willingness to incorporate technology were set as latent variables justifies the use of PLS-SEM. We employed a consistent PLS-SEM methodology as opposed to the conventional PLS-SEM algorithm, which is based on a composite model. Consistent PLS-SEM is more reliable in terms of minimizing bias and improving accuracy in calculating path coefficients and related coefficients of determination (Dijkstra & Henseler, 2015 ; Dijkstra & Schermelleh-Engel, 2014 ). This is due to the adjustment of the correlations between reflective components.

Finally, it suffices to indicate that the quantitative analysis of the two open-ended questionnaire items was limited to a few of the digital tools that MTEs could access and use. To create a bar graph (Fig.  4 ), the number of times each digital tool was mentioned was counted.

Digital technologies used by MTEs for purposes of mathematics teaching and learning

Ethical clearance

Prior to giving the questionnaire to the intended participants, an appropriate ethical committee at the lead author’s institution of affiliation provided ethical clearance with protocol number (FEDSECC027-06-23). Participation in this study was voluntary. The participants were given a thorough description of the goal of the study, emphasizing the significance of their contribution of accurate and pertinent information. By participating, MTEs consented to have their responses examined and published while keeping their personal information anonymous.

The results are structured into three segments. The initial two sections provide descriptive analyses addressing research question 1; while, the third section delves into research question 2 by presenting data that explore the hypothesized structural relationships. Section one encompasses descriptive analyses focusing on MTEs’ familiarity with various digital technologies and their integration into mathematics teaching and learning. Section two examines MTEs’ technological proficiency, perceptions of usefulness and ease of use of digital technology, and their willingness to incorporate it into pedagogical practices. The third section presents findings regarding the predictive roles of MTEs’ perceived technological proficiency, usefulness, and ease of use of technology on their willingness to integrate it into pedagogical practices.

Familiarity with digital technology

On average, the results shown in Table  2 indicates that respondents’ familiarity with social media platforms (SMP) was the highest ( M  = 4.27, SD = 0.898). MTEs’ familiarity with e-learning management systems and conferencing tools (eLMS-CT) was between low and moderate ( M  = 2.64, SD = 0.801). Selected mathematics software (SMS) applications, which had an average level of familiarity between very low and low ( M  = 2.17, SD = 0.648), was the least in terms of familiarity. Even though SMPs scored higher than the other two categories, further data analysis showed that most MTEs did not use them for mathematics teaching and learning purposes. This became evident during the analysis of an open-ended questionnaire item where MTEs were asked to mention some of the digital technologies, they had been using for purposes of mathematics teaching and learning. Out of the 161 mentions, Footnote 1 SMPs appeared 40 times (or 24.8%), on average (Fig.  4 ). Nonetheless, majority of the MTEs who cited SMPs for academic purposes only used them as communication tools to reach out to their students. On the other hand, a mathematics software was cited 56 times (34.8%) out of the total 161 mentions (Fig.  4 ). Results show that GeoGebra and excel were mostly used to teach topics like analytic geometry, statistics, and graphs of various functions. The findings presented in Fig.  4 reveal minimal references to PHET simulations ( n  = 4), Graphmatica ( n  = 3), and Photo math ( n  = 2). Additionally, none of the respondents reported using Microsoft Math Solver or Geometer’s Sketchpad. It has also been demonstrated that e-learning management systems and conferencing tools were the most frequently cited technologies ( n  = 65), accounting for 40.4% of all mentions. We also observed that, mostly during the COVID-19 outbreak, video conferencing platforms like Zoom and Google Classroom were used to deliver lessons to students; whereas, e-learning management systems like Moodle were used for sharing lecture notes with students.

Proficiency, perceived usefulness, and perceived simplicity of technology

According to the findings in Table  2 , MTEs’ proficiency with technology-based instruction ranged from low to moderate on average ( M  = 3.08, SD = 0.746). The reported ease of using digital technology by MTEs also ranged from low to moderate on average ( M  = 3.16, SD = 0.909). However, the findings indicate that MTEs’ desire to use technology ( M  = 3. 88, SD = 0.893) and perceived usefulness of digital technology ( M  = 3.89, SD = 0.799) were both rather high. This suggests that even though MTEs’ knowledge of technology-based instruction and their perception of its ease of use were somewhat lacking, they were not only aware of its usefulness but also willing to make sure that preservice mathematics teachers had the knowledge and skills they needed to use technology in their future mathematics classrooms.

Predictors of MTEs’ willingness to technology integration

The second research question was addressed by examining the significance of the hypothesized structural relationships among the study variables, as depicted in Fig.  3 . Before evaluating the structural model, the validity and reliability of the measurement model Footnote 2 were scrutinized concerning the four constructs and their corresponding indicators. Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use were evaluated with six indicators each; while, MTEs’ proficiency in technology-based instruction was assessed with sixteen indicators. Conversely, MTEs’ willingness to integrate technology into teaching methods was evaluated with three indicators.

We adhered to the guidelines outlined by Hair et al. ( 2019 ) for assessing the reliability and validity of the reflective measurement model. When running a consistent PLS-SEM model (Dijkstra & Henseler, 2015 ), it is recommended to retain only indicators with factor loadings exceeding 0.708. However, achieving this condition can be challenging at times due to diverse respondent perspectives, attitudes, experiences, and competencies within the same study. Consequently, only indicators jeopardizing the model’s validity and reliability were excluded from the final analysis based on their individual factor loadings below 0.5. After the initial measurement model assessment, three indicators related to technological proficiency and one indicator linked to perceived usefulness of technology were excluded from the final analysis due to compromised average extracted variance (AVE) by their respective factor loadings that were less than 0.5.

Subsequently, internal consistency was verified by examining both Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability for each construct. At that point, it was found that all constructs yielded composite reliability values exceeding 0.70 but below 0.95. Furthermore, the AVEs, used to ascertain convergent validity for each construct, surpassed the recommended threshold of 0.5 with the lowest being 0.503 for perceived usefulness and the highest being 0.690 for the dependent variable (MTEs’ willingness to integrate technology). Regarding discriminant validity, the model met the requirement wherein the square root of the AVE for each construct exceeded its correlations with other constructs beneath it (Fornell & Larcker, 1981 ). Variance inflation factors (VIFs) ranged from 1.839 to 4.991. Since all extracted VIFs for all indicators were below 5, there were no indications of multicollinearity between any pair of indicators for each construct (Hair et al., 2017 ).

Upon establishing the reliability and validity of the measurement model, the explanatory and predictive power of the structural model was assessed based on the coefficient of determination, R 2 , and Q 2 . Notably, f 2 is not reported in this paper as it is deemed equivalent to the regression coefficients (path coefficients) detailed in Table  3 (Hair et al., 2019 ).

