MSc Dental Disciplines awarded by Ulster University

RESEARCH HANDBOOK
2020

1
 RESEARCH HANDBOOK

Table of Contents
RESEARCH HANDBOOK ..................................................................................................... 1
2020 ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Overview of the research modules .......................................................................... 4
2. Essential steps for completing Masters level dissertation .............................................. 8
2.1. Propose a research question (stage: Research Methodology I module) .................. 8
2.2. Write a detailed research protocol (stage: Research Methodology II module) ......... 9
2.3. Undertake the research project (stage: Research Dissertation module) .................. 9
2.4. Write up the dissertation (stage: Research Dissertation module)............................. 9
3. Guidance with your research project .............................................................................10
3.1. Help with research question formulation (stage: Research Methodology I module) 10
3.2. Feedback on your research proposal (stage: Research Methodology I module) .....10
3.3. Help with your research protocol (stage: Research Methodology II module) ..........10
3.4. Help with research implementation (stage: Research Dissertation module) ...........11
3.5. Help with the dissertation write-up (stage: Research Dissertation module).............11
3.6. Change supervisor .................................................................................................12
4. Research design...........................................................................................................12
4.1. Types of study design ............................................................................................12
4.1.1. Review ............................................................................................................12
4.1.2. Observational Descriptive ...............................................................................12
4.1.3. Observational Analytical ..................................................................................13
4.1.4. Experimental ...................................................................................................13
4.1.5. Other types of studies .........................................................................................13
4.2. Hypothesis testing ..................................................................................................13
4.3. Qualitative and quantitative methods ......................................................................14
4.4. Practical issues in questionnaire design for survey methodologies.........................14
4.5. Steps in questionnaire development and evaluation ...............................................15
4.5.1. Ethics committee approval ..............................................................................15
4.5.2. Pilot study .......................................................................................................15
4.5.3. Face and content validity.................................................................................15
4.5.4. Latent construct validity ...................................................................................16
4.6. Sampling and statistical analysis ............................................................................16
4.6.1. Sample size ....................................................................................................16
4.6.2. Variables and controls .....................................................................................17
4.6.3. Statistics..........................................................................................................17
5. Choosing Your Project, Ethics, Data Protection and Health and Safety ........................17

2
 5.1. NHS participants ....................................................................................................19
5.2. Healthy volunteers and private dental patients .......................................................19
5.3. Data Protection ......................................................................................................19
5.4. Health and Safety...................................................................................................19
6. Planning Your Research ...............................................................................................20
6. Doing Your Research ...................................................................................................21
7. Format of the Research Proposal .................................................................................21
8. Format of the Research Protocol ..................................................................................22
9. The Research Dissertation ...........................................................................................24
10. Correct referencing in your write-ups. ........................................................................28
a. Referencing in the Text ..........................................................................................29
i. Single authors ........................................................................................................29
ii. Two authors ........................................................................................................29
iii. More than 2 authors............................................................................................29
iv. More than one paper ..........................................................................................29
v. Quoting ...............................................................................................................29
vi. Internet Referencing ...........................................................................................30
b. Referencing in the Reference List ..............................................................................30
i. Journal papers .......................................................................................................30
ii. Books .................................................................................................................30
iii. Electronic Sources (WWW documents) ..............................................................31
11. References ................................................................................................................32
12. Appendices ................................................................................................................33
Appendix I. Supervision agreement and record ................................................................34
Appendix II. Marking guidelines for the proposal ..............................................................38
Appendix III. Ethics Review Form .....................................................................................39
Appendix IV. Marking guidelines for the protocol ..............................................................48
Appendix V. Marking guidelines for Review 1 (formative assessment) .............................50
Appendix VI. Marking guidelines for Review 2 (formative assessment) ............................52
Appendix VII. Marking guidelines for the dissertation ........................................................55
Appendix VIII. Guidance for writing up the dissertation .....................................................59
Appendix IX. Printing and binding .....................................................................................61
Appendix X. Recommended books...................................................................................64
Appendix XI. Examples of a letter of consent and a patient information letter ...................65

3
1. Introduction

This handbook supports the Research Modules studied in your programme. It is not a
substitute for attending lectures, reading the lecture notes, or participating in the class
discussions. It will help you formulate a research question, design and execute a research
project and then write it up at Masters level in a dissertation format. For the University
academic regulation, please refer to Ulster University website. Please refer to the programme
handbook and the educational material provided on the blackboard for detailed information on
the structure of the different research modules, its learning outcomes, and for guidance on the
different assignments required to be completed to complete each module.

The information provided in this booklet is correct at the time of publishing. The college
reserves the right to make changes to regulations and procedures at any time, before or after
a candidate’ s admission. We advise you to read from the most up-to-date version which is
available on your blackboard as part of Research Methodology II and Research Dissertation
modules.

1.1 Overview of the research modules

The research modules (Research Methodology I, Research Methodology II, and Research
Dissertation) will culminate in a dissertation to be carried out throughout the whole programme
for students aiming to complete the full Masters programme. Timeline of each research module
depends on multiple factors such as the programme duration, mode of study and registration
date. There are also differences in modules credits, learning outcomes and assessment
strategies for part-time and full-time modules. Therefore, please check your programme
relevant module and the deadlines applicable in your case by contacting CoMD administrative
staff, Quality Assurance team and your Programme Leader. For assessment guidance, and its
expected word count please refer to programme handbook and the assessment guidance
section on the blackboard relevant to your mode of study (part-time or full-time). A summary
of research modules credits, learning outcomes, assessment strategies is provided in Table 1-
3.

You are encouraged to begin the process of thinking about research and putting together a
research project as early as possible. Work on developing your research questions from the
start of your Research Methodology I module then discuss your thoughts with the Programme
Leader who will help you develop it further. Starting to think about your research question from
Research Methodology I, will gives you time to develop your research ideas and become
familiar with concepts which will give you the best chance of producing a good Masters level
dissertation. Allocation of supervisor will be done by the Programme Leader according to your
chosen topic and research question, but supervision will not start before beginning of Research
Methodology II module. The lectures, class discussions and presentations will help you
understand how research is done in health care and will point up what is reliable and what is
not. These teaching sessions are designed and delivered by the Research Director and their
team to cover most of the learning outcomes.

As the research modules progress, you will be encouraged to keep an open mind when
receiving information, while at the same time critically evaluating information and the views
you already hold. The method that you should use when evaluating information is a scientific
one (i.e. not using a belief system or similar). This could be difficult to do, but we expect to see
evidence of critical appraisal using validated tools in all your activities in research modules.

4
 Research Methodology I
(20 Credits)
Credit 20
Learning Successful students will be able
Outcomes to:
1. Discriminate between the
varied approaches used in
different research designs and
consider their appropriateness for
different types of research
questions;
2. Compare and contrast the
types of statistical analysis used in
different research designs the
concepts underpinning their
appropriate use and strengths and
weakness relevant to
dental research;
3. Design research questions to
develop a research proposal that
demonstrates originality and the
potential to advance knowledge at
the forefront of the subject;
4. Exercise appropriate judgement
in research planning, selecting
and presenting all elements of a
well-designed research proposal.
Assessment Written assignment [50%]
illustrating critical appraisal skills:
1500 words.
Presentation [0%]
One x 15 minute presentation of
research proposal for peer and
tutor evaluation.
Pass or fail.
Project [50%]
Research proposal: 2000 words.
Table 1. Summary of the main differences between Research Methodology I full-time and part-
time modules. *Formative assessment does not count toward the final marks and it is not
compulsory to complete but it is designed to help smooth progression throughout the different
milestones.
5
Research Methodology I
(10 Credits)
10
Successful students will be able
to:
1. Discriminate between the
varied approaches used in
different research designs and
consider their appropriateness
for different types of research
questions;
2. Compare and contrast the
types of statistical analysis used
in different research designs, the
concepts underpinning their
appropriate use and strengths
and weakness relevant to dental
research;
3. Design research questions to
develop a research proposal that
demonstrates originality and the
potential to advance knowledge
at the forefront of the subject.
Written Assessment [100%]
illustrating critical appraisal skills:
1500 words.
Formative assessment [0%]*
One x 15 minute presentation of
research proposal for peer and
tutor evaluation.
 Research Methodology II
(20 Credits)
Credit 20
Learning Successful students will be able to:
Outcomes 1. Critically evaluate research
design, type of data and statistical
methods in relevant dental and/or
scientific literature pertaining to
their research question;
2. Design research protocol
considering ethical issues,
demonstrating originality and the
potential to advance knowledge at
the forefront of the subject;
3. Exercise appropriate judgement
in research planning, selecting and
presenting all elements of a well-
designed research protocol;
4. Systematically apply knowledge
in an original manner to research
problems to formulate new ideas,
methods or conclusions.
Assessment Written assignment [50%]
Research background or literature
review illustrating critical appraisal
skills: 2000 words.
Written assignment [50%]
Research protocol: 2000 words.
Table 2. Summary of the main differences between Research Methodology II full-time and
part-time modules. *Formative assessment does not count toward the final marks and it is not
compulsory to complete but it is designed to help smooth progression throughout the different
milestones.
6
Research Methodology II
(10 Credits)
10
Successful students will be able to:
1. Critically evaluate research
design, type of data and statistical
methods in relevant dental and/or
scientific literature pertaining to their
research question;
2. Design research protocol
considering ethical issues,
demonstrating originality and the
potential to advance knowledge at
the forefront of the subject;
3. Exercise appropriate judgement
in research planning, selecting and
presenting all elements of a well-
designed research protocol.
Written assessment [100%]
Research protocol: 2000 words,
Formative assessment [0%]*
One x 15 minute presentation of
research protocol for peer and tutor
evaluation.
 Research Dissertation
(60 Credits)
Credit 60
Learning Successful students will be able
Outcomes to:
1. Critically evaluate research
design, type of data and statistical
methods in relevant dental and/or
scientific literature pertaining to
their research question;
2. Demonstrate proficiency in
advanced techniques necessary
for the acquisition of primary
research data;
3. Complete a research
dissertation that is justified by a
critical awareness of current
problems in the field and shows
insight and originality in the
application of methods, in the
presentation of results and in the
critical discussion of results
pertaining to their research
question;
4. Systematically apply knowledge
in an original manner to research
problems to formulate new ideas,
methods or conclusions.
Assessment Presentation [40%]
Oral presentation for the literature
review part of the dissertation
illustrating critical appraisal
skills: 15 minutes,
Dissertation [60%]
Research dissertation (primary
research or narrative review):
15,000 words.
Formative assessment [0%]*
Review 1: Methods: 3000 words.
Review 2: Results and discussion:
3000 words.
Table 3. Summary of the main differences between Research Dissertation full-time and part-
time modules. *Formative assessment does not count toward the final marks and it is not
compulsory to complete but it is designed to help smooth progression throughout the different
7
Research Dissertation
(30 Credits)
30
Successful students will be able
to:
1. Critically evaluate research
design, type of data and statistical
methods in relevant dental and/or
scientific literature pertaining to
their research question;
2. Demonstrate proficiency in
advanced techniques necessary
for the acquisition of primary
research data;
3. Complete a research
dissertation that is justified by a
critical awareness of current
problems in the field and shows
insight and originality in the
application of methods, in the
presentation of results and in the
critical discussion of results
pertaining to their research
question.
Dissertation [100%]
Research dissertation (primary
research or narrative review):
6000 words (+/-10%).
Formative assessment [0%]*
Review 1: Methods: 1500 words.
Review 2: Results and discussion:
3000 words.
milestones. In Research Dissertation module, we highly recommend completing all formative
assessments on time.

The research modules will help you develop and implement a research project that is judged
to be at the correct level for Masters degree. We tried to align the process to help smooth
progression from one step to the other as illustrated in Figure 1. The marking guidelines and
marking criteria for this level of research are shown in Appendices of this guide, and you should
refer to them constantly. Furthermore, we cannot stress on the importance of examining the
assignment guidance relevant for your programme as there are differences in the requirements
between the different modules.

Research
Research Methodology II Research Dissertation
Methodology I

Figure 1. The research process aligned in relation to the different research modules and some
of the assignments required.

2. Essential steps for completing Masters level dissertation

To produce a good Masters level dissertation by the end of the programme, you will complete
the following:

2.1. Propose a research question (stage: Research Methodology I module)

This is achieved by writing a short research proposal aimed at clearly identifying a gap in dental
knowledge and illustrating the importance of your chosen research question. This stage should
be conducted by yourself but you are encouraged to discuss your thoughts with your
Programme Leader who will help you to develop your ideas and advise you to pursue different
direction if your thoughts are not feasible within the given time frame and resources allowed.
You will also receive feedback from an examiner. At this stage, there is no supervisor allocated
for you. You will have a supervisor once you start your Research Methodology module II.

8
2.2. Write a detailed research protocol (stage: Research Methodology II module)
This is based on the proposal with enhanced methodology to obtain answers to the research
question. This document should be written very carefully with emphasis on the feasibility of the
study and ethical considerations. An Research and Ethics form must be submitted as part of
the protocol. We encourage you to invest time and effort at this stage and think carefully about
the details of the methodology. At this stage, you will have a supervisor allocated to you by the
Programme Leader based on the research question that you suggested and the research topic
that interest you. The supervision agreement, available in Appendix I, need to be completed,
signed and submitted as part of the protocol appendices. Additionally, at least one supervision
record should also be submitted as appendix (electronic signature is acceptable). You are
encouraged to work with your supervisor and follow their guidance to be able to further your
proposal and produce a well-designed protocol. Once you get this document correct, the
execution of the research project will be relatively straight forward.

2.3. Undertake the research project (stage: Research Dissertation module)

Your project may be a systematic literature review, an observational study or an experimental
study as long as it is feasible within the allowed time and available resources. The necessary
ethical and research committee approvals must be obtained before starting the research
project. This is done at the same time of the protocol. The execution of the research project is
usually carried out over the final third of your programme, once you start your Research
Dissertation module. Be aware that students generally underestimate how long this will
actually take. Enough time is needed to gather all required materials (e.g. obtain equipment,
recruit subjects, devise, validate, distribute and collect surveys etc). Good strategic planning
is vital to succeed within the required timescale. Students are advised to be proactive and take
the lead in managing their projects once the ethical approval is granted.

2.4. Write up the dissertation (stage: Research Dissertation module)

Do not leave the write up of your dissertation until the end of the allowed time for submission
of the dissertation as part of the Research Dissertation module. Writing up the different
elements of the dissertation should spread over the whole duration of the Research
Dissertation module. Formative and summative assessments are designed to help smooth and
steady progress. A timeline for the different activities will be announced at the start of each
module. You are advised to review the assessment guidance and the marking criteria
and to submit each formative or summative assessment in the right time. Ensuring that
your final dissertation meets the marking criteria is the best way to get good marks. Please
share your assignment guidance with your research supervisor to enable them to guide you
with respect to these marking criteria from the start of your project, as it is easier to make small
changes to your approach at the design stage, than making massive, contrived ones near the
end. You will receive help and guidance from your supervisor, Programme Leader, Research
Director and the research team, as appropriate, but at the end the dissertation must be your
own work and it must demonstrate that you can propose, implement and critically evaluate a
piece of research that is judged to be at the correct level for Masters degree.

