PES6251 Chap.2 Questions, Literature and Feasible Objectives
Questions, Literature and Feasible Objectives
Make the question executable
A research question connects the literature gap to the design. PICO checks the population, intervention or exposure, comparator and outcome, while CAFE tests complexity, access, facilities and resources, and expertise. The aim expresses one overall purpose and SMART objectives break it into observable steps.
Search strategies separate concepts, combine synonyms with OR and connect concept groups with AND so the literature search is broad in language but focused in meaning.
Originality needs a substantive reason
A small project can be original by examining a new setting, population, time or method, but the change must matter to the uncertainty.
Moving an established study into one local club only because access is convenient does not create a strong gap. Explain which feature of the coaching system, participant group or delivery context could change the expected relationship.
That reason should appear in the literature review and return in the significance section, creating a defensible bridge from prior evidence to the proposed project.
Alignment comes before SMART wording
A measurable objective is not useful when it measures something outside the question. Place the question, aim and objectives together and mark each population, exposure, outcome and context term.
The aim should preserve the full question as one purpose, while objectives describe the recruitment, measurement and comparison steps required to answer it. An objective with no method is an unsupported promise; a method with no objective is unnecessary burden.
Fix those mismatches before refining verbs or deadlines.
Search records are part of the method
Document databases, dates, exact strings, filters, eligibility rules and the route from results to included evidence. If a search is empty, inspect synonyms and criteria before changing the question. If it is unmanageably broad, tighten a concept rather than applying arbitrary filters.
Screening decisions should follow the question rather than whether an abstract agrees with the hoped-for conclusion. This record makes the literature review reproducible and shows how the final scope emerged from evidence.
What this chapter covers
- 01
PICO question completeness
- 02
Originality through setting, population, time or method
- 03
CAFE feasibility screen
- 04
Question, aim and objective alignment
- 05
SMART objective design
- 06
Boolean search and screening records
Worked example · free
Narrow a broad coaching topic
- 2Name the access and evidence limits.
- 4Write a focused question and matching aim.
- 2State the causal claim removed from scope.
Key terms
- PICO
- A framework checking population, intervention or exposure, comparator and outcome in a research question.
- Research Aim
- The single broad purpose that restates what the study will accomplish.
- Research Objective
- A concrete action required to deliver the aim using the same population and outcome.
- Boolean Search
- A search structure combining synonyms with OR and distinct concept groups with AND.
- Feasibility
- The practical possibility of completing a study with available access, resources, facilities, time and expertise.
Questions, Literature and Feasible Objectives FAQ
Does every research question require all four PICO elements?
No. PICO is a completeness check rather than a compulsory sentence template. An observational question can use exposure instead of intervention, and an exploratory qualitative question may not need a comparator. The important task is to state whose evidence matters, what will be observed and which outcome or experience answers the question.
How can a small project be original?
Originality can come from a justified change in setting, population, time or method. Moving a study locally only because recruitment is convenient is weak. Explain why the local coaching structure, participant group or delivery context may change what is known, then connect that reason to the literature gap.
What makes an objective misaligned?
An objective is misaligned when it introduces a population, variable or outcome that the question does not contain, or when no method will produce its answer. Place the question, aim and objectives together, circle their key terms and map every objective to one method and planned output.
Assessment move
Write your topic at the top of a page, then pass it through PICO and the CAFE screen. Draft one aim and no more objectives than the method can deliver. Build a concept table for the literature search with synonyms in columns, record the final search string and note why each filter belongs.
Test alignment by drawing arrows from the literature gap to the question, from the question to each objective, and from every objective to a feasible data source and analysis. Rewrite any objective that contains two actions or promises an effect the proposed design cannot estimate. Keep a search log with databases, dates, exact strings, limits and reasons for excluding apparently relevant evidence.
Read the final question aloud and underline its population, exposure or intervention, comparison and outcome. Any missing element should be an intentional design choice, not an assumption left for the reader. Rank objectives as essential or optional so that access, time or recruitment problems do not leave the project with no answerable core.
Working through Questions, Literature and Feasible Objectives in PES6251? Sia is AskSia’s AI Statistics tutor — ask any PES6251 Questions, Literature and Feasible Objectives question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how PES6251 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