According to Hair et al. ( 2011 ), an R 2 value of 0.75 signifies a significant model fit, 0.50 indicates a moderate model fit, and 0.25 suggests a weak model fit. However, the significance of R 2 values may vary depending on the discipline and setting of a particular study. For example, in certain circumstances, an R 2 value of 0.1 may suffice (Raithel et al., 2012 ). In the present study, R 2 values of 0.276 for perceived usefulness of technology, 0.474 for MTEs’ willingness to utilize digital technology, and 0.624 for perceived ease of use of digital technology all demonstrate a satisfactory model fit as they exceed the recommended thresholds.

Concerning the predictive power of the model, Hair et al. ( 2019 ) recommended that Q 2 values for a specific outcome variable should surpass zero. They further proposed that Q 2 values exceeding 0, 0.25, and 0.5 represent low, moderate, and high predictive utility of the PLS-SEM model. In the context of this study, the Q 2 values derived from the PLSPredict procedure indicate small (0.195), moderate (0.293), and large (0.529) predictive relevance of the model regarding the perceived usefulness of digital technology, willingness to use technology, and perceived ease of use of digital technology, respectively.

After confirming that all prerequisites for executing and analyzing the PLS-SEM results were fulfilled, conclusions were drawn regarding the proposed structural connections among the variables under study. Table 3 shows the path coefficients ( β ), the t -statistics, and p -values associated with each of the five direct structural relationships that were examined.

Based on the path coefficients displayed in Table  3 , and considering 5% level of significance, it can be inferred that only one structural relationship (perceived ease of use → willingness) is insignificant ( β  = 0.194, p  = 0.144). On the other hand, MTEs’ willingness to use technology-based instruction in their classrooms is significantly influenced by their perception of the usefulness of digital technology ( β  = 0.297, p  = 0.015). Similarly, MTEs’ perceived ease of use is significantly influenced by their perceived technological proficiency ( β  = 0.790, p  < 0.001). Additionally, MTEs’ proficiency with digital technology is a significant predictor of perceived usefulness ( β  = 0.525, p  < 0.001) as well as their willingness to incorporate technology in their classrooms ( β  = 0.299, p  = 0.025).

This study sought to profile MTEs’ readiness to technology integration by identifying the kind of digital technologies that they were familiar with, had access to, and how well-versed they were in technology-based classroom instruction. In addition, the study looked at the structural relationships among four factors, including proficiency, perceived utility, perceived ease of use, and desire to use technology in the context of preservice mathematics teacher training.

The study’s findings show that, on average, MTEs had low to moderate familiarity with a variety of software apps related to mathematics, e-learning management systems, and video conferencing tools. On the other hand, MTEs had a very high level of familiarity with social media networks such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and YouTube. Even though the majority of MTEs claimed to be quite familiar with social media platforms, subsequent analysis of the data showed that they were not really used for mathematics teaching and learning purposes. In cases where social media like WhatsApp was used, respondents indicated that it was just used to transmit general information in the form of announcements, not necessarily as a mode of delivering mathematics lessons. This is in line with research by Amhag et al. ( 2019 ) who found that teacher educators did not predominantly use digital technologies for didactic purposes. This suggests a need to raise awareness among MTEs on the efficacy of using social media such as Facebook for engaging students in learning mathematics (Baya’a & Daher, 2015 ). A study conducted in Zambia by Mulenga and Marbàn ( 2020 ) found that social media had a significant role in shaping the future of mathematics education, particularly in terms of how it is integrated into teaching practices and its potential to foster collaborative and innovative learning environments.

Low familiarity was attributed, among other things, to weak ICT skills, limited internet access, and a lack of infrastructure that is technologically advanced. These results also confirm the findings of a study by McCulloch et al. (2018) in highlighting how having limited access to technology is a prevalent concern that has a negative effect on someone's intention to use technology in their classrooms. Secondary school mathematics teachers and pupils have also been found to have limited expertise and access to digital tools, particularly in low-resource contexts like sub-Saharan Africa (Bethell, 2016 ; Iyamuremye et al., 2022 ; Luneta, 2022 ; Mukuka et al., 2021 ).

Despite the limited access and familiarity that MTEs have exhibited with most mathematics software applications, it is noteworthy that a significant portion of these educators have been utilizing Microsoft Excel and GeoGebra in their classrooms, as evident in the results displayed in Fig.  4 . This usage is particularly remarkable given the low-resource settings, such as Zambia, in which these educators operate. Furthermore, studies conducted by Munyaruhengeri et al. ( 2023 ) and Uwurukundo et al. ( 2022 ) corroborate the benefits and limitations of such applications in the teaching and learning of mathematics in similar settings. These findings affirm the potential of these applications to foster conceptual understanding among mathematics learners, even in challenging environments.

Additionally, it has been noted that MTEs’ perceived ease of use and proficiency with technology-based instruction, overall, ranged from low to moderate. This somewhat supports the claim made by Kopp et al. ( 2019 ) that a sizable portion of teachers in higher education institutions have minimal expertise using technology for instructional purposes. On the other hand, the results show that MTEs' readiness to use technology in their classroom instruction and their perception of its usefulness were both relatively high. This suggests that despite their low proficiency and fears about how easy it is to use technology, MTEs were not only aware of its benefits but also eager to make sure that prospective mathematics teachers had the knowledge and skills they needed to use it in their classrooms. This aligns with the findings of a study by Adnan et al. ( 2024 ), which highlights the importance of educators being role models for effective technology use as well as emphasizing the need for raising technological proficiency among teacher educators.

The findings of this study confirm those of earlier studies regarding the predictability of perceived usefulness of technology and proficiency with technology-based instruction on one’s willingness to use it in their classroom practice (Alsofyani et al., 2012 ; Davis, 1989 ; Joo et al., 2018 ; McCulloch et al., 2018 ). Additionally, it has been demonstrated that some external factors can affect an individual’s perceived simplicity and usefulness of technology (Joo et al., 2018 ). Findings of this study revealed that MTEs' proficiency with technology is a significant predictor of their beliefs of its usefulness and ease of use. Accordingly, MTEs start to appreciate the value and simplicity of the many digital technologies that are associated with mathematics as they get more adept at using them. We have also discovered that, despite MTEs’ limited exposure to and familiarity with digital technology, their awareness of its value and desire to incorporate it into their teaching strategies serve as a clear demonstration of the importance of technology in mathematics education as observed by other scholars in the field (Camilleri & Camilleri, 2022 ; Ng & Fang, 2023 ; Nikou, 2021 ).

