Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Perspectives on Medical Education 4/2019

Open Access 01-08-2019 | Eye-Opener

Limited by our limitations

Authors: Paula T. Ross, Nikki L. Bibler Zaidi

Published in: Perspectives on Medical Education | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Study limitations represent weaknesses within a research design that may influence outcomes and conclusions of the research. Researchers have an obligation to the academic community to present complete and honest limitations of a presented study. Too often, authors use generic descriptions to describe study limitations. Including redundant or irrelevant limitations is an ineffective use of the already limited word count. A meaningful presentation of study limitations should describe the potential limitation, explain the implication of the limitation, provide possible alternative approaches, and describe steps taken to mitigate the limitation. This includes placing research findings within their proper context to ensure readers do not overemphasize or minimize findings. A more complete presentation will enrich the readers’ understanding of the study’s limitations and support future investigation.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Connelly LM. Limitation Section. Medsurg Nurs. 2013;22:325–36. Connelly LM. Limitation Section. Medsurg Nurs. 2013;22:325–36.
3.
go back to reference Wang M, Bolland M, Grey A. Reporting of limitations of observational research. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1571–2.CrossRef Wang M, Bolland M, Grey A. Reporting of limitations of observational research. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1571–2.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Ringsted C, Hodges B, Scherpbier A. The research compass: an introduction to research in medical education: AMEE guide no. 56. Med Teach. 2001;33:695–709.CrossRef Ringsted C, Hodges B, Scherpbier A. The research compass: an introduction to research in medical education: AMEE guide no. 56. Med Teach. 2001;33:695–709.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Norman G. Research in medical education: three decades of progress. BMJ. 2002;324:1560–2.CrossRef Norman G. Research in medical education: three decades of progress. BMJ. 2002;324:1560–2.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42:128–33.CrossRef Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42:128–33.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Gruppen LD. Is medical education research ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ research? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008;13:1–2.CrossRef Gruppen LD. Is medical education research ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ research? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008;13:1–2.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Price JH, Murnan J. Research limitations and the necessity of reporting them. Am J Health Educ. 2004;35:66–7.CrossRef Price JH, Murnan J. Research limitations and the necessity of reporting them. Am J Health Educ. 2004;35:66–7.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Greener S. Research limitations: the need for honesty and common sense. Inter Learn Environ. 2018;26:567–8.CrossRef Greener S. Research limitations: the need for honesty and common sense. Inter Learn Environ. 2018;26:567–8.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Bunniss S, Kelly DR. Research paradigms in medical education research. Med Educ. 2010;44:358–66.CrossRef Bunniss S, Kelly DR. Research paradigms in medical education research. Med Educ. 2010;44:358–66.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Adler ES, Clark R. How it’s done: an invitation to social research. 2nd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning; 2003. Adler ES, Clark R. How it’s done: an invitation to social research. 2nd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning; 2003.
12.
go back to reference Drotar D. Thoughts on establishing research significance and preserving scientific integrity. J Pediatr Psychol. 2008;33:1–5.CrossRef Drotar D. Thoughts on establishing research significance and preserving scientific integrity. J Pediatr Psychol. 2008;33:1–5.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Chasan-Taber L. Writing Dissertation Proposals and Grants: epidemiology, preventative medicine, and biostatistics. 1st ed. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group; 2014.CrossRef Chasan-Taber L. Writing Dissertation Proposals and Grants: epidemiology, preventative medicine, and biostatistics. 1st ed. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group; 2014.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Anesley TM. The discussion section: your closing argument. Clin Chem. 2010;56:1671–4.CrossRef Anesley TM. The discussion section: your closing argument. Clin Chem. 2010;56:1671–4.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Eva K, Lingard L. What’s next? A guiding question for educators engaged in educational research. Med Educ. 2008;42:752–4.CrossRef Eva K, Lingard L. What’s next? A guiding question for educators engaged in educational research. Med Educ. 2008;42:752–4.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Ioannidis JPA. Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. J Clinc Epid. 2007;60:324–9.CrossRef Ioannidis JPA. Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. J Clinc Epid. 2007;60:324–9.CrossRef
17.
18.
go back to reference Creswell JW. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2003. Creswell JW. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2003.
19.
go back to reference Lavrakas PJ. Encylopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2008.CrossRef Lavrakas PJ. Encylopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2008.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kenrick DT, Neuberg SL, Social Psychology CRB. Unraveling the mystery. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2002. Kenrick DT, Neuberg SL, Social Psychology CRB. Unraveling the mystery. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2002.
21.
go back to reference Nederhof A. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1985;15:263–80.CrossRef Nederhof A. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1985;15:263–80.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Krumpal I. Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual Quant Intern J Method. 2013;47:2025–47.CrossRef Krumpal I. Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual Quant Intern J Method. 2013;47:2025–47.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Law J. A dictionary of business and management (Oxford quick reference). 6th ed. Oxford: University Press; 2009. Law J. A dictionary of business and management (Oxford quick reference). 6th ed. Oxford: University Press; 2009.
25.
go back to reference Curran-Deverett D, Milgrom H. Post-hoc data analysis: benefits and limitations. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;13:223–4.CrossRef Curran-Deverett D, Milgrom H. Post-hoc data analysis: benefits and limitations. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;13:223–4.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:619–25.CrossRef Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:619–25.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Bagg A. Discussion: the heart of the paper. Indian Pediatr. 2016;53:901–4.CrossRef Bagg A. Discussion: the heart of the paper. Indian Pediatr. 2016;53:901–4.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Drotar D. How to write an effective results and discussion for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009;34:339–43.CrossRef Drotar D. How to write an effective results and discussion for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009;34:339–43.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Olsen R. Self-selection bias. In: Lavrakas PJ, editor. Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2008. pp. 809–10. Olsen R. Self-selection bias. In: Lavrakas PJ, editor. Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2008. pp. 809–10.
30.
go back to reference Babbie E. The practice of social research. 8th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company; 1998. Babbie E. The practice of social research. 8th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company; 1998.
31.
go back to reference Resnik DB, Shamoo AE. Reproducibility and research integrity. Account Res. 2017;24:116–23.CrossRef Resnik DB, Shamoo AE. Reproducibility and research integrity. Account Res. 2017;24:116–23.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: The strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med. 2001;76:889–96.CrossRef Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: The strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med. 2001;76:889–96.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Limited by our limitations
Authors
Paula T. Ross
Nikki L. Bibler Zaidi
Publication date
01-08-2019
Publisher
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Published in
Perspectives on Medical Education / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 2212-2761
Electronic ISSN: 2212-277X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00530-x

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Perspectives on Medical Education 4/2019 Go to the issue