Confirmatory versus Exploratory Research

Overview

In a study, investigators develop a primary research question (RQ) that can be exploratory or confirmatory. The former is used when the goal is to generate hypotheses to be tested in future studies, whereas the latter allows you to test an existing hypothesis and draw inferences. Results from secondary or exploratory analyses should be interpreted with caution, due to the increased risk of false-positive findings and the potential of not having enough sample size to detect an effect in the secondary outcome measure. While many researchers are interested in multiple questions surrounding their topic, it is important to delineate between exploratory or confirmatory RQs to support the generation of clinically meaningful and reproducible scientific results.

Videos

Websites

Readings

  • Andrade, C. (2023). Types of analysis: Planned (prespecified) vs post hoc, primary vs secondary, hypothesis-driven vs exploratory, subgroup and sensitivity, and others. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 45(6), 640–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176231216842
  • Schwab, S., & Held, L. (2020). Different worlds: Confirmatory vs exploratory research. Significance. The Royal Statistical Society. https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1740-9713.01369
    • Concise readable article
  • Kimmelman, J., Mogil, J. S., & Dirnagl, U. (2014). Distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory preclinical research will improve translation. PLOS Biology, 12(5), e1001863. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001863
    • Geared toward pre-clinical studies, but gives an intuitive explanation
  • Fife, D. A., & Rodgers, J. L. (2022). Understanding the exploratory/confirmatory data analysis continuum: Moving beyond the “replication crisis”. American Psychologist, 77(3), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000886
  • Ring, A., Schall, R., Loke, Y. K., & Day, S. (2017). Statistical reporting of clinical pharmacology research. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 83(6), 1159–1162. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13254
    • Focuses on how exploratory research results should be explained and presented
  • Bridges, A. J. (2022). Hypothesizing after results are known: HARKing. In W. O'Donohue, A. Masuda, & S. Lilienfeld (Eds.), Avoiding Questionable Research Practices in Applied Psychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi-org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/10.1007/978-3-031-04968-2_8

Related Topics