Study limitations

Despite all the benefits this study has to offer, we are aware that there are certain restrictions as well. First, only MTEs who train secondary school teachers were the subject of the study. As a result, conclusions might not be applied to the preparation of primary school and early childhood education teachers. Second, this cross sectional study used an online questionnaire to obtain self-reported data. This might have prevented some MTEs from participating due to limited or no access to internet and appropriate digital tools. Moreover, we acknowledge that relying solely on self-reported data to assess MTEs’ technological proficiency may not provide a comprehensive understanding of their actual capabilities, as individuals may report skills, they do not actively practice. Third, it is important to recognize that the findings of this study are applicable within the specific context of Zambia and may not be extrapolated to settings markedly divergent from the Zambian context. Despite these limitations, it is important to remember that this study is timely because it is the first of its sort in Zambia and other comparable situations especially in the SSA region. It serves as a foundation for further research into MTEs’ proficiency with technology-based instruction and their readiness to use it. Additionally, it has been emphasized that no other sample from the study’s target population could have produced results that would be significantly different from those found in this study. This is so because the sample used in the current study is thought to be representative of the MTEs’ population in Zambia.

Study implications and future directions

After establishing the current state of MTEs’ proficiency with technology-based instruction, we advise that future studies in this domain concentrate on enhancing MTEs’ digital literacy and affective skills such as self-efficacy beliefs (Clark-Wilson et al., 2020 ; Joo et al., 2018 ; Njiku et al., 2022 ). This might be done by involving them in the process of developing lessons that include technology into their teaching practices (Psycharis & Kalogeria, 2018 ). It is quite likely that preservice mathematics teachers will acquire the necessary skill set for using technology-based instruction in their future classrooms if MTEs get adequate technical support.

It is undeniable that MTEs and prospective teachers of mathematics may both still struggle to effectively use digital tools for purposes of teaching and learning mathematics. As a result, we agree with Kopp et al. ( 2019 ) that it is important to distinguish between digital competencies that are learned for personal use (like social media) and those that are required for teaching and learning. It will be beneficial to begin by equipping MTEs with the necessary digital skills and providing their access to the necessary digital tools. This is due to the fact that if MTEs continue to display insufficient expertise, the potential of digital technology in mathematics teaching and learning will be hardly realized. According to Helliwell and Ng ( 2022 ), teacher educators are essential in ensuring that prospective teachers have the tools they need to perform at their best as competent teachers.

This study has also shown the importance of improving MTEs’ access to various types of digital technologies. Enhancing student learning outcomes has also been shown to be strongly correlated with the availability of digital infrastructure and teachers’ knowledge with appropriate digital technologies (Betthäuser et al., 2023 ; Jaekel et al., 2021 ; König et al., 2020 ; Mukuka et al., 2021 ). We think that access to and familiarity with digital technologies at universities and colleges will boost research capabilities in addition to improving the technology-based teaching skills of both the MTEs and their students.

The findings imply that having access to technology in the classroom and having access to high-quality technology support will not only enable MTEs to view technology as simple to use but will also have a positive impact on their willingness to incorporate technology into their teaching methods (Liu et al., 2017 ). However, according to Pollack et al. ( 2018 ), time, quality, and cost are some of the factors that drive digital transformation. As a result, achieving high-quality digital transformation within a reasonable period is only doable with a suitably high budget because under-funding may be associated with quality loss and/or prolonged periods of development. Therefore, it is vital to remember that low-resource environments like Zambia might not be able to handle the ever-increasing complexity due to how swiftly technology is expanding. As such, education systems in low-resource contexts need to focus on establishing essential infrastructure for the future while identifying what is beneficial in the short term.

In conclusion, this study shows that there is no need to assume that all teacher educators are technologically proficient, neither should we also assume that all higher education institutions are technologically advanced. Instead, there should be more MTEs’ capacity building initiatives to help them equip preservice mathematics teachers with the technical skills they will need to use in their future classrooms.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available on Mendeley Data Repository at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/3x8gs6nkk8/1 .

The total number of mentions ( n  = 161) is above the sample size ( n  = 104) in the sense that some respondents mentioned more than one form of digital technology that they had used before.

A comprehensive procedure for establishing the validity and reliability of the measurement model along with the associated supplementary files has been described in a dedicated standalone data article authored by Mukuka ( 2024 ), which can be accessed via the provided link https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/3x8gs6nkk8/1 .

Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2010). Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 33 (9), 1289–1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.512369

Article   Google Scholar  

Adnan, M., Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., & Siddiq, F. (2024). Profiling teacher educators: Ready to prepare the next generation for educational technology use? Technology, Pedagogy and Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2024.2322481

Agyei, D. D. (2021). Integrating ICT into schools in Sub-Saharan Africa: From teachers’ capacity building to classroom implementation. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (1), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10253-w

Aldemir Engin, R., Karakuş, D., & Niess, M. L. (2023). TPACK development model for pre-service mathematics teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 28 (4), 4769–4794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11381-1

Alex, J. K., & Mukuka, A. (2024). Heutagogy in action: Unveiling the transformative power of virtual “air campus” experiences of mathematics trainee teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20 (3), em2416. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14320

Alsofyani, M., Aris, B., Eynon, R., & Majid, N. (2012). A preliminary evaluation of short blended online training workshop for TPACK development using technology acceptance model. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (3), 20–32.

Google Scholar  

Amhag, L., Hellström, L., & Stigmar, M. (2019). Teacher educators’ use of digital tools and needs for digital competence in higher education. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35 (4), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1646169

Appova, A., & Taylor, C. E. (2019). Expert mathematics teacher educators’ purposes and practices for providing prospective teachers with opportunities to develop pedagogical content knowledge in content courses. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22 (2), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9385-z

Asad, M. M., Khan, S., Sherwani, F., & Banerjee, J. S. (2022). Impact of asynchronous Web-based learning environment on students’ interest and motivation in mathematics: A quantitative research study. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 39 (4), 340–359. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-10-2021-0159

Barclay, D. W., Higgins, C. A., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares approach to causal modelling: Personal computer adoption and use as illustration. Technology Studies, 22 (2), 285–309.