Descriptors are given in the Appendices of this handbook but these do not override the
assignment guide. You are encouraged to look at these and to examine the assignment guide
thoroughly. It is in your interests to make it very clear in your write up where you have met or
demonstrated these descriptors. For example if you have critically evaluated a lot of articles in
the literature and then synthesised a lot of complex information to make a new point - say so.
Similarly if your research requires you to devise a novel method and validate it, rather than
relying on existing methods - say so. If you hit a problem with the research and had to
overcome it and came up with a clever solution - say so. Finally emphasise any results that
are new and any conclusions that are novel. If you look at any scientific publication in a peer-
reviewed journal you will see that all authors do this with various degrees of subtlety - you need
to emulate this in your write -up.

9
3. Guidance with your research project

You will be guided at several steps on the way to producing your final write-up, summarised
as follows:

3.1. Help with research question formulation (stage: Research Methodology I

module)
At the beginning of Research Methodology I module you will be encouraged to formulate a
research question and write the proposal. You will be taught different formula that you can use
when designing your research question as part of the teaching sessions. You are then
encouraged to discuss with your Programme Leader and take their opinion in your research
question. The Research Director is also happy to help at this stage if required. Your initial
research question will probably be modified over the following months as you formalise it in
the research proposal. You are encouraged to present your proposal and discuss its feasibility
with your Programme Leader before submitting it via the designated link on your blackboard
by the deadline. This will ensure smooth progress throughout the year. At this stage you do
not have supervisor but you are encouraged to seek help from the Programme Leader, and
the Research Director and their teams.

3.2. Feedback on your research proposal (stage: Research Methodology I module)

You will be required to submit the research proposal according to the given timeline. It will
explain what you propose to do and why. The marking guidelines for the research proposal
are given in Appendix II. As mentioned above, in preparation for this you are encouraged to
discuss the feasibility of your project with your Programme Leader. You need to show how the
research question you have posed identifies a gap in the dental knowledge base. You will also
be expected to justify why your research should be carried out at all. For the latter you will
usually need to show how the results you hope to obtain will improve patient care or advance
the profession. At this stage you are required to illustrate that your research is ethical and
feasible in term of cost, time management, and practicalities. You also need to illustrate that
you developed a well-designed contingency plan and thought about all challenges that you
may encounter. You will receive feedback on your proposal written by anonymous marker who
will evaluate your work against the marking criteria. Once released, you should discuss the
proposal feedback with your Programme Leader and agree on the required modifications. This
will help you further develop your project and proceed in writing-up your research protocol as
part of your next research milestone assessed in Research Methodology II module.

3.3. Help with your research protocol (stage: Research Methodology II module)
The next step is the submission of a detailed research protocol. This will be submitted
according to the given timeline of Research Methodology II module assessment. Completed
Research and Ethics form and signed by your supervisor must be submitted as appendix in
your protocol for consideration by the Research and Ethics Committee (electronic signature is
acceptable). The ethics form along with the marking guidelines for the research protocol are
given in Appendix III and IV. The research protocol will expand on your research proposal
and is aimed at providing a detailed “guidebook and methodology” for the execution of your
research project. It will have incorporated the feedback you will have received regarding your
proposal from your anonymous marker. At this stage, you will have a supervisor allocated to
you and you are encouraged to communicate with him/her regularly so they can help you
progress smoothly. You must submit the signed supervision agreement and at least one
supervision record as part of your protocol appendices. It is well documented that the degree
of success of research students is directly proportional to the amount of regular communication
with their supervisor.

The protocol will:

• show clearly why you are going to do the research and how you have
extensively evaluated existing information relating to your research question;
10
• define what data is needed to help answer your research question;
• explain how you will obtain this data.

The protocol should be very structured - do not ignore its headings. Its overall purpose is to
enable you to present a scientific argument for your study, to think through your methodology
and to anticipate the outcomes (negative and positive). You will receive feedback on your
protocol written by anonymous marker who will evaluate your work against the marking criteria.
Once released, you should discuss the protocol feedback with your supervisor and agree on
the required modifications. This will help you further develop your project so that it has the best
chance of succeeding within the required timescale, and so that it meets the Masters level
marking criteria. You will also receive the ethical approval outcome. The outcome of the ethical
application could be either (1) approval; (2) re-submission request with recommended
amendments or request for extra detail to help the chair of the Research and Ethics Committee
and/or panel to reach a well- informed decision or (3) rejection with recommendation for
changes to a lower risk project. We recommend that you discuss the outcome of your ethics
application with your supervisor as soon as you receive the outcome to be able to address any
issue.

3.4. Help with research implementation (stage: Research Dissertation module)

After going through the above processes, you will be in a good position to implement your
research project once starting you Research Dissertation module. You will be required to
provide your research supervisor with regular updates about your progress and they will help
with queries or if you run into unforeseen difficulties. They will not do the research for you.
During this module, there are additional two deadlines (Review 1 and Review 2) for submitting
the different parts of your dissertation through the relevant link in the blackboard to assess
your similarity score. These are formative assessments and will not count toward your final
marks but these are crucial to ensure smooth progression throughout the year. You should
consult your supervisor regularly and ensure that they are happy about your work. Supervisor
will provide feedback throughout the duration of your module and after each review point. You
should be keen to meet your supervisor face-to-face or through any online communication tool
at least once every other week for one hour in a mutually convenient time to discuss your
progress and formulate action plan. Supervision record should be completed and agreed after
each meeting. Minimum of two supervision records MUST be submitted as part of the
appendices of Review 1 and similar number as part of the appendices of Review 2 submission,
The Deadlines for these submissions will be determined and announced once you start your
Research Dissertation module. Marking guidelines for the Review 1 and Review 2 are given in
Appendix V and VI. Feedback at this stage will be given by the supervisor, no external
feedback will be provided.

3.5. Help with the dissertation write-up (stage: Research Dissertation module)
By the end of the Research Dissertation module you are required to submit a structured write-
up of your work comprising a maximum of 15,000 words for the Full-time module (60 credits)
and 6,000 words +/- 10% for the Part-time module (30 credits). The marking guidelines for the
Dissertation are shown in Appendix VII and guidance on the format and presentation of your
dissertation is given in Appendix VIII. The printing and binding guide is present in Appendix
IX.

Writing up always takes about twice as long as you imagine, so good planning is essential.
Work systematically from your introduction toward the different sections of your dissertation.
Do not leave your introduction and literature review sections until the end. These can be written
early on as part of your Review 1 and modified later according your main results. After writing
all sections up to the end of the results, you will then be in a good position to discuss your
results in the light of the issues you raised at the beginning of your dissertation. Pay attention
to referencing and presentation. We advise you to write your abstract last. Try to get a

11
colleague to proof read the dissertation; apart from typographical errors, even non-scientists
can usually spot logical inconsistencies or the fact that a question was raised in the
introduction, but then never touched on again.

Supervisor, Programme Leader, and the Research Director can be accessed at any stage and
in most cases an email or a telephone call will solve things. Your supervisor is the first line of
contact in anything related to your research project. Your Programme Leader and the
Research Director will be happy to help if/when required as a second line of contact. If you
think that you need the help of the Programme Leader or the Research Director, we advise
you to discuss with your supervisor initially and to include them in the discussion. We are here
to support you through this important part of your degree, and ultimately for you to acquire
knowledge as to the concept and practice of health- based research. It is very important to
develop transferable skills such as critical appraisal and research designing during the
execution of your research, These transferable skills will help you later on during your clinical-
academic career and will enhance your employability.

3.6. Change supervisor

One supervisor will be allocated to you at the beginning of your Research Methodology II by
the Programme Leader according to your chosen topic as explained above. We encourage
you to keep good relationship with your supervisor and communicate effectively with them. Our
supervisors are professional and approachable. They will help you progress throughout your
research milestone in Research Methodology II and Research Dissertation modules. We do
not encourage changing supervisor once the supervision was allocated as this will delay the
process. Furthermore, it can be very difficult to find another supervisor interested in supervising
your research question and they might as to change or modify the project to fit with their
research expertise and interest. If you think you wish to change the supervisor and you have
rational reasons for your request, please send an email to your Programme Leader, cc’ing both
the Research Director and the Dean. They will then discuss your request and will inform your
of their decision as soon as it is possible, usually within two weeks from submitting your
request.

4. Research design

A good place to start is to review the recommended texts on research design in Appendix X.
These texts provide an excellent overview of the various methodologies employed in
answering research questions.

4.1. Types of study design

You need to be able to categorise the type of study that you have designed. There are four
major categories of research design:

4.1.1. Review
A review is a type of secondary research that should be executed with meticulous search
strategy using a systematic and reproducible methodology to avoid introducing reporting bias
and to reach the requirement of a Masters level dissertation.

4.1.2. Observational Descriptive

An Observational Descriptive study could be one where you are gathering opinion, and it is
likely that you will conduct a survey or interview to do this. This could lead to generating
qualitative or quantitative data or both. In other cases you may want to analyse a rare case
and describe its clinical signs and symptoms in a case report or perhaps studying a group of
individuals with the same characteristics or problem in case series. At the end of observational
descriptive study, one is expected to generate a hypothesis.

12
4.1.3. Observational Analytical
Analytic studies test hypothesis to establish a relationship between a disease and exposure.
For an example you may want to look at co-existence of two or more things (e.g. presence of
neck pain and hours just spent using a computer). Both variables are present at the same
sampling time point and this will show any association between the two. The parameters to be
measured must be defined at the outset (e.g. pain) and the case for doing the research in the
first place (rationale) must be made clearly. This is called an observational analytical study and
could be designed as case-control (looking backward), cohort (looking forward) or cross
sectional (population-based study).

4.1.4. Experimental
Experimental studies can be in-vivo or in-vitro studies and they test a null hypothesis
suggesting that there will be no difference in the outcome measures obtained before or after
the intervention (e.g. level of toothache before and after treatment), or the outcome measures
obtained from the test and control interventions. Sampling is important here to avoid bias.

Although there are growing arguments for adopting a naturalistic approach instead of a
scientific approach to investigate complex situations, the approach that is required for your
research project is a scientific one. In this case a deductive reasoning approach is used to
formulate hypothesis which is then tested.

An example of deductive reasoning and hypothesis testing

It was observed that 17th century sailors often developed scurvy. It was also observed that their
diet was poor in fruit and vegetables. From this it was deduced that something was lacking
from the sailors’ diet that normally prevented the development of scurvy. This is a general
theory. You can see how this theory could be refined by making a list of things that were
missing from the sailors’ diet. Having done this, it would be possible to test the hypothesis that
adding this or that ingredient to the sailors’ diet would prevent the development of scurvy.

4.1.5. Other types of studies

There are other possible studies that you can pursue as part of your research dissertation.
These are not classified as research studies, but they can be very useful clinically to plan
services. Examples of these studies are service evaluation, audit, service improvement and
economic studies.

4.2. Hypothesis testing

From the above example you can see that once a research question has been formulated, the
next step is to devise hypothesis which can be tested. The research hypothesis is usually a
statement of an expected result. For example:

• Increasing fluoridation will reduce the incidence of dental caries

You may think that an experiment would now be conducted to find out if the statement in the
hypothesis was true. What you should actually do is try to disprove the hypothesis. In most
cases all you need to do is modify the hypothesis to say the opposite of what you think will
happen. This is called formulating a null hypothesis (Ho). Thus:

• Fluoridation will NOT reduce dental caries

The reason this approach is adopted is because when you obtain data by sampling (i.e. asking
100 people, for an example, to fill in a questionnaire or treating 100 people) you can never be
sure that this is the true result because you can never be sure that your sample is exactly the
same as the rest of the population (e.g. every GP in the world, every person in the world, every
dentist that ever existed). As an example you could hypothesise that ‘all swans are white’ on
the basis of your observations over several years. Sounds reasonable, and you could show

13
people lots of white swans to ‘prove’ it. But could you be confident that your sample of swans
was representative of all swans in the world? Clearly not. You could on the other hand disprove
the hypothesis robustly by locating a black swan. You could then safely conclude that ‘not all
swans are white’ (Popper, 1959).

4.3. Qualitative and quantitative methods

Research has to look at the world that involves ‘things’, (houses, mountains, rainfall, machines,
forests and the like), and the world that involves people, (their psychologies, their cultures,
their attitudes, beliefs and so on). With things, we can measure their attributes, their size, their
speed, how often, how much, their connections with other things. This approach generates
numbers and is Quantitative. On the other hand, people’s attitudes are often best elucidated
by asking the person about how they feel, or what they think. This generates words and is
Qualitative. Obviously, the worlds of things and people overlap, so both types of research
are used in the study of Health and Health Care Interventions. You will probably have decided
which approach you will be using already and indeed you may have decided to use aspects of
both. This is often the case in surveys of attitudes, where questions with ranges of numbers
to measure response are used alongside in depth interviews of the individuals in order to
gather simple and complex information. This helps to build a more complete picture of the
attitude under investigation.

For quantitative research you will measure something that you expect to change (a variable).
There are many ways of obtaining measurement. For example pain can be quantified at a
categorical level (e.g. ‘severe’ ‘moderate’ ‘no pain’) or an interval measurement can be
obtained by using a ruler on a visual analogue pain scale or by using numerical pain rating
scales. See Manion et al (2007) for a discussion of methods of quantifying pain. In
questionnaires, a Likert scale can be used to get interval measurements. In some cases data
can be quantified at a categorical level by ranking named categories and counting their
frequency of occurrence. In all cases it is important to choose an appropriate tool to perform
the measurements. Clearly a thermometer will be no good for measuring range of movement.

For qualitative research, information is often obtained and then analysed afterwards (post-
hoc). This is because you may not know what you are going to get until you get it. This is often
the case for interviews and group discussions. Wherever possible, try to define the structure
of interviews (a structured interview) or discussions to obtain specific items of information that
would be common to all the people in the sample. This makes it easier to test hypotheses and
generally makes it easier to analyse data. Where free text or a narrative needs to be analysed,
you may want to explore methods that allow key words or phrases to be coded so that their
frequency of occurrence and relationships with other key words or phrases can be evaluated
in a semi-quantitative manner (Feilding and Lee, 1991).

4.4. Practical issues in questionnaire design for survey methodologies

You cannot just throw a few questions together and hope to make any sense of what you get
back from a questionnaire. More to the point you will never convince anyone that you did a
decent survey in the first place regardless of your results. Ignore the advice below and you
could end up with no discussion in your research write up because none of the results made
sense, or you could end up with a wonderful result that no research journal will touch because
the survey design and validation was bad. Please, take a little time to think about your survey
before you start. It could save you a lot of trouble later!

