“Your Research Question Is Probably Too Broad” (curiosity, fits mistake number one in the video)
Title history
- “Your Research Question Is Probably Too Broad” (curiosity, fits mistake number one in the video) — observed on 20261101-0208 UTC (YouTube)
Keywords
Summary
130 words
Critical Evaluation
Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument
The information is highly valuable as it provides practical, actionable criteria and frameworks that are directly applicable to real research planning. The argumentation is solid: each criterion is clearly defined, illustrated with a concrete example, and integrated into a step-by-step process. The video does not just present theory; it guides the viewer through a structured refinement loop with a scorecard, making the content immediately usable. The emphasis on equity adds a critical dimension often missing in standard criteria. The use of a single worked example throughout enhances coherence and demonstrates how all pieces fit together.
Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy
The video demonstrates scientific rigor by referencing established sources such as Hulley’s ‘Designing Clinical Research’ and the original papers on PICO, SPIDER, and ABT. These are appropriate and widely recognized in research methodology. The title is well-aligned with the core message: it highlights the common pitfall of overly broad questions, which is a recurring theme. However, the video covers more than just that single mistake, so the title is somewhat narrower than the content, but it effectively captures the primary lesson. The content is internally consistent and the examples are relevant.
201 words
Title / Content Match
The title directly addresses one of the most common mistakes (too broad research questions) and the video frequently emphasizes this issue, though it also covers other mistakes and comprehensive guidance.
Quality & Reliability
8/10
The video is a structured lecture that systematically presents established frameworks and criteria, with a worked example. It references foundational literature, but these references are not directly verified in the video, so the reliability is high but not perfect.
Chapters
Cited Sources
- Designing Clinical Research (chapters 1 and 2) — Foundation for research question and study design.
- Farrugia and colleagues: Research questions, hypotheses and objectives — Short guide on formulating questions and hypotheses.
- Original papers on PICO, SPIDER and ABT — Foundational papers introducing these frameworks.
- Worked-example papers by Muddu and colleagues — Applied example of the research question in hypertension and HIV.
Contribution & Novelties
The video’s original contribution lies in synthesizing diverse frameworks into a single, cohesive workflow centered on the REFINE criteria. It bridges the gap between abstract concepts and practical application by providing a scorecard and a step-by-step refinement loop. The addition of the ’equitable’ criterion extends the traditional FINER criteria, making the approach more comprehensive and socially conscious. The worked example from Uganda grounds the method in a real-world setting, demonstrating its utility in low-resource contexts.
Pour aller plus loin :
- PICO process (Wikipedia) – Overview of the PICO framework for structuring clinical research questions.
- FINER criteria – Widely used to assess the feasibility and importance of research questions; discussed in Hulley et al.’s Designing Clinical Research.
- ABT narrative framework – Introduced by Randy Olson to structure scientific communication, applicable to grant writing and presentations.
134 words
Radar Profile
The profile suggests a well-balanced resource with strong information quantity and quality, a moderate technical level that suits the target audience, and a reliability score that reflects reliance on established literature.