Baya’a, N., & Daher, W. (2015). Facebook as an educational environment for mathematics learning. In M. Khosrow-Pour, S. Clarke, M. E. Jennex, A. Becker, & A.-V. Anttiroiko (Eds.), STEM education: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 406–425). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-7363-2.ch022

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bethell, G. (2016). Mathematics education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Status, challenges, and opportunities . World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/25289

Book   Google Scholar  

Beswick, K., & Goos, M. (2018). Mathematics teacher educator knowledge: What do we know and where to from here? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21 (5), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-018-9416-4

Betthäuser, B. A., Bach-Mortensen, A. M., & Engzell, P. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour, 7 (3), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01506-4

Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2012). Effects of a digital intervention on the development of algebraic expertise. Computers & Education, 58 (1), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.010

Bwalya, A., & Rutegwa, M. (2023). Technological pedagogical content knowledge self-efficacy of pre-service science and mathematics teachers: A comparative study between two Zambian universities. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19 (2), em2222. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12845

Camilleri, M. A., & Camilleri, A. C. (2022). The acceptance of learning management systems and video conferencing technologies: Lessons learned from COVID-19. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27 (4), 1311–1333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09561-y

Castillo, C., & Polly, D. (2024). Examining personalized learning and differentiation in mathematics classrooms. Journal of Applied Educational and Policy Research, 9 (1), 1–12.

Chapman, O. (2021). Mathematics teacher educator knowledge for teaching teachers. In M. Goos & K. Beswick (Eds.), The Learning and Development of Mathematics Teacher Educators. Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 403–416). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62408-8_21

Chorney, S. (2018). Digital technology in teaching mathematical competency: A paradigm shift. In A. Kajander, J. Holm, & E. Chernoff (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Secondary School Mathematics. Advances in Mathematics Education (pp. 245–255). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92390-1_24

Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., & Thomas, M. (2020). Teaching with digital technology. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52 (7), 1223–1242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01196-0

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38 (3), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022

Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modelling. MIS Quarterly, 39 (2), 297–316.

Dijkstra, T. K., & Schermelleh-Engel, K. (2014). Consistent partial least squares for nonlinear structural equation models. Psychometrika, 79 (4), 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-013-9370-0

Drijvers, P., & Sinclair, N. (2023). The role of digital technologies in mathematics education: Purposes and perspectives. ZDM Mathematics Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01535-x

Fornell, C. G., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39–50.

Freiman, V. (2014). Types of technology in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Springer.

Fütterer, T., Hoch, E., Lachner, A., Scheiter, K., & Stürmer, K. (2023). High-quality digital distance teaching during COVID-19 school closures: Does familiarity with technology matter? Computers & Education, 199 , 104788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104788

Gökçe, S., & Güner, P. (2022). Dynamics of GeoGebra ecosystem in mathematics education. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (4), 5301–5323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10836-1

Gottschalk, F., & Weise, C. (2023). Digital equity and inclusion in education: An overview of practice and policy in OECD countries. Working Paper no. 299 . https://doi.org/10.1787/7cb15030-en

Gravemeijer, K., Stephan, M., Julie, C., Lin, F.-L., & Ohtani, M. (2017). What mathematics education may prepare students for the society of the future? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15 (1), S105–S123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9814-6

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) using R. Springer International Publishing . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Thiele, K. O. (2017). Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modelling methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (5), 616–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0517-x

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19 (2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31 (1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

Helliwell, T., & Ng, O.-L. (2022). Imagining possibilities: Innovating mathematics (teacher) education for sustainable futures. Research in Mathematics Education, 24 (2), 128–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2022.2079553

Hussein, M. H., Ow, S. H., Elaish, M. M., & Jensen, E. O. (2022). Digital game-based learning in K-12 mathematics education: A systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (2), 2859–2891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10721-x

Iyamuremye, E., Njiku, J., Maniraho, J. F., & Ndayambaje, I. (2022). Teaching and learning mathematics using technology in Rwanda Basic Education Schools amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. In B. Chirinda, K. Luneta, & A. Uworwabayeho (Eds.), Mathematics education in Africa (pp. 263–277). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13927-7_16

Jaekel, A.-K., Scheiter, K., & Göllner, R. (2021). Distance teaching during the COVID-19 crisis: Social connectedness matters most for teaching quality and students’ learning. AERA Open, 7 , 233285842110520. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211052050

Jita, T., & Sintema, E. J. (2022). Exploring classroom use of ICT among pre-service science teachers in selected SADC countries. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 26 (3), 218–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2022.2139105

Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21 (3), 48–59.

Kline, R. B. (2009). Becoming a behavioral science researcher: A guide to producing research that matters . Guildford Press.

Kock, N., & Hadaya, P. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: The inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal, 28 (1), 227–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12131

König, J., Jäger-Biela, D. J., & Glutsch, N. (2020). Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: Teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (4), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650

Kopp, M., Gröblinger, O., & Adams, S. (2019). Five common assumptions that prevent digital transformation at higher education institutions. In INTND2019 proceedings: 13th international technology, education and development conference (pp. 1448–1457). https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2019.0445

Lee, H., & Hollebrands, K. (2008). Preparing to teach mathematics with technology: An integrated approach to developing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8 (4), 326–341.

Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2017). Explaining technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A multilevel path analysis model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65 (4), 795–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9487-9

Luneta, K. (2022). Special challenges in mathematics education in Sub Sahara Africa. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 48 , 101211. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COBEHA.2022.101211

Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14 (1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1

McCulloch, A. W., Hollebrands, K., Lee, H., Harrison, T., & Mutlu, A. (2018). Factors that influence secondary mathematics teachers’ integration of technology in mathematics lessons. Computers & Education, 123 , 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.008

McCulloch, A. W., Leatham, K. R., Lovett, J. N., Bailey, N. G., & Reed, S. D. (2021). How we are preparing secondary mathematics teachers to teach with technology: Findings from a nationwide survey. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 52 (1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc-2020-0205

Mensah, F. S., & Ampadu, E. (2024). Benefits, challenges, and opportunities of using computer-assisted instruction in mathematics education. In S. Papadakis (Ed.), IoT, AI, and ICT for educational applications (pp. 31–49). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50139-5_2

Ministry of Education. (2000). The Development of Education: National Report of Zambia . International Bureau of Education.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record: THe Voice of Scholarship in Education, 108 (6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

MOESVTEE. (2013). The Zambia Education Curriculum Framework 2013 . Curriculum Development Centre. https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/11480073

Mukuka, A. (2024). Data on mathematics teacher educators’ proficiency and willingness to use technology: A structural equation modelling analysis Data in Brief 54110307- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2024.110307

Mukuka, A., Shumba, O., & Mulenga, H. M. (2021). Students’ experiences with remote learning during the COVID-19 school closure: Implications for mathematics education. Heliyon, 7 , e07523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07523

Mulenga, E. M., & Marbàn, J. M. (2020). Social media usage among preservice secondary mathematics teachers in Zambia. Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education, 5 (2), 130–147.