After you have read the various ideas about research design you need to think about designing
your survey. There are many books written on how to conduct these. One series that may be
useful is by Fink (1995). In summary, to carry out a survey you need to first pose your research
question as specifically as possible.

14
Then you need to:
• Identify the ‘themes’ that you want information on (e.g. pain, range of movement
etc)
• Design unambiguous questions to get information for the themes you have
identified (e.g. ‘rate your pain on a scale from 0 to 10’ or ‘how many times in a day you brush
your teeth?’ ‘do you experience bleeding on brushing your teeth, Y/N?’ or ‘how many times
you went to your dentist in past 12 months?’). There will be some things that require a free
response to a broader question. You are advised to keep these to a minimum as they are
difficult to analyse later –ask questions that give a number as the result and then the charts
and statistics complete themselves (well almost).
• Now see how many questions you can remove (you’ll always ask too many).
• Make it fit on one side of A4, make it look pretty and seek peer review or test it out
on a couple of peers (NB this is not a pilot study).
• Modify it in the light of your peers’ comments.
• Do a pilot study on a small sample similar to the one you will use in the real study.
• Modify the questionnaire and/ or its method of administration again keeping two
factors in mind:
1. you want a good response rate (keep the questionnaire short)
2. you want data you can use (use decent questions that focus directly on the themes you
have already identified).

It’s not all over, however, if you want any scientific journal to take your questionnaire seriously.
See if you could write something like the following as a description of your questionnaire
development and validation:

“After Ethics approval, face and content validity were initially determined by preceptor and peer
evaluation, followed by a pilot study reinforced by structured interviews. Construct validity was
determined mostly by a principle components factor analysis using SPSS. Internal consistency
of the questions and their ability to measure the latent construct was determined by calculating
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.”

To see how this is done in a real published case, look at the paper by Johnstone et al (2003).
Also see the Paper by Pollentier and Langworthy (2007) on validating a survey for use to
survey chiropractors. Many of the points raised have general application across all
professions.

After doing and reading all this you will see why you should use an existing, validated,
questionnaire where possible. Even for established questionnaires, you will find that some are
more appropriate than others for particular types of research questions. Of course, for some
research questions you will have no option but to construct your own bespoke questionnaire.

4.5. Steps in questionnaire development and evaluation

We will assume the main themes and formulation of specific questions part has been done

4.5.1. Ethics committee approval

Essential.

4.5.2. Pilot study

On the basis of pilot results the questionnaire is refined for the main study.

4.5.3. Face and content validity

This is to assess relevance and comprehensibility of the Items included in the questionnaire.
These are determined by peer and preceptor evaluation (i.e. discussions with colleagues,
15
students, tutors, friends, other professionals). Then for a sample of the pilot study
questionnaires, a structured interview is carried out to see if the responses recorded for that
person match what they tell you when you ask the question slightly differently. This gives three
ways of looking at the same thing-called triangulation. If you get the same answer after asking
the question three different ways, then the answer is probably correct. In this case the
questions should be centred around whether the questionnaire makes any sense to those
filling it in (utility) and whether the questions and responses you get allow you to answer
questions around particular themes (specificity). As an example, good questions written in
ancient Greek are not much use, neither are bad questions written in clear English. To illustrate
that latter, the question ‘what is your surname’ is clear enough and should get a specific
response that has utility, but not if you want to know if someone has toothache!

4.5.4. Latent construct validity

i.e. the extent to which the questionnaire measures what it claims to measure. This can be
assessed in one or all of the below five ways (using SPSS stats package):

• By a principle component factor analysis with Orthogonal (Varimax) rotation and Kaiser
normalisation. To see the degree of correlation between items. This extracts
uncorrelated factors from correlated variables
• A Scree plot can be done of Eigenvalues against the items to determine the optimum
number of factors before the dogleg to the right and exclude those with a loading
threshold of <0.4. Eigenvalues are generated as part of the principle component
analysis by SPSS.
• A correlation matrix showing Pearson product moment correlation between the
variables. Factors with coefficients of congruence near to 1 and accounting for >50%
of the variance can be considered to contribute significantly to the construct.
• All the above information can then be added to Messick’s (1989) table of facets of test
validity to give an overall estimate of Validity.
• For reliability, internal consistency for each item can be determined by Cronbach’s
alpha and any items with <0.7 rejected as not accurately measuring the latent
construct. Also, a test-retest assessment of reliability can be done with pilot study group
(ideally with main study group) and those items with kappa coefficients <0.4 rejected.

In some cases, data can also be tested to see if there was any significant difference between
the factor loading patterns of the whole data sample and randomly selected individuals. This
is in addition to other such as a triangulation approach where data from other sources such as
interviews Likert scales and free responses are looked at for the same questions.

4.6. Sampling and statistical analysis

This part of the study is often ignored. As a result, many potential marks are lost. Do not fall
into the trap of thinking that survey-based research need not involve statistical analysis. In
order to make any statements about the significance of your data, you need to provide
information about sample size, variability, reliability, validity and probability. This handbook is
not the place to do this in detail and below is an overview of the things you need to think about
–preferably at the design stage of your project.

4.6.1. Sample size

You cannot usually obtain data for the whole population that you are interested in and so the
next best thing is to look at some of the population (a sample) and hope that they are
representative of the real population. There is no easy answer to the question ‘what is the best
sample size’? Sample size is usually a mixture of theory and pragmatism. You may want to
sample thousand of subjects but this will often be impracticable. You may want to try and get
away with a sample of 2 but this is likely to be unrepresentative.

16
You can start to get an idea whether you have a reasonable sample if adding another data
point makes very little difference (<5%) to some statistic such as the mean. There are many
formulae to estimate sample sizes but they all require some initial data or data from another
source that is equivalent. This will be covered in the research modules. As a general rule, aim
for about 100 responses for survey and around 30 individuals for intervention studies but this
can be very different according to the outcome measures being studies, expected spread of
data around the central tendency, and the difference between groups that would be considered
as biologically significant.

For laboratory in-vitro studies that does not involve any human or animal samples, three
repeats are judged as reasonable sample size. This is provided that the methodology is
standardised and the data generated has a very narrow standard deviation.

4.6.2. Variables and controls

One way of thinking about this is to imagine your worst enemy has set out to show that your
results are worthless. They would probably say that you have made the wrong measurements
or that the measurements you got varied so wildly that no conclusions could be drawn. They
may say you were biased in your approach or selection of subjects. They may also ask if you
would have got the same result by chance if you did nothing at all or if you did anything (ie the
result had nothing to do with the treatment). They would certainly say that the statistical
analysis was not appropriate for the type of data you had and that in any case your sample
size was too small for meaningful analysis. You MUST think about all these variables and
where possible control for them.

4.6.3. Statistics
Descriptive statistics includes things like the mean, mode, maximum and minimum. If you
are looking for differences, then you will need inferential statistics. Your choice will depend
on whether you have parameters that are taken from a normally distributed population. In this
case you can use parametric statistics, such as a t-test, or calculating the regression
coefficient. Where you cannot show that the data comes from a normally distributed population
you must use non-parametric statistics, such Mann-Whitney U-test or non-parametric
correlation coefficients such as Spearman’s, Kendal’s or Gamma.

After performing a statistical test as part of the analytical statistics you will end up with a
probability value (p). Remember that this is NOT the probability that you are correct, but the
probability that a difference or correlation you have found may simply be due to chance. Thus
p=0.05 means a 5% (5 in 100) probability that what you got was simply due to chance. Most
biological studies take significance to be p<0.05. If you find that p<0.01 then this is more
significant than p<0.05. A consequence of this approach is that you never actually prove
anything to be true. You simply say the probability that the result is untrue (i.e. due to chance)
is small (p<0.05), very small (p<0.01), very very small (p<0.01) or infinitesimally small
(p<0.00…..1) etc.

You will have covered some common statistical tests at various points during your programme,
but a good refresher can be found in Hicks (2000) and Kanji (2006). You may also find that
the SPSS statistical package is more comprehensive and flexible than others, such as the
statistics add-in for Excel (Field, 2000).

5. Choosing Your Project, Ethics, Data Protection and Health and Safety
As illustrated above, there are two main approaches to choose the research topic you would
like to do: coming up with your own proposal or asking the Programme Leader to suggest a
research question for you based on your research interest.

17
One of the below models might be used by your Programme Leaders to help you to identify
your research topics:
• Programme Leader may discuss with students their preference either in a face-to-face
meeting or in an online meeting in mutually convenient time outside the time allocated
to research teaching sessions.
• Programme Leader and their team may present possible projects to students in a face-
to-face or online session in a mutually convenient time outside the time allocated to
research teaching sessions. Topics can also be recorded and placed on the blackboard
or any similar online platform. This is usually followed by asking students to fill a
preference sheet with three different choices. In the preference sheet, students are also
given the chance to write in an empty box their own research question if they are
interested in a topic different than what was presented.
• Programme Leader may conduct workshop to help students to reach their own
research question and assess its feasibility. This must be done outside the time
allocated for the research teaching sessions.

As your final dissertation will be supervised, the research question has to be mutually
interesting to you and your supervisor who will be allocated by your Programme Leader later
on once you start your Research Methodology II module. If you would like to generate your
own research question, this is also acceptable, but you need to approach the Programme
Leader to ascertain whether there is a supervisor who would be prepared to supervise your
project.
The process of supervision allocation is directed by the Programme Leader and will be shaped
according to their preference. However, as mentioned above, supervision does not start before
the start of Research Methodology II. Below are some acceptable models that Programme
Leader might use to allocate supervisor:
• according to the chosen topic, Programme Leader will identify the best supervisor in
his/her team. They will approach them and double check their availability and if they
are interested in the topic.
• if you have chosen one topic from the presented topics, the supervision will be allocated
to the staff who suggested the topic. If this staff does not have capacity to supervise
then they will suggest someone else to supervise their suggested topic or the
Programme Leader will find an alternative after discussion with all parties involved.

Once Research Methodology II module started, under no circumstances will a student

be allowed to undertake research without a designated supervisor, and you may or may
not be allowed to go ahead with your topic that you have chosen as part of your
proposal assignment in Research Methodology I.

All potential projects will be vetted by the Research and Ethics Committee. Your research
protocol will need to be accompanied by a Research and Ethics form that has been signed by
your supervisor. No project can start until Research and Ethics approval has been
granted.

Under some circumstances you may be carrying out a project in conjunction with another
educational establishment or Health Care body that may also require you to obtain Ethical
approval from their own Ethics Committees. Projects will not go forward unless all Ethical
bodies involved have agreed on the project. The decision on which Ethics Committee to
approach depends partly on where your research will take place and partly on whether your
participants will be healthy volunteers/patients or NHS patients. But beware; obtaining
permission for the latter can be difficult and very time-consuming. You MUST discuss this
carefully with your supervisor, Programme Leader and the Research Director.

18
5.1. NHS participants
NHS Ethics Approval is needed if your research involves any of the following:
• Patients and users of the NHS. This includes all potential research participants
recruited by virtue of the patient's or user's past or present treatment by, or use of, the
NHS. It includes NHS patients treated under contracts with private sector institutions.
• Individuals identified as potential research participants because of their status as
relatives or carers of patients and users of the NHS, as defined above.
• The use of, or potential access to, NHS premises or facilities.
• NHS staff, recruited as research participants by virtue of their professional role.
The procedure for gaining approval is outlined on the website of the NHS Health Research
Authority. There is a standard application form, which needs to be completed online.

If you plan to undertake a project involving the NHS, due to the complexity involved in
the NHS research system, it is HIGHLY recommended that you make contact with your
local Hospital Trust Research & Development office for detailed assistance in preparing
for NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC) submission.

Alternatively, avoid involving the NHS in your research project if at all possible as their
processes will use up most of your available project time leaving little, or none, for
undertaking the actual research!

5.2. Healthy volunteers and private dental patients

If your project only involves “healthy volunteers” (e.g., recruitment of participants via schools
or community organisations), and/or private dental patients you need apply to the CoMD REC.
If it involves both healthy volunteers and NHS participants, you need to apply to both the NHS
REC and the CoMD REC.

5.3. Data Protection

Under the Data Protection Act 2018 it is the responsibility of the Principal Researcher to ensure
that research projects are registered and that:
• The Data must be collected, stored and used in accordance with the Principles of the
Act.
• Individuals must be asked for a signed consent to their data being processed for
research. This consent should also cover the scope of the processing and any possible
future distribution outside College.
• Data received from third party organisations should be anonymised before receipt or
should be accompanied by a signed declaration from the Head of the organisation that
it has been collected in accordance with the Act.
• Data to be shared with a third party organisation should, if possible, by anonymised
before transfer.
• Un-anonymised Data should not be shared with a third party organisation unless the
Head of the organisation provides a signed declaration undertaking to use the Data in
accordance with the Act.
• The Data Protection Officer must be informed of all agreements regarding the transfer
of Personal Data, to ensure that they comply with the Act and the College Data
Protection requirements.
• Personal Data used for research Projects must be stored and disposed of in
accordance with the Act.

5.4. Health and Safety

You must not injure yourselves or anyone else during the course of your research project.
Work on your project that may put you or others at any risk must not commence until approval
has been given by the REC.

19
6. Planning Your Research

Most of the planning of your project should have taken place whilst you are undertaking the
proposal and protocol stages. The writing of the research proposal is intended to get you
started early and ideally most of the planning and potential problems you might encounter
should have taken place during this process.

As mentioned previously, time taken over the Research Question will have already helped you
to see how to do the research that generates your data. Clear and unambiguous questions
quickly suggest appropriate design. Once the design has been decided on, the various
methods included in the lectures and from the literature should fall into place.

There are a number of points however that you need to consider in detail:

• Most Clinical Research involves patients. This is particularly true of experimental

designs where you are trying to find out whether a particular intervention improves
health in some way. You need to have thought in some detail about your patient group,
how you will recruit them, what inclusion and exclusion criteria you will use. Also the
numbers of patients you will need. Often in very new areas of research you will not
have much guide from the literature as to the numbers needed for a good study. This
necessitates you planning to obtain as many subjects as you can, given the limitations
of time you have to carry out the project. There is no magic number and most students
will at some stage be concerned about whether they will have enough subjects.
Estimate how many months of data collection you will have and use this to plan
recruitment over this time period from the patients you see or, if you are involving more
than your own practice, the numbers you can recruit from these. In cases where studies
are available then you may be able to calculate effect size by using power statistics to
get an estimation of the numbers of patients you will need to see a certain effect.
Consultation with your Supervisor, Programme Leader and the Research Director will
help you decide on this factor.

• It is important that any individuals involved in your data collection are fully aware of
what you expect from them. Practitioners for example in other clinics that may be
collecting data, must be aware of the project aims and how they are to collect data.
Obviously, permission is a pre-requisite of this.

