Abstract
Objectives This study aims to identify the cognitive events related to information use (e.g., “Analyze data”, “Seek connection”) during hypothesis generation among clinical researchers. Specifically, we describe hypothesis generation using cognitive event counts and compare them between groups.
Methods The participants used the same datasets, followed the same scripts, used VIADS (a visual interactive analysis tool for filtering and summarizing large data sets coded with hierarchical terminologies) or other analytical tools (as control) to analyze the datasets, and came up with hypotheses while following the think-aloud protocol. Their screen activities and audio were recorded and then transcribed and coded for cognitive events.
Results The VIADS group exhibited the lowest mean number of cognitive events per hypothesis and the smallest standard deviation. The experienced clinical researchers had approximately 10% more valid hypotheses than the inexperienced group. The VIADS users among the inexperienced clinical researchers exhibit a similar trend as the experienced clinical researchers in terms of the number of cognitive events and their respective percentages out of all the cognitive events. The highest percentages of cognitive events in hypothesis generation were “Using analysis results” (30%) and “Seeking connections” (23%).
Conclusion VIADS helped inexperienced clinical researchers use fewer cognitive events to generate hypotheses than the control group. This suggests that VIADS may guide participants to be more structured during hypothesis generation compared with the control group. The results provide evidence to explain the shorter average time needed by the VIADS group in generating each hypothesis.
What is already known on this topic how hypotheses were generated when solving a puzzle or a medical case and the reasoning differences between experienced and inexperienced physicians.
What this study adds Our study facilitates our understanding of how clinical researchers generate hypotheses with secondary data analytical tools and datasets, the cognitive events used during hypothesis generation in an open discovery context.
How this study might affect research, practice, or policy Our work suggests secondary data analytical tools and visualization may facilitate hypothesis generation among inexperienced clinical researchers regarding the number of hypotheses, average time, and the cognitive events needed per hypothesis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.researchprotocols.org/2022/7/e39414/
Funding Statement
This project received support from the National Library of Medicine (R15LM012941) and was funded partially by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (P20 GM121342). The intellectual environment and research training resources provided by the NIH/NLM T15 SC BIDS4Health (T15LM013977) enriched this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Clemson University, South Carolina (IRB2020-056) and Ohio University Institutional Review Boards (18-X-192).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