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-results/

Mullis, I. V, Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544554%0A

Munyaruhengeri, J. P. A., Umugiraneza, O., Ndagijimana, J. B., & Hakizimana, T. (2023). Potentials and limitations of GeoGebra in teaching and learning limits and continuity of functions at selected senior four Rwandan secondary schools. Cogent Education, 10 (2), 2238469. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2238469

Ng, D. T. K., & Fang, X. (2023). How to use Zoom to collect data in mathematics educational research: A case study in assessing students’ online mathematics learning. Asian Journal for Mathematics Education, 2 (3), 274–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/27527263231188638

Nikou, S. A. (2021). Web-based videoconferencing for teaching online: Continuance intention to use in the post-COVID-19 period. Interaction Design and Architecture, 47 , 123–143.

Njiku, J. (2024). Assessing the development of mathematics teachers TPACK through an observation rubric. Education and Information Technologies, 29 (2), 2043–2066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11901-7

Njiku, J., Mutarutinya, V., & Maniraho, J. F. (2022). Exploring mathematics teachers’ technology integration self-efficacy and influencing factors. Journal of Learning for Development-JL4D, 9 (2), 279–290.

OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume 1): What students know and can do . https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en

Perienen, A. (2020). Frameworks for ICT integration in mathematics education: A teacher’s perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16 (6), em1845. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/7803

Pollack, J., Helm, J., & Adler, D. (2018). What is the iron triangle, and how has it changed? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11 (2), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-09-2017-0107

Psycharis, G., & Kalogeria, E. (2018). Studying the process of becoming a teacher educator in technology-enhanced mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21 (6), 631–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9371-5

Raithel, S., Sarstedt, M., Scharf, S., & Schwaiger, M. (2012). On the value relevance of customer satisfaction: Multiple drivers and multiple markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (4), 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0247-4

Rondan-Cataluña, F. J., Arenas-Gaitán, J., & Ramírez-Correa, P. E. (2015). A comparison of the different versions of popular technology acceptance models. Kybernetes, 44 (5), 788–805. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2014-0184

Sacristán, A. I. (2017). Digital technologies in mathematics classrooms: Barriers, lessons and focus on teachers. In E. Galindo & J. Newton (Eds.), In Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 90–99). Hoosier Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581397

Schmid, M., Brianza, E., & Petko, D. (2020). Developing a short assessment instrument for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK.xs) and comparing the factor structure of an integrative and a transformative model. Computers & Education, 157 , 103967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103967

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42 (2), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

Sinclair, N., & Robutti, O. (2020). Teaching practices in digital environments. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 845–849). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_153

Tabakamulamu, M., Haambokoma, C., & Phiri, N. P. (2007). Mathematics teacher education in Zambia. In J. Adler, M. Kazima, W. Mwakapenda, T. Nyabanyaba, & S. Xolo (Eds.), MathematicsTeacher Education: Trends Across Twelve African Countries (pp. 105–135). Wits Centre forMathematics and Science Education.

Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48 (6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6 (2), 144–176. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144

Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y., Sobrino, S. V., Giannoutsou, N., Cachia, R., Monés, A. M., & Ioannou, A. (2023). Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools’ digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 28 (6), 6695–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8

Traore, M. (2021). Guidebook to a successful implementation of digital education . World Bank.

Uwurukundo, M. S., Maniraho, J. F., & Tusiime Rwibasira, M. (2022). Effect of GeoGebra software on secondary school students’ achievement in 3-D geometry. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (4), 5749–5765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10852-1

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39 (2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27 (3), 451–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00860.x

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46 (2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, F. D., & Davis, G. B. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Viberg, O., Grönlund, Å., & Andersson, A. (2023). Integrating digital technology in mathematics education: A Swedish case study. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (1), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1770801

Yohannes, A., & Chen, H.-L. (2023). GeoGebra in mathematics education: A systematic review of journal articles published from 2010 to 2020. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (9), 5682–5697. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2016861

Download references

Acknowledgements

We extend our gratitude to all respondents who participated in this study. Additionally, we would like to express our appreciation to our colleagues who aided in identifying Mathematics Teacher Educators across various colleges and universities in Zambia.

Open access funding provided by Walter Sisulu University. The authors have no funding information to disclose.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Walter Sisulu University, Nelson Mandela Drive, Mthatha, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa

Angel Mukuka

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates

Jogymol Kalariparampil Alex

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angel Mukuka .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that neither their financial nor personal connections could have purposefully influenced how this work was developed.

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

Mukuka, A., Alex, J.K. Profiling mathematics teacher educators' readiness for digital technology integration: evidence from Zambia. J Math Teacher Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-024-09657-z

Download citation

Accepted : 22 August 2024

Published : 04 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-024-09657-z

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

• Mathematics teacher educators
• Perceived ease of use
• Perceived usefulness
• Technological familiarity
• Technological proficiency
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 02 September 2024

Factors influencing the choice of pediatric resident: program directors perspective in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study

• Abdulrahman Alhaqbani 1 , 2 ,
• Sulaiman Alayed 1 , 2 ,
• Khaled Almutairi 1 , 2 ,
• Rayan Alotaibi 1 , 2 ,
• Fahad Aljuraibah 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Khaled Alsager 1 , 2 , 3 &
• Hamad Alkhalaf 1 , 2 , 3  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  956 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Pediatrics is one of the most important medical specialties in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) KSA) since it serves a large population. Therefore, the pediatrics residency program is considered one of the most important and competitive programs. Obtaining acceptance in Saudi programs depends mainly on the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS) score, then the applicant enrolls to do the interviews with the training centers in the accepted region. This study aimed to evaluate the factors used by pediatric program directors (PD) in accepting applicants in their pediatric residency program in KSA.

In this cross-sectional study, an online questionnaire consisting of 49 items was distributed among 76 current and former pediatric PDs in KSA. Participants were selected via non-probability convenience sampling. Data were collected and analyzed using the Social Sciences Statistical Package (SPSS version 26).

Of the sample of PD studied, males represented 77.6%, while females represented 22.4%. Most of the PDs were over 50 years old. Most of them were former pediatric PDs (71.1%). The current study found that the Saudi Medical Licensing Exam was the most important factor [3.87 (0.89)] followed by services and electives [3.86 (0.65)], research [3.84 (0.83)], interview [3.77 (0.89)], GPA [3.50 (0.62)], and letter of recommendation [3.39 (0.76)].

Conclusions

For those interested in pediatrics residency programs in KSA, this study recommends that seeking a high Saudi Medical Licensing Exam (SMLE) score, taking pediatric elective rotations during internship, and acquiring excellent basic knowledge in research were the most important aspects of pediatrics residency selection from the pediatrics PD’s perspective.