• All subjects MUST sign a consent form giving WRITTEN permission for either
themselves or their data to be used in your research. This is absolutely imperative.
An example consent form can be found in Appendix XI.

• You must have taken time to make sure that your measuring instrument, especially if it
is to measure a clinical outcome (pain, mobility, etc.) is valid and has been through
validity and repeatability studies (Studies that confirm it measures what you want it to
measure and can do so consistently). This applies as much to questionnaires as it does
to instruments like Florida probe for an example.

In general creating a new clinical outcome measure is a big risk, so where possible always use
instruments that have been already shown in the literature to fulfil validity and repeatability
criteria. These concepts have been already covered in the programme. A good chapter to
look at to refresh your knowledge can be found in Polar and Thomas (2000).

In conclusion many of the issues of planning will have been covered in your lectures. Again if
you need to refresh your memory as to the major issues involved, re-read Jenkins et al (2002).

20
You may find it useful to look at the CONSORT guidelines for planning randomised controlled
trials and download their proforma (http://www.consort-statement.org/) to help you plan a
clinical trial. However, we would not encourage conducting a randomised controlled
trials as those trials requires longer time than the time allowed for the Masters
dissertation and it also require a high level of ethical approval.

6. Doing Your Research

It is clear from experience, and will become quickly apparent to you, that “the best laid plans
of mice and men” don’t always run as smoothly as you imagined. You will almost certainly
come across problems as you start your data collection. People don’t turn up, the number of
Questionnaires you expected to be returned will not, practitioners collecting data for you may
not quite do it the way you expected etc. The practical problems you will encounter are normal.
The trick is to find solutions to allow your project to not falter too much. Clearly, all solutions
cannot be listed here, but it is important that you address any problems early on, and in
discussion with your supervisor, attempt to find solutions or alter the tack of your original
proposal. Clearly, early and detailed planning may avoid many of these problems.

Points to remember:

• Make sure everyone involved knows what they are doing.

• Keep in regular contact with your supervisor and address problems early.

• Be prepared to alter your expectations and with this the original direction of
the project. However, don’t do this as a matter of course. Try to stick as
much as possible to your original plan. It is a balance of tenacity and
flexibility.

• Don’t be an ostrich!

Again a good chapter to read to refresh your memory of the issues involved can be found in
Section 3 of Jenkins et al (2002).

7. Format of the Research Proposal

This is required early in your programme as part of the assessment for Research Methodology
I module. It is essentially a statement of the research question followed by a justification for
the study and an assessment of its feasibility in 1500 words for Part-time module (10 credits)
and 2000 words for Full-time module (20 credits).

The assessment of your proposal follows the marking guidelines in Appendix II. It is important
that you follow the major section headings:

• Research Question
• Rationale: What is the project and why it is important
• Aims and objectives
• Method: Brief description
• Feasibility: Cost analysis, time management, practicality, and ethics considerations
• Contingency: What is the plan if things go wrong
• References

21
 • Appendices: Critical appraisal of one relevant study used to justify the project as part
of the rationale section of the proposal

Your text should be clear and easy to read. Your research question must be clear and relevant.
Your rationale should give good reasons for embarking on the study that can be justified by
referring to peer-reviewed literature. Do not bullet point too much or quote too often. Lastly,
your reference style must follow the Harvard standard which uses an author, date approach.
This can be found in the References section in this handbook. Every reference in your text
must appear in the Reference section and vice versa. Use numbering system for sections and
subsections.

8. Format of the Research Protocol

This is required later in the academic year (as part of the Research Methodology II module
assessment) and represents a planning-type document that starts the process of your research
and data gathering. The Research Protocol should be approximately 2000 words in length for
both Full-time and Part-time module. The assessment of your protocol follows the marking
guidelines for level 7 work seen in Appendix IV.

The Research Protocol should be handed in with a completed Research and Ethics Review
Form (Appendix III). Failure to do so will result in an automatic fail.

The Research Protocol should consist of the following five main parts:

1. Introduction: This justifies the project (rationale) and ends with a statement of
the research question.

Your introduction should summarise the reasons behind your project and identify the problem
that you will seek to solve and outline the research question clearly. It is essentially your
rationale of the study (what is the project and why it is important). Your research question
MUST be stated unambiguously near the end of your Introduction.

2. Literature review for primary research only: This comprises a mini literature
review relevant to the research question and ends by stating the aim and
objectives of the project.

A literature review is required to identify the gap in the current knowledge. It should aim to
critically evaluate existing information pertinent to your research question and where possible
synthesise complex strands of information into simpler threads. with a clear (usually single)
aim, and objectives that should be stated in such a way as to illustrate how the question may
be answered. It is essentially a story of what has been researched in your area up to the current
time and it should highlight the gap in knowledge that your project aims to address. It can be
seen simplistically as taking the form of:

History: An author started looking at this or some related question in this year.

The development: Other authors expanded this result by performing research on the questions
that arose from this initial study. They confirmed or contradicted the results or generated further
questions.

Present State of Play: The present state of knowledge says that X and Y are likely to be
important and that Z may not be relevant to this area of research. Therefore, the aims of this
project are to …………….

22
 3. Background for secondary research: This comprises the background
knowledge required to understand the importance of the project and ends by
stating the aim and objectives of the project.

A background is required to identify the gap in the current knowledge pertinent to your research
question. with a clear (usually single) aim, and objectives that should be stated in such a way
as to illustrate how the question may be answered. It is essentially the background knowledge
required to understand the importance of your projects and its aim and objectives.

The way the literature review or the background section is written should be with a critical eye,
i.e. Bloggs (year) stated Y, his method lacked X and therefore it is possible his results do not
tell the whole story. An in-depth description of how to reach and write critically has been
covered in your lectures and can be found in Polgar and Thomas (2000).

Your ability to find the literature is dependent on how much has been written and your search
skills. Ways of finding literature will have been covered by your sessions in the library, but
many of you may find that literature that directly relates to your question may be thin on the
ground. When this is so, it is important to look with a broader reference frame. Your references
must be included in your text after the Harvard style and a reference list included at the end of
the report. The detail of this style can be found in Reference Section in this handbook.

4. Methodology: This should give sufficient detail to enable an assessment of the

feasibility of the project and its ethical acceptability.

You will have given some thought to the most appropriate methodology when you submitted
your research proposal. In most cases, you will use either a secondary research (review),
observational descriptive, observational analytical or experimental (interventional) approach.
In some cases you may need to use combinations of these. Other form of respected studies
which is not strictly research, can also be used such as service evaluation, audit, service
improvement and economical studies.

Where you are looking for a difference, perhaps as a result of an intervention, it is vital that
you give careful consideration to controlling variables. In many cases this is done by limiting
the observations made. In other cases, you will need to include control experiments. While it
is usually impossible to control all variables, you should show that you have attempted to
control as many as possible and that you have identified as many uncontrollable variables as
possible. Proper controls can help you avoid Type I and II statistical errors. A comprehensive
review can be found in Polgar and Thomas (2000).

5. Possible/Expected Outcomes: This section explains what you hope to find

and how you plan to prevent things going wrong. This section should be
subdivided to feasibility, contingency and impact assessment. It is basically
what the student hope to find and how they plan to prevent things from going
wrong.

The first part of this sections should focus on the feasibility of the study (cost analysis, time
management, practicality and ethics considerations). For review projects, preliminary literature
search of one scientific server such as PubMed, along with the results of three levels of
literature screening should be included as part of the feasibility study. The second and third
parts of this section should explain how you plan to prevent things going wrong (contingency
plan) and what you hope to find (impact assessment). The contingency plan subsection is
where you ask yourself ‘will it work?’. Try to think about what could go wrong (you may not
have access to a piece of equipment, you may have a low response rate for your questionnaire,
you proposed method of measurement may be unreliable etc). In the impact assessment
subsection, you should anticipate what results you will obtain (e.g. frequency of responses to
23
particular items on a questionnaire, height, range of movement etc). Try to anticipate how you
will analyse the results using descriptive and inferential statistics. For example, you may want
to show a relationship between two variables (e.g. diet and caries) or a difference between two
groups (e.g. treated and control). A good way to be prepared for the actual research project is
to simply make up some data and to construct a few charts to demonstrate this and see if you
can analyse the data statistically. In this way you will see which method of data presentation
works best and get an idea of how to analyse it. As a result of this type of exercise you might
usefully go back to your intended methods and alter them so you get better data when you
carry out your actual project. Try also to anticipate what sample size you will end up with and
whether that will allow you to do any sensible analysis of your data. More importantly, try to
predict the impact of negative and positive data on future research and future clinical
management of patients.

6. Reference list: Take care to back up all your statement with published work.

7. Appendices: Supervision agreement and at least one supervision record.

Research and Ethics Review Form MUST also be submitted as appendix
in the protocol. Failure to do so will result in an automatic fail.

Your text should be clear and easy to read. Do not bullet point too much or quote too often.
Lastly, your reference style must follow the Harvard standard which uses an author, date
approach. This can be found in the References section in this handbook. Every reference in
your text must appear in the Reference section and vice versa. Use numbering system for
sections and subsections.

9. The Research Dissertation

This is required at the end of the programme as part of the Research Dissertation module. The
three most important things to say about this process are: talk to your supervisor; let your
supervisor comment on the initial drafts of your write-up; and don’t leave it all to the last minute.

Your protocol should form a good foundation for your final dissertation. Sections such as the
Introduction and literature review/background can be expanded from those in your protocol
and can be written in PARALLEL with your data collection. Sections such as your method
should be almost complete within your protocol, but you may need to alter this dependent on
how your actual project was executed. The sensible thing to do is to write up the dissertation
as much as possible throughout the time allowed for your Research Dissertation module.
Therefore, we designed the formative assessment to help you plan your work and avoid leaving
it to the last minute. Please refer to Appendix V and Appendix VI for the marking criteria of
Review 1 and Review 2. After writing the results section and determining what the main
findings of the study are, many students find it crucial to go back and modify their introduction
so that the results follow on smoothly from the issues raised. It is also important to discuss the
results in the light of issues raised in the introduction. From a general standpoint, your
dissertation should tell a story. Avoid unnecessary information and logical inconsistencies. Aim
to make a concluding statement showing how your research advances knowledge.

Your research supervisor will advise on academic issues, but this is really something that
should be your own work and should demonstrate scholarship, independent, critical thought
and evidence of competence in handling complex issues and situations. Look at the
dissertation marking criteria and aim to fulfil all those in the ‘distinction’ category. The marking
criteria is given in Appendix VII and the format required for your dissertation is given in detail
in Appendix VIII. You need to submit 3 bound copies and one electronic copy of your
dissertation. Printing and binding guide is given in Appendix IX.

24
The Research Dissertation should have the following 8 sections:

1. Abstract: This section should be a clear, succinct outline of the purpose, methods and
results of the research with a concluding statement and possibly an indication of the potential
implications of the results for dentistry. Your abstract must be structured, and it must not be
more than 300 words. You should use the following subheadings:
1.1. Purpose
1.2. Methods (including study design and statistical methods)
1.3. Results
1.4. Conclusions

2. Introduction: This section sets the scene for the research and highlight the rational of the
study leading to clearly stating the research question with specific hypotheses designed to test
it.
2.1. Rationale: this is what is your project and why it is important.
2.2. Research Question and Hypothesis: Give a single sentence summarising the research
question. If you are conducting observational analytical or experimental studies, restate the
research question as a research hypothesis (directional or non-directional). Then restate the
hypothesis as a null hypothesis.

Example:
Research question: Is the long-term stability of bone grafting materials different in the
vertical and horizontal augmentation procedures?

Research Hypothesis: Long-term stability of augmented horizontal defects is significantly

higher than vertical defects

Null hypothesis: There is no difference in long term stability of horizontal and vertical
augmentation procedures

3. Literature review for primary research OR background for secondary research: This
expands on the introduction to show the extent of current knowledge (in primary research) or
the background required to understand the research topic (in secondary research) and
demonstrate how you have critically evaluated the existing information and designed the study
aim and objectives to fill the current gap in knowledge.

Set the scene for doing your project. Only include information that is relevant to your study.
Don’t leave the reader thinking ‘why am I been told this stuff?’. And don’t make sweeping,
unsupported statements. You should build a case for doing your study. Try to focus on
published data that uses methods similar to yours. This helps you argue that the information
cited is relevant. Also your methods will appear quite logical in relation to your research
question and so will your results. Don’t be tempted to talk too much about topics that you will
not return to elsewhere in your dissertation.

3.1 Summary and Indications for The Present Study

This is a useful way to remind the reader of the point of your study. Summarise (without
references) the case for your study and then finish with ‘The aim(s) of the present study,
therefore, is/are to…’

3.2, Aims and Objectives

State your research aim(s) then list some specific objectives of the study that will help you
achieve your aim(s)

25
Example:
Research aim:
To determine if a difference exist between long term stability of vertical and horizontal
augmentation procedures.

Research objectives:
• To study the success rate of bone grafting in alveolar bone process
• To study the different materials used in bone augmentation techniques associated with
implant surgery
• To study the different procedural approaches in augmenting alveolar defects prior to
dental implant surgery
• To study the effects of the local oral cavity niche on the success of augmented sites
• To compare and contrast the horizontal and vertical augmentation procedures from the
long-term stability perspective

4. Methods: This will explain how the data was obtained, how variables were controlled and
what statistical analyses were employed. It also must include a statement about ethical
considerations.

Try to make the methods so clear that someone else could replicate your study. If the methods
are complicated, you may want to summarise the process as a diagram or a table. Below are
suggested subheadings relevant to primary studies but it will depend on your project so please
choose the relevant subheadings from the below or change them entirely according to your
project.

4.1. Study Design

State whether your study is a cohort study, interventional study, randomised, controlled study
etc.

4.2 Sample Size

How many questionnaires were sent out? How many subjects were in each group? If the
experimental design is complicated, show the numbers for different groups as table.

4.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Who did you include and who did you exclude and why?

4.4. Group Allocation

If you are comparing 2 groups, how did you allocate people to the group? Was allocation to
groups random- if so, how did you do it? It was non-random, how was this done?

4.5. Outcome Measures

What did you measure and how did you measure them? If possible, use already validated
outcome measures.

4.6. Survey Design

How did you decide on what questions to ask? What did you ask? How did you ask? How did
you decide if the survey was fit for purpose?

4.7. Sampling
If you sampled from a population (e.g. sent a questionnaire to a particular group of people)
how did you do it? Was it systematic or random or systematic random, or was it
convenience-based etc?

26
4.8. Statistical Analysis
What analysis and tests were used and why. What stats package was used? What level of
statistical significance did you use (most people accept a probability level of <0.05 as
significant).