Peer Review reports

Pediatrics is one of the most important medical specialties in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) KSA) since it serves a large population. In 2021, the General Authority of Statistics estimated the number of children in the KSA to be approximately 8.5 million, which represents 25 of the total population [ 1 ]. Due to the high demand, the Pediatric Residency Program is considered one of the most competitive and demanding programs. Globally, pediatrics was one of the top three specialties in the number of applicants in the United States in the last 6 years [ 2 ]. In addition, in KSA there were more than 1000 residents enrolled in the pediatric program in 2017 [ 3 ]. Pediatrics contains approximately 13 subspecialties in which residents train during their residency [ 4 ]. The Pediatric Residency Program in KSA is supervised by the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS) and there are approximately 40 approved centers in KSA [ 5 ].

The application process consists of two phases that begin by ranking the desired specialties with the desired cities through the SCFHS system. Acceptance is based on the SCFHS score, which consists of 50% on the Saudi Medical Licensing Exam (SMLE) score, 30% on the grade point average (GPA), and 20% on the portfolio points (divided between research activity, post-graduate academic degree, community volunteering activities, strong interest in the specialty, being currently in a job as a health practitioner and having an experience of six months in the chosen specialty). After being accepted in the program, the applicant needs to do interviews in all the training centers within the accepted region [ 6 , 7 , 8 ].

The scope of this study is pointed toward the interview phase in which the applicant is to be interviewed by a committee consisting of consultants mostly chaired by the program directors (PDs). There are multiple aspects of residency enrollment, for instance: GPA in medical school, performance during rotation in the field, research publications, interview performance, letters of recommendation, and much more. At the local level, there were few studies in plastic surgery, urology, and emergency medicine that discussed the perspective of PD, and there were varying results [ 6 , 7 , 8 ].

To the best of our knowledge, there are no such studies in the pediatric field. The purpose of this study was to pinpoint the most important factors in the curriculum vitae (CV) of the applicants and their relative importance from the perspective of pediatric PD to accept new pediatric residents into the program, which will be helpful for future applicants interested in pediatrics.

Materials and methods

Study design, setting and population.

This is a cross-sectional study of online surveys. Currently, there are about 40 pediatric program centers in KSA that are divided according to regions: 11 in the Central Region, 15 in the Western Region, 11 in the Eastern Region, and 3 in the Southern Region. This research included current and former pediatric PDs in the approved centers by SCFHS. PDs of other specialties were excluded from the study.

Sample size and sampling technique

Considering a total of 40 pediatric program centers in KSA with 40 current directors, the 40 current directors and about 60 accessible former directors were approached and asked to participate in the study. The final sample that was included in the study was 76 PDs (22 current PDs and 54 former PDs) yielding a 76% total response rate and 55% for the current PDs. The study participants were selected using a non-probability convenience sample where data was collected through an online questionnaire filled by PD who agreed to join the study.

Data collection methods, instrument used and measurements

Data were collected using an electronic online questionnaire that was sent to PD of the SCFHS pediatric programs. The questionnaire consisted of 49 items aimed at assessing the most important qualities of pediatric residency program applicants from the perspective of pediatric PD, which was the main outcome variable. The questionnaire started with 6 questions regarding demographic data such as gender of the PD, current or former PD, duration of work as a PD, and the place where the PD worked. The next part included 43 items on a 5-Likert agreement scale regarding the assessment of the PDs’ degree of agreement to the qualifications of pediatric residents, ranging from one for ‘ strongly disagree’ to five for ‘strongly agree’ . Thirty items were subdivided into six domains/subcategories and 13 items covered miscellaneous points. The domains included GPA domain (seven items), SMLE domain (three items), research domain (seven items), the interview domain (three items), service and electives domain (working as a service resident and/or had an elective rotation in pediatrics during the internship) (six items) , letter of recommendation (LOR) domain (four items). For the sake of comparison of different domains among different groups and overall mean was calculated for each domain by dividing the sum of the means of domain items by the number of items in the domain.

Data management and analysis plan

The Social Sciences Statistical Package (SPSS version 26) was used for data entry and analysis. Frequency and percentage were used for categorical data such as gender and subspeciality/general. Mean and standard deviation for numerical data such as score of the important qualities and age. For quantitative data, independent sample t test and one-way ANOVA were used for normally distributed data, while Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test were used for skewed data to test for significant differences between the different categories on the Likert scale. The test was considered significant if the p -value was less than 0.05.

The results were divided into several sections: sociodemographic data, the overall ranking of the influencing factors for selection, the ranking of the influencing factors based on the PDs’ demographic data, the details of each domain, and other miscellaneous factors.

Sociodemographic data of the participants

A total of 76 participants were involved in this study; 59 (77.6%) were males and 17 (22.4%) were female respondents. 29 (38.2%) of the participants were over 50 years of age. Additionally, 54 (71.1%) were former pediatric PDs, while only 22 (28.9%) were currently working as PDs. Most of the respondents had been working for 2–4 years as PDs and most of them were working in the central region. Moreover, most of the directors were employed in the Ministry of Health 23 (30.3%), followed by 22 (28.9%) in Military Institutions, 17 (22.4%) in University Hospitals and only 7 (9.2%) worked in the private sector. (Table  1 )

Overall ranking of the influencing factors for selection

The SMLE score was the most important factor [mean (SD): 3.87 (0.89)] followed by services and electives [3.86 (0.65)], research [3.84 (0.83)], interview [3.77 (0.89)], GPA [3.50 (0.62)], and LOR [3.39 (0.76)]. (Tables  2 and 3 ).

The influencing factors of selection per domains

This study found that obtaining a high GPA [3.88 (0.97)] and gaining awards or honors [3.83 (1.06)] were the factors of highest rating used by PDs in the the GPA domain. Furthermore, in the SMLE domain, having a high SMLE score [3.83 (1.03)] and having a high pediatric SMLE score [4.07 (0.93)] were the most influential factors. Regarding the research domain, PDs considered having a good basic knowledge in research [3.96 (0.84)] and a publication in pediatrics [3.92 (1.00)] to be higher than the other factors. Compared to other factors in the interview domain, dressing well [3.99 (1.09)] was the highest rated. Furthermore, taking pediatric elective rotations during the internship [4.16 (0.95)] and having a good reputation and performance [4.39 (0.87)] had the highest mean in the service and elective domain. Last, the quality of language and content of the recommendation letter [3.57 (0.99)] were the most valued factors in the LOR domain. Other factors of each domain showed low to intermediate levels of importance. (Table  2 )

Miscellaneous factors such as gender, age, marital status and other factors

Several factors had a high mean, such as the level of English proficiency [3.88 (0.82)], having the intention to serve back in a peripheral region that is still in need of qualified pediatricians [3.76 (0.96)], and having many community services and volunteer activities [3.62 (0.88)]. Other factors showed lower means. (Table  4 )

In line with the findings presented in Table  4 ; Fig.  1 displays the agreement rates for male and female PDs regarding the different items. Male PDs reported highest agreement to candidate’s English language proficiency (72.9%) and his intention to serve back in peripheral areas (62.7%). However, female PDs gave their highest agreement ratings for gender equality in the program (70.6%) followed by English language proficiency, intending to serve back in peripheral regions and community and volunteering services (64.7% for each). Females were more than males to prefer applicants from the same region (58.5% vs. 42.4%) and single applicants (35.3% vs. 22%), they were also more to accept applicants with chronic conditions (35.3% vs. 28.8%).