EXAMPLE (modified from a real dissertation, 2007)

Descriptive statistics (mean, mode, max, min) were determined using the statistics add-in in
Excel. Variables were checked for departure from normality using the skewness statistic and
standard error. Where are normal distribution permitted the use of parametric statistical
analyses, a paired t-test was used to determine the significance of differences between the
means of the control and intervention groups. Inter group analysis between the 4 intervention
groups was determined using a one way ANOVA, followed by the post-hoc Bonferroni
adjusted multiple comparison test.

4.9 Consent and Approvals

Did you need informed consent? How did you get it? Did you need ethics approval? How
was confidentiality ensured? etc.

For a review study, relevant suggestive subheadings are: 4.1. Study Design; 4.2. Literature
search strategy (scientific servers, keywords, manual screening); 4.3. Literature screening
strategy (inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, outcome measure, screening stages); 4.4.
critical appraisal and bias analysis; 4.5. Data extraction and summarising; 4.6. Heterogeneity
assessment; 4.7. Meta-analysis; 4.8. Ethics consideration.

5. Results: This should present data clearly with relevant descriptive paragraphs. If
appropriate include raw data as an appendix. The analysis of results should be both logical
and critical. Avoid the temptation to include a discussion in this section.

6. Discussion and Conclusion: This should discuss the interpretation of the results and all
possible confounders. It should also discuss your results within the context of previous
research and in relation to the issues raised in the introduction and literature review or
background. The aim is to discuss everything critically and it may include a section that
critiques your method and suggests improvements. It is advised to include subsections on the
clinical implication of your research and future research recommendations. Limitation of the
study should be presented towards the end of this section. While conclusion should be the last
part of your discussion section as it is an overall statement or series of statements that place
the results of the dissertation in the context of what is currently known about the topic. It may
also indicate how the information reported could be applied to practise or improved by future
studies. Clear and concise clinical recommendations along with future research suggestions
would enrich this subsection.

7.References: Your reference style must follow the Harvard standard which uses an author,
date approach. This can be found in the References section in this handbook. Every reference
in your text must appear in the Reference section and vice versa.

8.Appendices: Approved ethics form must form part of your appendices. You can also
put data that may disrupt the easy flow of the dissertation (e.g. a computer programme you
may have written, example of your patient information letter etc).

More detail on writing up is given in Appendix VIII. Generally, your dissertation should be clear
and informative to read. Do not bullet point too much or quote too often. Use numbering system
for sections and subsections. You are encouraged to develop a mind map before starting to
write each section and discuss this mind map with your supervisor in one of the supervision
meetings. This will ensure that you have a plan for your dissertation and that each section
leads on smoothly to the next in a story like design without repetition. The best way to discover
27
if this is the case is to get someone else to proofread it. It is crucial to edit your work thoroughly
before submission. The below are some important editing rules.

• Caption (legend) of any figure or table should be detailed. Each figure or table is
standalone document. Caption should include the following: Figure section number.
Order within the section number. Figure title. Figure description. Abbreviations used in
the figure. Source. The third table in section number 4 which is the results section
should be names Table 4.3 for an example. Examples are provided during classes and
on the blackboard.
• Each table or figure should be referenced in the paragraph before it and fully described
appropriately.
• As a general rule, any percentage should be presented in the context of the total
sample size. 10% (1/10) is very different than 10% (10/100).
• Any number less than 10 should be written in letters unless it is part of results of any
study that you are presenting;
• Avoid first person language in academic writing. No “I”, “We”…so on.
• Only first entry of any abbreviated term in the document (from introduction to
conclusion) should be written in full term along with abbreviation in between brackets.
Any subsequent entry, you should use the abbreviation only. Abstract is standalone
section, therefore, all rules should be followed appropriately in isolation from the rest
of the document. Also figure and tables are standalone part of the dissertation,
therefore, any used abbreviation should be defined either in the caption or in the last
merged row of the table. Examples are provided during classes and on the blackboard.
• As a rule, one should not reference review papers when writing research piece of work,
Instead, the original study should be referenced. However, when it is unavoidable, you
must write “reviewed in” before inserting the reference. Same rule applies to books.
• Microorganisms should be written appropriately with the first entry include the genus
and species written in italic (i.e) Porphyromonas gingivalis. Any subsequent entry
should be either written in full genus and species similarly to the first entry or you could
abbreviate the genus such as P. ginngivalis. Having said this, consistency is very
important so if you decided to abbreviate the genus in the second entry, you must do
so throughout the whole document except the first entry. Abstract is standalone,
therefore, all rules should be followed appropriately in isolation from the rest of the
document.

10. Correct referencing in your write-ups.

The Harvard system has been adopted as the standard for referencing by the CoMD. We
encourage the use of electronic referencing system from the start of the research year. The
below examples are just for illustration and they are not real published studies.

You should support all statements of fact by referencing the published work in which you find
that information. Where and when you reference is a little bit of a grey area, and clearly some
statements are common sense fact and do not need referencing.

For e.g., the following text does not require a reference:

Patients with extracted teeth are potential implant patients

However, the following statement does:

Autogenous bone grafting is still considered the gold standard (Rogers and Greene,
2012)

A further example is where you cite weak evidence, opinion or even conjecture as a fact in a
sweeping statement such as:
28
 Smoking is considered as contraindication to implant surgery treatment (DeLuca et al,
2006)

If the cited reference does not contain good evidence, it is better to say something on the lines
of:
It has been stated that smoking can be a contraindication for implant treatment (DeLuca et al,
2006). This, however, appears to be based primarily on periodontally compromised patients
as strong evidence from well-controlled studies is currently lacking (reviewed by Marchand
2012).

You will get a better feel for this as you practice the habit of supporting your written work with
referencing.

a. Referencing in the Text

The following are examples of how to cite references in text. You must follow the precise format
of this when you reference.

i. Single authors

• Brown (2003) investigated the …………..

• …………. although this has not been supported by other studies (Brown, 2003)

ii. Two authors

• Brown and Smith (2003) investigated the …………..

• ………….. although this has not been supported by other studies (Brown and
Smith, 2003)

iii. More than 2 authors

• Brown et al. (2003) investigated the …………..

• ………….. although this has not been supported by other studies (Brown et al.,
2003)

iv. More than one paper

• Brown et al.. (2003), Smith and Jones (1999) and Wilson (1982) investigated…
• ………….. although this has not been supported by other studies (Brown et al.,
2003; Smith and Jones, 1999; Wilson, 1982)

v. Quoting
Quoting is acceptable but should be used only when very necessary and should be in the
format below. However, try not to use it often and never quote a huge amount of text.

Smith (1982) has stated, “…………. in terms of referencing, quoting in the text must be
referenced”
or
“…………. in terms of referencing, quoting in the text must be referenced” Smith (1982)
29
If you use information that you read in a document which originally appeared in another
(primary) source, you should refer to it as follows:
“………………….. in terms of referencing, quoting in the text must be referenced.” (Brown,
1982 cited in Smith, 2003)

vi. Internet Referencing

In general, this is to be discouraged as many sites on the internet are purely personal opinion.
If a journal paper has been found on the internet then the journal reference should be sited not
the website. However, many government bodies only publish on the internet and in this case,
the author and the date the article was added to the website should be quoted as above i.e.
…………… (Smith, 1998). Where there is no author then the body that has published it and
the date it was added to the website should be added e.g. (GCC, 1985)

b. Referencing in the Reference List

Immediately after the last page of the text and usually before any appendices should be
included a list of references entitled “ References”.

All references cited in the text must appear in the list and vice versa. The references must be
listed in alphabetical order of the authors (NOT divided into Books, Journal articles etc) and
the format must comply with the format below. We discourage using books as reference as
much as it is possible as the most up-to-date original study should be referenced appropriately.

i. Journal papers
Single authors
The general format is:

Author, Initial. Date. The title of the paper. Journal Volume Part (if applicable), Page Numbers.
e.g.: ARCHER, J. 1974. The origin of referencing styles. J Educational Standards, 9 (2), 168
– 172.

Two authors
BLOGGS, B. & BLOGGS, H. 1974. The origin of referencing styles. J Educational Standards,
9 (2), 168 – 172.

More than two authors

All the authors must be cited in the reference list:
BROWN, D., SMITH, C., JODPHURS, Y. & ZOGG, R. 1974. The origin of referencing styles.
J Educational Standards, 9 (2), 168 – 172.

ii. Books
Try to not use books as reference except if it is very necessary. Edition details should be
included if present. The general format is:

Author, Initial. Date.Title of Book. Edition Publisher.

e.g.: JONES,C. & LARKIN, S. 1992. Health Sciences. 2nd ed. Open Univ. Press.

• If you directly ‘’quote’’ from a book you should refer to specific pages
GARLAND, J. 1991. Health Sciences. pp. 123-321. Open Univ. Press.

• To refer to one paper from a collection in a book:

30
OZYMANDIAS, K. 1987. Foot preservation in desert conditions. In: JONES,C. & LARKIN, S.
1992. Health Sciences. 2nd ed. Open Univ. Press.

• If there is no author, the title of the book should be used:

The Chicago Manual of Style 1939. 14th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

iii. Electronic Sources (WWW documents)

Use the same method as for books with the URL and the date you accessed the file. For other
electronic sources such as email, email discussion lists, abstracts or documents from CD-
ROMs and online sources such as MEDLINE, please use the examples given below.

The general format is:

Author, initials. Year. Document title. [WWW] location of document (date accessed)
e.g. ZOGG, H. 2001. Referencing electronic sources.
http://www.sbu.ac.uk/lis/helpsheets/lrc2.html (June 26 1998).

If there is no author as is common, the title of the article should be used:

Referencing electronic sources 2001. http://www.sbu.ac.uk/lis/helpsheets/lrc2.html (June 26
1998).

31
 11. References

CONSORT Transparent Reporting of Trials. http://www.consort-statement.org/ (January 17

2020)

DATA PROTECTION ACT 2018.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/contents/enacted (January 17 2020)

HICKS, C. M. 2000. Research Methods for Clinical Therapists. Churchill Livingstone.

FIELD, A. 2000. Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. Sage.

FIELDING, N. & LEE, R. 1991. Using computers in qualitative research. Sage.

FINK, A. 1995. The survey kit. Sage.

JENKINS, S., PRICE, C. J. & STRAKER, L. 2002. The Researching Therapist. Churchill
Livingstone.

JOHNSTONE, J. M., LEUNG, G. M., FIELDING, R., TIN, K. & HO, L-M. 2003. The
development and validation of a knowledge, attitude and behaviour questionnaire to assess
undergraduate evidence-based practice teaching and learning. Medical Education 37, 992-
1000.

KANJI, G. K. 2006. 100 Statistical tests. Sage.

MANION, A. F., BALAGUE, F., PELLISE, F., CEDRASHI, C. 2007. Pain measurement in
patients with low back pain. Nature Clinical Practice Rheumatology 3, 610-619.

MESSIK, S. 1989. Validity. In: LINN, R. L. (ed). Educational measurement. (3rd ed). MacMillan.
pp13-103.

NHS Health Research Authority. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE.

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/committees-and-services/res-and-recs/research-ethics-
service/.

POLGAR, S. & THOMAS, S. A. 2000. Introduction to Research in the Health Sciences.

Churchill Livingstone.

POPPER, C. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.

POLLENTIER, A. & LANGWORTHY, J. 2007. The scope of chiropractic practice: A survey of

chiropractors in the UK. Clinical Chiropractic 10, 147-155.

32
12. Appendices

I. Supervision agreement and record

II. Marking guidelines for the proposal
III. Ethics Review Form
IV. Marking guidelines for the protocol
V. Marking guidelines for Review 1 (formative assessment)
VI. Marking guidelines for Review 2 (formative assessment)
VII. Marking guidelines for the dissertation
VIII. Guidance for writing up the dissertation
IX. Printing and binding
X. Recommended books
XI. Examples of a letter of consent and a patient information letter

33
 Appendix I. Supervision agreement and record

Supervisor Agreement

Student’s name

Supervisor’s name
Project title

Online
(Adobe
Other
Method of communication Email Phone connect,
(specify)
Skype,
Webex, etc.)
Method of feedback
Copies of written feedback of all communications should be retained by students and supervisor
throughout the whole supervision period. The College retain the right to ask to obtain a copy from
this record at any time during the supervision or afterward. Please submit supervision agreement
as appendix in the protocol along with at least one supervision record. Please submit at least two
supervision records as part of the appendices of Review 1 appendices, and at least two
supervision records as part of Review 2 appendices.
Please specify periods of non-availability and any
Other arrangements other points or special needs that may affect the
supervision.
Supervisor

Student

Please confirm the feasibility of the project and

comment on access to data and resources
Project feasibility including equipment, literature and any other
practicalities arising from the proposed methods
and timescale.
Supervisor

Student

34
 Please consider any ethical and governance issues
Ethical considerations & Research
such as REC approvals, appropriate permissions,
Governance
institutional sponsorship and indemnities.
Supervisor

Student

Conduct a preliminary risk assessment and inform

Health and safety issues the Collage if you think there is any Health & Safety
concern involved in this project.
Supervisor

Student

Signatures Date

Student

Supervisor
Student and supervisor should all have a copy.
The college could ask to obtain a copy at any time during the supervision or
afterward.
Please submit supervision agreement as appendix in the protocol along with at least
one supervision record. Please submit at least two supervision records as part of the
appendices of Review 1 appendices, and at least two supervision records as part of
Review 2 appendices.

35
The Role of the Supervisor

An important part of the managing the supervision relationship is the completion of the supervision
agreement. This agreement should be reviewed periodically and revised if necessary. It should eb
completed once the supervisor is allocated at the start of Research Methodology II module.

Supervision meetings should be at mutually agreed times and, as a rule of thumb, the College
expects there to be contact between supervisor and student at least once (one hour) every other
week.
Please be aware that students may request to communicate with you in the afternoon, but they are
encouraged to arrange this is advance in a mutually convenient time. A brief written record of each
supervision meeting should be made on the relevant form. The completed form should be agreed by
both the student and the supervisor, and copies retained by both. If supervision meetings are conducted
by telephone, a form should be completed by student and sent to supervisor to review and amend as
required. Increasing numbers of students and supervisors find email a useful way of maintaining contact
and to keep a record of action points required to ensure smooth progress throughout all tasks required
to complete the research project. Email has the advantage of automatically providing a record for future
reference, but care needs to be taken to be explicit over agreed actions and timescales.

Student Expectations
Whilst individual requirements will vary students can expect supervisors to:
• treat them as an experienced professional, prepared to take responsibility for their own learning
and development.
• be available for consultation at a reasonable notice, as negotiated within the supervision
agreement, and to inform them in advance if they will be unavailable for more than a
fortnight.
• read drafts of their work and provide verbal and/or written comments within a reasonable period
(normally two weeks, although this should be negotiated in advance and is dependent on the
students’ adherence to agreed timescales).
• alert them to any areas of their work which needs attention in order for them to submit a
successful project, advise on action to be taken and support available.
• provide or advise them on arranging support relevant to specific aspects of their project and key
skills (guidance on information technology, development of skills in academic writing).
Consulting the Programme Leader and the Dental Research Director is encouraged to
personalised develop plan if required.
• advise on the possibility of publishing their work. We encourage publishing the work in
conferences and/or peer review journal. Consulting the Programme Leader and the Dental
Research Director is encouraged to identify the best way forward for the publication strategy.

Students should not expect supervisors to:

• take the initiative in the direction of the project or in maintaining communication over their
progress.
• provide solutions to problems and answers to questions where to do so would be to
compromise the students' management of the project and the status of the final product as
evidence of the students' capabilities as an independent, self-directed learner worthy of gaining
level 7 postgraduate degree.
• correct all errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation, provide tuition in written English, or
proof-read their work.

36
Supervision Record Sheet

Student’s name:

Date: Time: From: To:

Points discussed:
This should normally include a review of progress on action points agreed at the previous
meeting

Action agreed:
Who will be doing what, by when?

Date and time for next supervision:

Supervisor’s signature:

Student’s signature:

Student and supervisor should all have a copy.

The college could ask to obtain a copy at any time during the supervision or
afterward.
Please submit supervision agreement as appendix in the protocol along with at least
one supervision record. Please submit at least two supervision records as part of the
appendices of Review 1 appendices, and at least two supervision records as part of
Review 2 appendices.

37

Section Fail (<45%)
Research Question No clear RQ.
(10%) No advancement to
evidence-base.
Rationale Very limited.
(20%) No evidence of reading.
Rationale unsupported &
non-authoritative.
Poor range of reference
sources.
Critical Appraisal Lack of analysis &
(10%) relevance.
Aims & No clear A & O.
Objectives
(20%)
Possible Incorrect methodology
Methodology choice.
(30%) No understanding of
research issues.
No feasibility or timeline.
Presentation & Poor structure &
Research Skills presentation.
(10%) Poor referencing with
many errors.
Inconsistencies or
omissions in references.
Academic conventions
used weakly or ignored.
Incorrect use of
referencing system.
No evidence of required
research skills.
Appendix II. Marking guidelines for the proposal
Marginal Fail (45-49%)
RQ stated but not focused
and difficult to answer.
Limited impact on
evidence-base.
Basic rationale.
Awareness of main issues.
Some gaps & weaknesses.
Limited range of reference
sources
No evidence of critical
appraisal of relevant
literature.
Un-achievable A & O.
Poorly related to RQ.
Brief methodology.
Lack of detail leading to
muddled outline.
Un-convincing feasibility
and timeline.
Borderline quality of
presentation.
Clear meaning but unclear
language in places.
Referencing with errors and
inconsistencies.
Limited use of consistent
referencing system.
Some evidence of research
ability.
Limited insight into own
strengths & weaknesses.
Pass (50-59%)
Answerable RQ stated.
Likely impact on evidence-
base.
Shows some depth of
knowledge & understanding.
Evidence of wider reading.
Use of evidence to support
arguments.
Some evidence of critical
appraisal of relevant
literature.
Clearly stated A & O.
Broadly related to RQ.
Correct methodology.
Appropriate reflection on
design.
Sound knowledge of
research issues.
Basic feasibility assessment
and timeline.
Adequate quality of
presentation.
Clarity of meaning &
language.
Sound referencing with
minor errors or
inconsistencies.
Sound academic skills.
Correct use of consistent
referencing system.
Evidence of research ability.
Able to evaluate own
strengths & weaknesses.
Able to identify problems
and plan mitigation.
38
Commendation (60-69%)
Original RQ stated.
Will impact on evidence-base.
Clear knowledge and understanding
of topic.
Knowledge of literature base of topic.
Evidence of synthesis of conclusions.
Sound level of critical appraisal of
relevant literature using validated
critical appraisal tool.
Clear achievable A & O.
Related to RQ.
Sound methodology with clear
reflection on design choices.
Good knowledge of research issues.
Feasibility assessment with
contingency.
Basic timeline.
Sound presentation quality.
Clear meaning and fluent language.
Full & appropriate referencing.
Correct use of consistent referencing
system.
Good use of academic convention.
Successful demonstration of research
skills.
Takes initiative in identifying problems
and planning mitigation.
Distinction (70%+)
Logical & original RQ stated.
Will advance evidence-base.
Indicates identification of evidence gaps.
Extensive knowledge depth of the topic.
Logical arguments supported by evidence.
Acknowledgement of alternative views.
Evidence of synthesis of logical and novel
conclusions.
Extensive critical appraisal of relevant
literature using more than one validated
critical appraisal tool.
Explicit SMART A & O.
Linked to the RQ.
Detailed methodology & reflection on
choices related to RQ.
Structured assessment of research issues.
Detailed feasibility assessment with
contingency.
Realistic timeline.
Excellent presentation quality.
Articulate & fluent.
Precise, full & appropriate referencing.
Correct & consistent use of referencing
system.
Consistent & accurate use of academic
convention.
Successful demonstration of research skills.
Identification of problems and effective
planning of mitigation using a range of
resources.
 Appendix III. Ethics Review Form
THIS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROTOCOL TO AVOID
AN AUTOMATIC FAIL

ETHICS REVIEW FORM

This application form should be completed by students undertaking any research at the
College of Medicine and Dentistry (CoMD). The research MUST NOT commence until you
have received written approval from CoMD Research Ethics Committee (CoMD REC) after
checking that the research is compliant with Ulster University Ethics policy & procedures. You
should bear this in mind when setting a start date for the project.
PROJECT DETAILS
Project title

Proposed start date Anticipated end

date

APPLICANT DETAILS
Name of researcher
(applicant)
Email address

Name of Supervisor

Course

DECLARATION
The information contained in this application, including any accompanying information, is to
the best of my knowledge, complete and correct. I have attempted to identify all risks related
to the research that may arise in conducting this research and acknowledge my obligations
and the rights of the participants.

Applicant Name. Supervisor Name.

Signature Signature

Date Date

39
Please categorise your application into on of the four categories
Category A Category B
No NHS/HSC involvement No NHS/HSC involvement
No new methodologies New methodologies
No human or animal population Includes human or animal population
No vulnerable population Includes vulnerable populations
No therapeutic interventions Therapeutic interventions
No evidence of ethical or health and safety Possible ethical or health and safety risk to
risk to participants or researchers participants/researchers
Data protection act regulated research

This category involves all reviews, service This category involves all CoMD locally
evaluation/improvement projects and most delivered surveys and in-vivo studies, and
in-vitro studies. some in-vitro studies which carries health
and safety risk.
Category C Category D
NHS/HSC involvement Human Tissue Act regulated research
Research conducted outside the UK
Research conducted in collaboration with
another institute

This category requires prior gate-way

approval from the involved third party.

Category:

(a) Research Ethics initial risk assessment checklist.

Please answer each question by ticking the appropriate box.
For all applicants: YES NO
(a) Research that may need a review by an external research
ethics committee or NHS REC.
Will the study involve participants who are either patients or staff of
the NHS?
Will the study involve the use of NHS data, premises or equipment?

Will the study involve participants over 16yrs who are unable to give
informed consent?
(e.g. learning disabilities, etc.)
Has external ethics approval been sought for this research for?

(b) Research that may be deemed “above minimal risk” and

therefore require a full CoMD REC.
Does the research involve collaboration with external institutions?
(e.g. charitable bodies, other universities, etc.)

Does the research involve vulnerable groups?

Will the study require co-operation of a gatekeeper for access to the

groups or individuals to be recruited? (e.g. students at school,
Nursing Home residents, etc.)

40
Will it be necessary for the participants to take part in the study
without their knowledge and consent at the time? (e.g. covert
observation in non-public places, etc.)
Will the study involve discussion of sensitive topics? (e.g. drug use,
sexual issues, etc.).

Will tissue samples (including blood) be obtained from the

participants?

Is pain or more than mild discomfort likely to result from the study?

Could the study induce psychological stress or anxiety, or cause

harm or negative consequences beyond that encountered in normal
life?
Will the study involve prolonged or repetitive testing?

Will the research involve administrative or secure data that requires

permission from the appropriate authorities before use?
Is there a possibility that the safety of the researcher might be in
question?

Will the research take place outside the UK?

Will the research involve respondents to the internet or other

visual/vocal methods where the participants might be identifiable?
Will the research involve the sharing of data or confidential
information beyond the initial consent given?
Will financial inducements (other than reasonable expenses and/or
compensation for time) be offered to participants?

If you have answered “NO” to all questions, your application may be subject to proportionate
light-touch review only. Submit your completed and signed form along with your protocol for
assessment REC chair.

If you have answered “YES” to any questions in the first section (external or NHS review), you
will need to send the completed and signed form, along with all relevant associated
documentation to the appropriate body for ethical review. Once the ethics approval has been
granted by that body, a copy should be submitted along with your protocol for assessment by
the College REC chair.

If you have answered “YES” to any questions in the second section (above “minimal risk”), you
will need to describe fully how you plan to mitigate the ethical issues raised by your research.
Your protocol will need to be approved by the CoMD REC chair and members. You
should submit your plans for mitigation of the ethical issues in your research using the relevant
sections of the following Ethics Review Form. Submit the completed and signed form along
with your protocol, as instructed, along with any further associated documents.

PLEASE NOTE:
Please complete this Ethics Review Form IN FULL. Failure to complete all section will result
in the form being returned to you for completion and consequent delay in approval and
commencement of your research study.

It is your responsibility to follow the CoMD and Ulster University Ethics policy & procedures, in
addition to any relevant academic or professional guidelines, during conducting your study.
41
This includes providing appropriate information sheets, consent forms, and ensuring
confidentiality in the storage and use of the data you collect. Any significant changes to your
research protocol (research question, method design or conduct, etc.) should be notified to
your supervisor and it may require a new application for ethical approval.

You cannot commence your research project until ethical approval has been given.

(b) Project details for ethical review.

1. Details of the your research
What is the principal research question?

Summarise the scientific justification for the research (rationale).

Please give a BRIEF overview of the methodology (500 words max.)

42
 Please list inclusion & exclusion criteria (where appropriate).
INCLUSION EXCLUSION

Please answer the following question by ticking the relevant box. YES NO
Has a detailed research protocol been submitted?
Will the research involve participants from “vulnerable groups”?
Note: If research involves young people or vulnerable adults a CRB check will be
required. If you already have current CRB clearance, evidence must be supplied
with this Ethics Review Form.
Does the project comply with the relevant professional body Codes of Practice and
Standards of Proficiency?
Have the relevant external permissions and consents been obtained?
If YES, list these permissions and the granting body.

If NO, outline permissions to be obtained.

2. Consents & withdrawal.

What are your arrangements for obtaining informed consent whether written, verbal or
other?
(Please supply copies of participant information sheets and consent forms)

What arrangements are in place for participants to withdraw from the study?

43
3. Data access, storage & security.
Give details of data to be collected.

Who will act as custodian of the data and control access?

Who will have access to the data?

Please detail data storage & security arrangements (including how long data will be kept
and how it will be deleted).

If the research generates personal data, please describe the arrangements for
maintaining anonymity and confidentiality.

44
4. Risk & Risk Management.
In addition to the Risk assessment in Part (a), will participants face any risk in taking part
in this research (e.g. physical, psychological, social, legal or economic)?

If YES, how will you overcome these risks?

5. Financial benefit & Conflict of Interest.

Please answer the following question by ticking the relevant box. YES NO
Does the student benefit financially from the research?
Does CoMD or Ulster University, or any institution, stand to benefit
financially from the research?
Will the participants be incentivised or compensated in any way?
Does the student have any identifiable conflict of interest?
Does CoMD or Ulster University have any identifiable conflict of interest?
If you have answered YES to any of the above, please give details below.

6. Publication & dissemination of results.

How will the results of the research be reported and disseminated? (Select all that apply)

Peer reviewed journal

Conference presentation
Internal report
Dissertation/Thesis
Other publication
Written feedback to research participants
Presentation to participants or relevant community groups
Other (Please specify)

45
7. Other ethical issues.
Are there any other ethical issues that have not been addressed which you would wish to
bring to the attention of CoMD REC?

Checklist
(Please complete before submitting form)
Yes/No
Is a copy of the research protocol attached?
Have you explained how you will select the participants?
Have you described the ethical issues related to the well-being of
participants?
Have you considered health and safety issues for the participants and
researchers?
Have you included details of data protection including data storage?
Have you described fully how you will maintain confidentiality?
Is a participant consent form attached?
Is a participant information sheet attached?
Is a copy of your questionnaire/topic guide attached?
Where applicable, is evidence of a current CRB check attached?

46
CoMD REC USE ONLY.

Y N N/A
Will the main experimental procedure be explained to participants in advance?
Will it be made clear to the participants that this is a student project?
Will the participants be told that their participation is voluntary?
Will a consent form be completed for their participation?
If using questionnaires, will participants be given the option to omit questions
that they do not want to answer?
Will participants be told that they can withdraw from the research at any time?
If the research is observational will your participants be asked for their consent
to be studied?
Will participants be told that their data will be kept fully confidential?
Will participants be debriefed at the end of their participation?
Will participants be deliberately misled in any way?
Will participants be incentivised and/or compensated in any way?
Are the questions asked potentially upsetting?
Does the project involve working with animals?
Does the project involve working with children (under the age of 18)?
Does the project involve working with people with learning or communication
difficulties?
Does the project involve working with people in custody?
Does the project involve people engaged in illegal activities?
Does the researcher have relevant CRB clearance?

Proportionate review (minimal risk). -

Pass on for Full REC review (above minimal risk). -
Approval. -
Approval subject to amendment(s). -
Details:

Rejection. -
Details:

Reviewer Name: …………………………………………………………………….

Designation: …………………………………………………………………………..