Agreement rates of different items for all, male and female PDs

Ranking of the influencing factors based on the PDs’ demographic data

In this study, male PDs ranked the SMLE score [3.88 (0.89)] and research activity [3.88 (0.86)] as the most important factors, whereas female PDs preferred the interview process [4.14 (0.64)]. Furthermore, junior PDs (≤ 45 years) ranked services and electives [3.92 (0.67)] as the most important factor. On the other hand, senior PDs (> 45 years) ranked the SMLE score [3.91 (0.89)] as the most important factor. Research experience [3.95 (0.66)] was the most important factor for current PDs, whereas former PDs preferred the SMLE score [3.86 (0.91)]. Furthermore, in terms of the importance of factors based on the region of PD, the PDs of the central region believe that the SMLE score is the most important factor [3.95 (0.79)]. On the other hand, Western Region PDs consider services and electives as the first one in importance [3.89 (0.54)] and eastern region PDs think that the interview is the most significant factor [3.78 (1.02)]. (Table  3 )

The present study evaluated the factors used by former and current pediatric PDs in accepting applicants for Pediatric Residency Programs in KSA to provide comprehensive guidance for undergraduate medical students and medical interns.

The main study findings

In the current study, except for the miscellaneous factors, all overall domains’ ratings of importance fell at an above average level of importance according to PDs’ perspectives. The most important domains were the SMLE score, followed by Services and Electives, Research and Interview domains.

Interpretation of the main findings

The first and most important factor in the current study was the SMLE score which was unique to this study in contrast to the emergency medicine (EM) PDs study in which the SMLE score ranked 9th and the Urology PDs study in which the SMLE score ranked 6th. This could be attributed to the SMLE score accounting for 50% of the total SCFHS score. In EM study, the most important factors were performance in the interview, EM electives, oral or poster presentation on events [ 8 ]. In the Urology PDs study, the most influential factors were performance during rotation at the respondent’s center, publications in Urology, Urology electives [ 7 ]. The second and third most important factors in the current study were slightly similar to the results of the other studies in terms of importance which signifies how electives and research activities can influence the choice of applicants since they have been in the top three of importance across different specialties [ 7 , 8 ].

When comparing some aspects of different domains this study tackled, the results found that candidate’s academic performance was an important eligibility factor from PDs’ perspective. This is noticed in the rating of candidate GPA in the GPA domain and the high pediatric SMLE score in the SMLE domain. This was in accordance with a similar Canadian study examining anesthesia PD perspectives regarding candidate selection [ 9 ]. The PDs in our study further emphasized the importance of academic knowledge prior to acceptance in the Interview domain where they valued candidates showing good pediatric knowledge during the interview.

The interview domain ranked fourth in this study, but was the domain of highest rated by female PDs. A study in the United States assessing importance selection criteria for pediatric emergency highlighted the interview as the most important aspect for choice than the candidate academic prior academic performance [ 10 ]. This difference may be because the Interview are needed to reveal personality traits and personal characteristics that suit the medical specialty the applicant applies for. PDs may believe that emergency department physicians should have certain personality traits [ 11 ] different from those dealing with pediatric patients in the wards or outpatient clinics that could only be revealed during the interview. This is further emphasized by the results of the EM study [ 8 ] that showed that the most important factor was the performance in the interview. In addition, Ross and Leichner [ 12 ] in a study published in 1984 reported that personal interviews were highlighted as an important factor for the selection of psychiatrists residents.

The current study findings also showed that the most important aspect in the Interview domain was dressing well. In contrast, the urology study showed that “appearance during the interview” ranked 15th [ 7 ]. How physicians dress had been previously studied as an important factor for building trust and gaining the patients’ confidence [ 13 ].

With Services and Electives ranking the second most important aspect considered by PDs. This finding should be clearly communicated to prospective candidates to encourage them to participate in elective pediatric activities prior to application to improve their chance of acceptance. In line with this point, having a good reputation and performance during rotation ranked the first and most important factor for candidate selection across all domains. This was in line with the findings of the urology study which ranked it as the most important aspect [ 7 ] and the pediatric emergency study conducted in the United States [ 10 ]. This fact should be highlighted to all prospective applicants to consider that PDs from different specialties believe that previous good reputation of the applicant is an important selection criteria.

Coming after the candidate’s GPA, winning awards or honors was one of the most influential factors in the GPA domain, but the ED study did not show the same significance and ranked it 13th out of 15 in the importance list [ 8 ].

Having good research knowledge was one of the most important domains valued by PDs in our study, having good basic knowledge in research and previously published research were the most influential aspects of the choice among applicants. This was correlated with previous studies in the United States [ 10 , 14 ] that reported that candidates with good research potential were important factors to assess candidates. This was also similar to the study conducted on plastic surgery PDs in KSA showing that ‘showing evidence of knowledge in the basics of medical research’ was the third most important factor [ 6 ]. Good knowledge and research skills are important for advancement in the medical career. It helps physicians develop and apply better management procedures and updated management options for their patients [ 14 ].

Such finding highlights the importance of improving the candidate’s research skills prior to their clinical involvement. Improving research skills of applicants should start in their undergraduate stage where medical curriculum ought to continuously be updated to improve students’ research skills and publication skills.

Regarding the LOR, it can have a great impact on the acceptance of the applicant, especially if it was from a well-known author to the PDs, because many PDs believe that they can predict the performance of the applicant based on the LOR [ 15 ]. The current study showed that a well-written LOR with good quality language is one of the important aspects for selection. It has been previously recommended with well written reference by previous studies as an important aspect for candidate selection [ 9 , 10 ]. In the ER study, the language of the recommendation ranked 4th out of 6, which does not show high significance [ 8 ]. This study also showed that least important aspect perceived across all domains was having multiple recommendations. It was not considered a very important factor that could improve the chances of the applicant.