Signed: ........................................................................................
Date: ..............................
Supervisor / REC Chair (delete as appropriate)

47

Section Fail (<45%)
Introduction • No clear introduction
(10%) • Unclear research
question.
• Poor communication of
ideas.
• No use of referencing.
Literature • Very limited.
Review OR • Little evidence of
Background reading.
(30%) • Unsubstantiated
generalisation of
research evidence.
• Poor range of
reference sources.
• Poor degree of critical
appraisal.
• Lack of attempt to
analyse or evaluate
literature.
Methodology • Inappropriate and
(30%) unclear methodology
and / or not correctly
applied in practice.
• Lack of appreciation of
research methodology.
Possible • Inadequate /
Outcomes incomplete discussion
(15%) of possible outcomes.
• Only covered positive
predictions.
• No evidence of impact
of the research in the
Appendix IV. Marking guidelines for the protocol
Marginal Fail (45-49%)
• Some evidence of
introducing the project
• Research question
justified by some limited
analysis
• Basic in range or depth
• Limited range of
reference sources
• Evidence of critical
appraisal, but in a limited
or descriptive manner.
• Some use of evidence to
support comments, but
not consistent in
interpretation.
• Clearly outlined method
of data collection but not
wholly correctly applied
in practice.
• Lack of detail.
• Basic appreciation of
research methods.
• Adequate predictions of
possible outcomes both
positive and negative.
• Simple feasibility
• Limited evidence of the
prospective value of the
Pass (50-59%) Commendation (60-69%) Distinction (70%+)
• Sound introduction to • Focused introduction to • Clear identification of the
project. the project focus of project and a
• Research question • Good understanding of logical original RQ posed
stated with some the topic area. • Excellent evidence
justification. • Evidence informed informed rational &
• Demonstrates a sound rationale & justification justification of the RQ.
understanding of topic to RQ.
area.
• Moderate range and • Good range and depth • Extensive range and
depth appropriate to appropriate to topic. depth of sources
topic. • Evidence of logical & judiciously selected.
• Evidence of wider analytical thinking. • Thorough critical review of
reading. • Literature integrated literature, well integrated
• Evidence of linking well with sound degree into study.
literature into study with of critical review. • Clear knowledge of
some criticism apparent. • Accurate limitations of literature
• Emergent appreciation communication of ideas base.
of alternatives. and concepts. • Exploration of other ideas
and contradictions.
• Clearly outlined method • Focussed method of • Demonstrates originality in
with a degree of data collection with the choice or development
reflection. critical reflection on of methods.
• Methods generally design. • Provides evidence of
correctly applied. • Demonstrates understanding of complex
• Shows a good competency in methods.
appreciation of research research methodology. • Evidence of high-quality
methodology. • Evidence of considered analysis including
reliability and validity. reliability & validity.
• Good predictions of • Very good predictions • Excellent predictions of
possible outcomes both of possible outcomes possible outcomes both
positive and negative. both positive and positive and negative
• Some feasibility negative. • Clearly shown impact of
assessment. • Sound feasibility the research in the context
• Generally, shows the analysis with mitigation. of current knowledge.
potential impact of the
48
 context of current research in the context research in the context • Clearly shown impact • Evidence of extensive
knowledge. of current knowledge. of current knowledge. of the research in the personal research &
context of current evaluation.
knowledge.
Presentation • Poor structure & • Borderline quality of • Satisfactory quality of • Sound presentation • Excellent presentation
& meaning. presentation presentation. quality. quality.
Research • Poor referencing with • Clear meaning but • Clarity of meaning & • Clear meaning and • Articulate & fluent.
skills. many errors. unclear language. language. fluent language. • Precise, full & appropriate
(15%) • Inconsistencies or • Competent referencing • Sound referencing with • Full, appropriate & referencing.
omissions in but with errors and minor errors or correct use of the • Consistent & correct use
referencing. inconsistencies. inconsistencies. Harvard system. of Harvard system.
• Academic conventions • Academic conventions • Appropriate academic • Sound uses of • Consistent & accurate use
used weakly or largely evident. skills. academic convention. of academic convention.
ignored. • Limited use of Harvard • Correct use of Harvard • Successful • Successful demonstration
• Incorrect use of system. system. demonstration of of research skills with a
Harvard referencing. • Some evidence of • Evidence of research research skills with significant degree of
• No evidence of research ability but with ability under limited minimal guidance & autonomy.
required research substantial guidance & guidance & supervision. supervision. • Identification of problems
skills. supervision. • Able to identify problems • Takes initiative in and effective planning of
and plan mitigation. identifying problems mitigation using a range of
and planning resources.
mitigation.

49
 Appendix V. Marking guidelines for Review 1 (formative assessment)
(distribution of marks is exactly the same as the final dissertation, so this review is assessed from a total of 60% only)
Section Fail (<45%)
Introduction • No clear
(5%) introduction
• Unclear RQ.
• Weakness in
knowledge base.
Literature • Very limited in
Review OR range or depth of sources.
Background • Little evidence of
(20%) reading.
• Unsubstantiated
generalisation of research
evidence.
• Poor degree of
critical appraisal and
inconsistent analysis.
• Lack of attempt to
analyse or evaluate
literature.
Methodology • Inappropriate and
(20%) unclear methodology.
• No skills in
application of techniques.
• Absent or poor
appreciation of research
methods.
• No ethical
considerations.
Marginal Fail (45-49%)
• Some evidence of
introducing the project.
• RQ justified by some
limited analysis.
• Limited in range or
depth of resources
• Literature referred to
critically, but in a limited or
descriptive manner.
• Deals with complex
issues systematically and
can make appropriate
judgements.
• Outlined
methodology.
• Lack of appropriate
level of detail.
• Some errors
apparent.
• Demonstrates some
ability in research skills.
• Limited ethical
consideration with no
evidence of mitigation.
Pass (50-59%)
• Project introduced.
• RQ stated, justified
by a degree of critical
analysis of existing data
which is at the forefront of
the field.
• Moderate range
and depth of resources
appropriate to topic
• Literature
appropriately linked into
study with good degree of
critical evaluation.
• Deals with complex
issues systematically and
creatively.
• Clearly outlined
methodology.
• Level of detail
ensures clarity.
• Methods generally
correctly applied.
• Demonstrates
expertise in research skills,
with a good exploration of
any alternatives.
• Ethical issues
explored in an adequate
manner.
50
Commendation (60-69%)
• Focused
introduction to the project
• An original RQ
stated with a sound
justification.
• High level of
critical analysis of existing
data which is at the
forefront of the field.
• Wide range and
depth of resources
appropriate to topic
• Literature
integrated well with
appropriate critical
comments
• Deals with
complex issues
systematically and
creatively.
• Evidence of some
new insights relevant to
the topic.
• Appropriate and
clearly outlined method of
data collection.
• Some originality
of method.
• Demonstrates
competency in research
skills.
• Thorough
exploration of any
alternative.
Distinction (70%+)
• Clear identification of
the focus of project and a
logical original RQ.
• Excellent justification
of the research question.
• Demonstrates critical
awareness of current
problems and new insights.
• Extensive range and
depth of resources used.
• Thorough critical
review of literature that is
well integrated into study.
• Evidence of analysis
& synthesis of complex
issues.
• Evidence of
originality & creativity in the
application of new insights to
the topic.
• Appropriate and
original choice of
methodology.
• Demonstrates
exceptional competency in
research methods and
exploration of alternatives
• Makes sound
judgements in the absence of
complete data or available
techniques

Presentation & • Poor structure &
Research skills meaning.
(15%) • Poor referencing
with many errors.
• Inconsistencies or
omissions in referencing.
• Academic
conventions used weakly or
ignored.
• Lack of, or incorrect
use of, Harvard referencing.
• No evidence of
required research skills.
• substantial guidance &
• Borderline quality of
presentation
• Clear meaning but
unclear language.
• Competent
referencing but with errors
and inconsistencies.
• Academic
conventions largely evident.
• Limited use of
Harvard system.
• Some evidence of
research ability but with
supervision.
• •
• Satisfactory quality
of presentation.
• Clarity of meaning
& language.
• Sound referencing
with minor errors or
inconsistencies.
• Appropriate
academic skills.
• Evidence of
research ability under
limited guidance &
supervision..
• Correct use of
Harvard system.
Able to identify
problems and plan
mitigation.
51
• Demonstrates a
degree of autonomy in
planning.
• Sound
consideration of ethical
issues including
mitigation.
• Sound
presentation quality.
• Clear meaning
and fluent language.
• Full, appropriate &
correct use of the Harvard
system.
• Sound use of
academic convention.
• Successful
demonstration of research
skills with minimal
guidance & supervision.
• Takes initiative in
identifying problems and
planning mitigation.
• problems and effective
• Evidence of personal
responsibility for the
execution of the project.
• Excellent
appreciation of the ethical
issues involved and their
mitigation.
• Excellent
presentation quality.
• Articulate & fluent.
• Precise, full &
appropriate referencing.
• Excellent &
consistent use of Harvard
system.
• Consistent &
accurate use of academic
convention.
• Successful
demonstration of research
skills with a significant
degree of autonomy.
• Identification of
planning of mitigation using a
range of resources.
• Potentially
publishable material.
 Appendix VI. Marking guidelines for Review 2 (formative assessment)
(distribution of marks is exactly the same as the final dissertation, so this review is assessed from a total of 70% only)
Section Fail (<45%)
Methodology • Inappropriate and
(20%) unclear methodology.
• No skills in
application of techniques.
• Absent or poor
appreciation of research
methods.
• No ethical
considerations.
Results • Muddled or very
(15%) limited presentation of
results.
• No evidence of
correct use of data or
critical analysis
techniques.
• Incorrect statistical
analysis.
• No evidence of
data to provide useful
insights.
Marginal Fail (45-49%)
• Outlined
methodology.
• Lack of appropriate
level of detail.
• Some errors
apparent.
• Demonstrates some
ability in research skills.
• Limited ethical
consideration with no
evidence of mitigation.
• Straightforward
presentation of results.
• Largely descriptive
with predictable outcomes.
• Use of data analysis
but not wholly correctly
applied.
• Limited use of data to
provide new insights.
• There is some
evidence of both analysis and
synthesis.
Pass (50-59%)
• Clearly outlined
methodology.
• Level of detail
ensures clarity.
• Methods generally
correctly applied.
• Demonstrates
expertise in research skills,
with a good exploration of
any alternatives.
• Ethical issues
explored in an adequate
manner.
• Clear,
straightforward presentation
of results.
• Appropriate data
analysis used and generally
correctly applied.
• Appropriate use of
statistical analysis.
• Some use of data to
provide new insights.
• There is some
evidence of both analysis
and synthesis.
52
Commendation (60-69%)
• Appropriate and
clearly outlined method of
data collection.
• Some originality of
method.
• Demonstrates
competency in research
skills.
• Thorough
exploration of any
alternative.
• Demonstrates a
degree of autonomy in
planning.
• Sound
consideration of ethical
issues including mitigation.
• Clear presentation
of results in appropriate
formats.
• Sound use of data
analysis, correctly applied
in the study.
• Sound use of
statistical analysis,
including some more
complex analysis.
• Evidence of good
use of the data to provide
useful new thinking and
new insights.
Distinction (70%+)
• Appropriate and
original choice of
methodology.
• Demonstrates
exceptional competency in
research methods and
exploration of alternatives
• Makes sound
judgements in the absence of
complete data or available
techniques
• Evidence of personal
responsibility for the
execution of the project.
• Excellent
appreciation of the ethical
issues involved and their
mitigation.
• Results presented in
creative & innovative formats.
• Innovative use of
data or critical analysis
techniques that are correctly
applied in the study.
• Demonstrates correct
use of advanced statistical
analysis.
• Prioritisation of
results presentation in the
context of already published
data at the forefront of the
field.
• Use of data
techniques to generate new
insights from the results.

Discussion & • Little or no
Conclusions evaluation of the
(20%) methodology used.
• Weak or naïve
understanding of the
research process.
• Failure of, or poor,
reference to the relevant
literature.
• Discussion not
reflecting the findings from
the study.
• No assessment of
limitations.
• No appreciation of
future research.
• Little or no
conclusion.
Presentation • Poor structure &
& meaning.
Research • Poor referencing
Skills with many errors.
(15%) • Inconsistencies or
omissions in referencing.
• Basic attempt to
evaluate the method used in
the light of current knowledge.
• Predictable outcomes
with only a slight extension of
the topic..
• Some critical
reference to the relevant
literature
• Poor assessment of
the study limitations.
• Poor assessment of
the future research potential.
• Basic conclusions
from discussion.
• Borderline quality of
presentation
• Clear meaning but
unclear language.
• Competent
referencing but with errors
and inconsistencies.
• Some useful
evaluative points made
regarding the methodology
used in the light of current
knowledge.
• Adequate critical
analysis of the results with
reference to the relevant
literature.
• Straightforward
discussion, appropriate to
the results and related to the
literature.
• Some original
insights or ideas presents on
the basis of the results
obtained.
• Adequate analysis
of the limitations of the
study.
• Appreciation of the
future research potential.
• Sound conclusions
related to results &
discussion.
• Satisfactory quality
of presentation.
• Clarity of meaning &
language.
• Sound referencing
with minor errors or
inconsistencies.
53
• Sound case for the
methodology used with a
good grasp of the
strengths and problems of
the design and resulting
outcomes
• Clear and
appropriate critical analysis
of results in the light of
available relevant literature
• Clear rounded
discussion identifying key
issues appropriately
• Shows some
originality in the application
of knowledge to the
research question.
• Sound analysis
and discussion of
limitations.
• Sound
assessment of the value in
relation to future research
activity.
• Sound conclusions
related to results &
discussion.
• Sound
presentation quality.
• Clear meaning and
fluent language.
• Full, appropriate &
correct use of the Harvard
system.
• Potential for new
perspectives on the topic
developed.
• Evaluate the
effectiveness of the
methodology used, coupled
with an analysis of the
strengths & weaknesses of
the design and resulting
outcomes.
• Communicates new
or novel conclusions clearly to
a non-specialist audience.
• Shows originality in
the application of knowledge
to the research question, in
the formulation of new ideas,
methods and conclusions.
• Thorough and critical
reference to the relevant
literature.
• Discussion of results
related to issues raised in the
introduction and literature
review.
• Detailed analysis of
the limitations and
suggestions for mitigation.
• Clear identification of
future research potential.
• Sound conclusions
related to results &
discussion.
• Excellent
presentation quality.
• Articulate & fluent.
• Precise, full &
appropriate referencing.
• Excellent &
consistent use of Harvard
system.
• Academic • Academic • Appropriate • Sound use of • Consistent &
conventions used weakly conventions largely evident. academic skills. academic convention. accurate use of academic
or ignored. • Limited use of • Evidence of • Successful convention.
• Lack of, or Harvard system. research ability under limited demonstration of research • Successful
incorrect use of, Harvard • Some evidence of guidance & supervision.. skills with minimal demonstration of research
referencing. research ability but with • Correct use of guidance & supervision. skills with a significant degree
• No evidence of substantial guidance & Harvard system. • Takes initiative in of autonomy.
required research skills. supervision. • Able to identify identifying problems and • Identification of
problems and plan planning mitigation. problems and effective
mitigation. planning of mitigation using a
range of resources.
• Potentially
publishable material.