In this study, there are some interesting results of directors’ preferences regarding applicants’ traits and social life. A higher number of PDs believe in equal gender distribution resembling the ER and plastic surgery studies that concluded that gender has no role in the applicant’s acceptance. Although the exact reason was not collected in the survey, the most likely explanation is due to logistical reasons, for example: the availability of on-call rooms and lounges. Furthermore, the applicant’s English language proficiency and serving back in a peripheral region showed a remarkably high rank among other factors, shedding some light on the importance of these factor to be further evaluated. Finally, the applicant’s presence on social media platforms is one of the factors evaluated by the PDs, which showed a low mean for both the content of social media accounts and being active. This result is almost consistent with the ER study, where the social media account was at the bottom of the priority list as one of the least crucial factors [ 6 , 8 ].

Looking from another perspective by assessing the significant differences in the importance of factors based on the demographic data of the PDs. Regarding the gender of the PDs, there was no significant difference across all factors except for the LOR, in which the female PDs believed it to be more important than male PDs. There was also a significant difference in the importance of LOR between junior PDs who preferred it more than senior PDs. No significant differences were found in the importance of the remaining factors between the current and previous PD. To our best knowledge, there are no studies that have studied the association between the PDs’ demographic characteristics (such as age and gender) the reported factors, making the findings mentioned above unique to this study.

Strengths and limitations

Despite the important findings reported by this study, it still has a few limitations. Firstly, despite the high number of participants compared to other studies, the majority were former PDs which can be postulated that they are not fully updated about the latest regulations related to the application process or the continuous change of the selection criteria. Also, other members of the Pediatric Program, not only PDs, could have been involved in the study to gain a more comprehensive image. Secondly, the geographic distribution of the PDs was not equal, e.g. the Southern Region was represented by only one participant. Finally, using of online survey and nonrandom sampling method limit the generalizability of the study findings.

SMLE score, services and electives, and research potential were the most important factors considered by Pediatric PDs for selection of candidates. Variability of the opinions and the points of selection that could vary by personal or demographic factors call for constructing a unified standardized form for valid selection criteria to guide PDs, ultimately contributing to improving the pediatric residency selection process in KSA and ensuring that the best candidates become future pediatricians. Policies should also be improved to help prospective candidates to join elective activities. These findings can help prospective applicants to improve their qualifications and training experience as well as to self-analyze their points of strengths and weaknesses to expand their chance of acceptance. Further in depths qualitative studies are needed to understand the PDs’ views, perspectives and experiences and factors standing behind their perceptions and choices. Similar studies are needed for other specialties with an emphasis on including comparison of the factors based on the PDs demographic and personal characteristics.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Curriculum vitae

Emergency medicine

Grade point average

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Letter of recommendation

• Program directors

Saudi Commission for Health Specialties

Saudi Medical Licensing Exam

General Authority for Statistics. Population estimates in the midyear of 2021 Riyadh General Authority for Statistics; [cited 2024 February 20th]. https://www.stats.gov.sa/sites/default/files/POP SEM2021E.pdf

Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Statistics Washington ERAS. DC: Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC); 2022 [cited 2024 February 20th]. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/data/eras-statistics-data

AlSohime F. Research involvement and obstacles among trainees enrolled in a pediatric residency program in Saudi Arabia. Int J Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2018;5(3):88–91.

Article   Google Scholar  

AlEnezi S, AlHarbi A. Saudi Board pediatric curriculum 2014 [cited 2024 February 20th]. https://scfhs.org.sa/sites/default/files/2022-01/Pediatric Curricula.pdf

Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS). Training programs: applying to postgraduate programs 2022 [cited 2024 February 19th]. https://scfhs.org.sa/en/training?tid=29&dtid=43&title_op=contains&title_po_prog=&page=16

Mardan QNMS, Alamari NA, Alzahrani HM, Almarghoub MA, Al Saud NA, Alqahtani MS. The ideal applicant to the Saudi plastic surgery residency program. Plast Reconstr Surg Global Open. 2021;9(2).

Alyami FA, Almuhaideb MA, Alzahrani MA, Althunayan AM, Almannie RM. Survey of Saudi urology program directors: what do you look for in a candidate? Urol Annals. 2021;13(3):272.

Alhalimi AA, Almulhim KN. The ideal applicant to emergency medicine residency programs in Saudi Arabia; Program directors’ view. Front Emerg Med. 2022;6(4):e50–e.

Google Scholar  

Niburski K, Buu N. Criteria for selection to anesthesia residency programs: a survey of Canadian anesthesia program directors. Can Med Educ J. 2021;12(4):89–97.

Poirier MP, Pruitt CW. Factors used by pediatric emergency medicine program directors to select their fellows. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2003;19(3):157–61.

Hunter MM, Patocka C. What are the personality types among emergency medicine physicians? Cureus. 2021;13(5):e14959.

Ross CA, Leichner P. Criteria for selecting residents: a reassessment. Can J Psychiatry. 1984;29(8):681–6.

Rehman SU, Nietert PJ, Cope DW, Kilpatrick AO. What to wear today? Effect of doctor’s attire on the trust and confidence of patients. Am J Med. 2005;118(11):1279–86.

Benzon HA, De Oliveira GS Jr, Jagannathan N, Suresh S. Selection of subspecialty fellows in anesthesia for pediatric anesthesia: a national survey of program directors in the United States. Pediatr Anesth. 2015;25(5):487–91.

Marwan Y, Waly F, Algarni N, Addar A, Saran N, Snell L. The role of letters of recommendation in the selection process of surgical residents in Canada: a national survey of program directors. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(4):762–7.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the program directors for participating in our study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Abdulrahman Alhaqbani, Sulaiman Alayed, Khaled Almutairi, Rayan Alotaibi, Fahad Aljuraibah, Khaled Alsager & Hamad Alkhalaf

King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Department of Pediatrics, Ministry of the National Guard - Health affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Fahad Aljuraibah, Khaled Alsager & Hamad Alkhalaf

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AA generated the research idea. All authors participated in modifying the survey and writing the proposal and the manuscript. HA was responsible for data collection. AA, SA were responsible for the data analysis. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamad Alkhalaf .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of KAIMRC (King Abdullah International Medical Research Center), and the institutional review board (IRB) number was (IRB/2169/22). Informed consent was obtained from all the participants.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Alhaqbani, A., Alayed, S., Almutairi, K. et al. Factors influencing the choice of pediatric resident: program directors perspective in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ 24 , 956 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05926-w

Download citation

Received : 21 October 2023

Accepted : 19 August 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05926-w

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

• Pediatric program
• Influencing factors
• Saudi Arabia

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]