54
 Appendix VII. Marking guidelines for the dissertation

Section Fail (<45%) Marginal Fail (45-49%) Pass (50-59%) Commendation (60-69%) Distinction (70%+)
Abstract • Unfocussed & unclear. • Summary of the aims, • Summary of the aims, • Succinct summary of • Clear & succinct details of
(5%) • Lack of key outcomes and outcomes and the aims, outcomes the aims and outcomes of
information. conclusions of the project conclusions of the and conclusions of the the project.
• Word count >300. presented. project presented. project. • Summary of the research
• Some key points omitted. • Word count <300. • Some identification of & conclusions placed in
• Word count <300. future. the context of existing
• Word count <300. knowledge.
• Word count <300.
Introduction • No clear introduction • Some evidence of • Project introduced. • Focused introduction • Clear identification of the
(5%) • Unclear RQ. introducing the project. • RQ stated, justified by a to the project focus of project and a
• Weakness in • RQ justified by some degree of critical • An original RQ stated logical original RQ.
knowledge base. limited analysis. analysis of existing data with a sound • Excellent justification of
which is at the forefront justification. the research question.
of the field. • High level of critical • Demonstrates critical
analysis of existing awareness of current
data which is at the problems and new
forefront of the field. insights.
Literature • Very limited in range or • Limited in range or depth • Moderate range and • Wide range and depth • Extensive range and
Review OR depth of sources. of resources depth of resources of resources depth of resources used.
Background • Little evidence of • Literature referred to appropriate to topic appropriate to topic • Thorough critical review of
(20%) reading. critically, but in a limited • Literature appropriately • Literature integrated literature that is well
• Unsubstantiated or descriptive manner. linked into study with well with appropriate integrated into study.
generalisation of • Deals with complex good degree of critical critical comments • Evidence of analysis &
research evidence. issues systematically and evaluation. • Deals with complex synthesis of complex
• Poor degree of critical can make appropriate • Deals with complex issues systematically issues.
appraisal and judgements. issues systematically and creatively. • Evidence of originality &
inconsistent analysis. and creatively. • Evidence of some new creativity in the
• Lack of attempt to insights relevant to the application of new insights
analyse or evaluate topic. to the topic.
literature.

55
 Section Fail (<45%)
Methodology • Inappropriate and
(20%) unclear methodology.
• No skills in application
of techniques.
• Absent or poor
appreciation of
research methods.
• No ethical
considerations.
Results • Muddled or very limited
(15%) presentation of results.
• No evidence of correct
use of data or critical
analysis techniques.
• Incorrect statistical
analysis.
• No evidence of data to
provide useful insights.
Marginal Fail (45-49%)
• Outlined methodology.
• Lack of appropriate level
of detail.
• Some errors apparent.
• Demonstrates some
ability in research skills.
• Limited ethical
consideration with no
evidence of mitigation.
• Straightforward
presentation of results.
• Largely descriptive with
predictable outcomes.
• Use of data analysis but
not wholly correctly
applied.
• Limited use of data to
provide new insights.
• There is some evidence
of both analysis and
synthesis.
Pass (50-59%) Commendation (60-69%)
• Clearly outlined • Appropriate and clearly
methodology. outlined method of
• Level of detail ensures data collection.
clarity. • Some originality of
• Methods generally method.
correctly applied. • Demonstrates
• Demonstrates expertise competency in
in research skills, with a research skills.
good exploration of any • Thorough exploration
alternatives. of any alternative.
• Ethical issues explored • Demonstrates a
in an adequate manner. degree of autonomy in
planning.
• Sound consideration of
ethical issues including
mitigation.
• Clear, straightforward • Clear presentation of
presentation of results. results in appropriate
• Appropriate data formats.
analysis used and • Sound use of data
generally correctly analysis, correctly
applied. applied in the study.
• Appropriate use of • Sound use of statistical
statistical analysis. analysis, including
• Some use of data to some more complex
provide new insights. analysis.
• There is some evidence • Evidence of good use
of both analysis and of the data to provide
synthesis. useful new thinking
and new insights.
56
Distinction (70%+)
• Appropriate and original
choice of methodology.
• Demonstrates exceptional
competency in research
methods and exploration
of alternatives
• Makes sound judgements
in the absence of
complete data or available
techniques
• Evidence of personal
responsibility for the
execution of the project.
• Excellent appreciation of
the ethical issues involved
and their mitigation.
• Results presented in
creative & innovative
formats.
• Innovative use of data or
critical analysis
techniques that are
correctly applied in the
study.
• Demonstrates correct use
of advanced statistical
analysis.
• Prioritisation of results
presentation in the
context of already
published data at the
forefront of the field.
• Use of data techniques to
generate new insights
from the results.
• Potential for new
perspectives on the topic
developed.
 Section Fail (<45%)
Discussion • Little or no evaluation of
& the methodology used.
conclusions • Weak or naïve
(20%) understanding of the
research process.
• Failure of, or poor,
reference to the relevant
literature.
• Discussion not reflecting
the findings from the
study.
• No assessment of
limitations.
• No appreciation of future
research.
• Little or no conclusion.
Presentation • Poor structure &
& meaning.
Research • Poor referencing with
skills. many errors.
(15%) • Inconsistencies or
omissions in referencing.
Marginal Fail (45-49%) Pass (50-59%)
• Basic attempt to • Some useful evaluative
evaluate the method points made regarding
used in the light of the methodology used in
current knowledge. the light of current
• Predictable outcomes knowledge.
with only a slight • Adequate critical
extension of the topic.. analysis of the results
• Some critical reference with reference to the
to the relevant literature relevant literature.
• Poor assessment of the • Straightforward
study limitations. discussion, appropriate
• Poor assessment of the to the results and related
future research potential. to the literature.
• Basic conclusions from • Some original insights or
discussion. ideas presents on the
basis of the results
obtained.
• Adequate analysis of the
limitations of the study.
• Appreciation of the
future research potential.
• Sound conclusions
related to results &
discussion.
• Borderline quality of • Satisfactory quality of
presentation presentation.
• Clear meaning but • Clarity of meaning &
unclear language. language.
57
Commendation (60-69%) Distinction (70%+)
• Sound case for the • Evaluate the effectiveness
methodology used with of the methodology used,
a good grasp of the coupled with an analysis
strengths and of the strengths &
problems of the design weaknesses of the design
and resulting outcomes and resulting outcomes.
• Clear and appropriate • Communicates new or
critical analysis of novel conclusions clearly
results in the light of to a non-specialist
available relevant audience.
literature • Shows originality in the
• Clear rounded application of knowledge
discussion identifying to the research question,
key issues in the formulation of new
appropriately ideas, methods and
• Shows some originality conclusions.
in the application of • Thorough and critical
knowledge to the reference to the relevant
research question. literature.
• Sound analysis and • Discussion of results
discussion of related to issues raised in
limitations. the introduction and
• Sound assessment of literature review.
the value in relation to • Detailed analysis of the
future research activity. limitations and
• Sound conclusions suggestions for mitigation.
related to results & • Clear identification of
discussion. future research potential.
• Sound conclusions related
to results & discussion.
• Sound presentation • Excellent presentation
quality. quality.
• Clear meaning and • Articulate & fluent.
fluent language. • Precise, full & appropriate
referencing.
• Academic conventions
used weakly or ignored.
• Lack of, or incorrect use
of, Harvard referencing.
• No evidence of required
research skills.
• Competent referencing • Sound referencing with
but with errors and minor errors or
inconsistencies. inconsistencies.
• Academic conventions • Appropriate academic
largely evident. skills.
• Limited use of Harvard • Evidence of research
system. ability under limited
• Some evidence of guidance & supervision.
research ability but with • Correct use of Harvard
substantial guidance & system.
supervision. • Able to identify problems
and plan mitigation.
58
• Full, appropriate & • Excellent & consistent use
correct use of the of Harvard system.
Harvard system. • Consistent & accurate use
• Sound use of of academic convention.
academic convention. • Successful demonstration
• Successful of research skills with a
demonstration of significant degree of
research skills with autonomy.
minimal guidance & • Identification of problems
supervision. and effective planning of
• Takes initiative in mitigation using a range of
identifying problems resources.
and planning • Potentially publishable
mitigation. material.
 Appendix VIII. Guidance for writing up the dissertation
When writing up your dissertation (double spaced, 12 point font), use the main headings below in the order
shown below:

Each new main heading starts on a new page. Subheadings do not need a new page. You may need extra
subheadings in sections 2 to 3 depend on your topic. Subheading of section 4 will depend on the employed
methodology and study design, the subheadings given below is just examples. You will need new
subheadings in sections 5 and 6, but these will be specific to your dissertation.

{Title Page} –This heading is not needed, but the title page is needed. The title page includes the followings:
CoMD logo and Ulster University logo, thesis title, student name in the hard copies but student number only
in the PDF copy that will be submitted by the specified deadline through the relevant link, year, qualification
studied for.

Supervisors (only in hard copies)- This page include the supervisors name, titles, and affiliations. This
page should be included in the hard copies but removed from the PDF copy that will be submitted by the
specified deadline through the Turnitin link.

Declaration- This page include a declaration that the work is the student own work and has not been
published previously. This should be signed in the hard copies by the student but signature and name of
students should be removed from the PDF copy that will be submitted by the specified deadline through the
Turnitin link.

Dedication (optional- only in hard copies)- This is your opportunity to briefly express your gratitude to
family member or friend who had the most important role in your life as a Master student. This page should
be included in the hard copies but removed from the PDF copy that will be submitted by the specified deadline
through the Turnitin link.

Acknowledgment (optional- only in hard copies)-This is your opportunity to briefly thank anyone
contributed to the success of your master thesis. This page should be included in the hard copies but
removed from the PDF copy that will be submitted by the specified deadline through the Turnitin link.

i. List of Tables
ii List of Figures
iii List of Abbreviations
iv. Table of Contents

1. Abstract
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Methods
1.3 Results
1.4 Conclusions

2. Introduction
2.1. Rationale
2.2. Research Question and Hypothesis

3. Literature Review
3.1. Summary and Indications for The Present Study
3.2. Aims and Objectives

4. Methods
4.1. Study Design
4.2. Sample Size
4.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
4.5. Group Allocation
4.6. Outcome Measures
4.7. Survey Design
4.8. Sampling
4.9. Statistical Analysis
4.4. Consent and Approvals

5. Results

6. Discussion and Conclusion

6.1 Discussion of results
6.2. Confounding factors
6.3. Limitation of The Study
6.4. Conclusions
6.5. Recommendation

7.References

8.Appendices
Must include the approved ethics review form. Please mask name of student and name of supervisor in the
PDF form submitted through the Turnitin link but leave all details in the hard copies.

More details can be found inside the Research Handbook and classes teaching tools.

Any figure, table or photo included in any part of the dissertation should be self-explanatory. They should be
followed by a “legend”. The legend should include number of section. Order of the figure within the section.
Title of the figure. Description of the figure. Source. Below is an example for a well-structured legend to a
figure in section two of one of the previous dissertations.

Figure 2.1. Maxillary Sinus Anatomy. This figure illustrates the anatomy of the maxillary sinus and its
opening into the middle meatus. (Source: designed by the author of this thesis).

60
 Appendix IX. Printing and binding

The thesis must include:

Title/Cover page – including University and College logos, the thesis title, the candidate’s full name, year and
the degree for which it is submitted.

Example:

Comparison of the different bone grafting materials on long term stability of the augmented site

Research Dissertation 2016

Submitted to Ulster University and College of Medicine and Dentistry in Part Completion for the Award of

…………………

By ……………………..

Supervisors- This page include the supervisors name, titles, and affiliations.

Declaration- This page includes a declaration that the work is the student own work and has not been
published previously. This should be signed in the hard copies by the student.

Dedication (optional- only in hard copies)- This is your opportunity to briefly express your gratitude to
family member or friend who had the most important role in your life as a Master student.

Acknowledgment (optional- only in hard copies)-This is your opportunity to briefly thank anyone
contributed to the success of your master thesis.

i List of Tables
ii List of Figures
iii List of Abbreviations
iv Table of Contents

1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Literature Review OR Background
4. Methods
5. Results
6, Discussion and Conclusion
7. References
8. Appendices

Each section from the above-mentioned sections should start from a new page.

Printing
Plain white A4 sized paper (210 x 297 mm) one sided printing. Margins at the binding edge (left margin) must
be not less than 40 mm and other margins not less than 20 mm. 12-point font with double spacing (except for
tables, indented quotations or footnotes which can be single spaced) or 11 point font with 1.5 spacing.

All pages must be numbered in one continuous sequence, i.e. from the title page to the last page, from 1
onwards. This sequence must include everything bound in the volume, including diagrams, questionnaires,
blank pages, appendices etc.

Illustrative materials
61
Any supporting material which cannot be bound such as CD with audio recordings can also be submitted.
This can be placed in a pocket attached to the back cover. If there are any other forms of supporting material,
it may be submitted at the discretion of Programme Leader and the Research Director. Each copy of the
thesis must be accompanied by a full set of this supporting material.

Binding instructions

Hard bound copy must be submitted by the deadline (no soft binding or ring binding please) covered in black
cloth (e.g. water resistant material).

The College only require one bound copy of your dissertation for the College Library. However, you might
wish to print and bind a copy for yourself, and you should check with your supervisor if they wish to receive
a hard copy or they are happy to receive the PDF and Word document from your final dissertation.

Lettered in gold up the spine with degree, year, and name in size 16 or 18 point.

Lettered on the front cover in gold foil including the thesis title, the candidate’s full name, year and the degree
for which it is submitted - size 16 or 18 point.

Word limit

The maximum word limit allowed is 15000 words for 60 Credit module (from Introduction to Conclusion), and
6000 words +/- 10% for 30 Credits module.

The word count does NOT include front pages, tables, legends, headings, in-text citations, reference lists,
and appendices (consent forms etc.).

Submission

A PDF copy that has the students number without name should be submitted through blackboard via the
relevant link under the module “Research Dissertation”. You have the opportunity to check your work for
similarity ratio and re-submit if needed before the deadline. You can do this by either deleting the previous
version and uploading a new or replacing the previous version with the new one. Usually, your first submission
will return an Originality Report and Similarity Index in less than 10 minutes. However, second and subsequent
submissions will take more than 24 hours to process a report so do not leave the submission till last minute!
If you experience any technical difficulties while submitting, please inform the course administrator as soon
as possible.

For hard copies, you can post your dissertation to:

College Of Medicine & Dentistry

32- 34 Colmore Circus, Birmingham, B4 6BN, UK

You are also welcomed to hand it over in person to Jagdeep Khela, Birmingham campus (by appointment
only) or to the above-mentioned address.

List of Binders

The companies listed below offer a thesis binding service. You are responsible for ensuring that your thesis
is correctly bound by the company you select.

• THE BOOK BINDER - www.the-book-binder.co.uk

• BLISSETT BOOKBINDERS - www.blissetts.com
62
 • BOOKBINDERS OF LONDON LTD - www.bookbindersoflondon.com CITY BINDERS -
www.citybinders.co.uk
• COLLIS-BIRD & WITHEY - www.thesisbookbinding.co.uk
• THE DOCUMENT CENTRE – www.thesis-binding.co.uk
• J.MUIR & COMPANY- www.jmuirbookbinders.co.uk
• DARWIN PRESS - www.darwinpress.co.uk
• LONDON BOOKBINDING - www.londonbookbinding.co.uk
• WALTER NEWBURY PARTNERS LTD - www.walternewbury.co.uk STUDENT BOOKBINDING -
www.studentbookbinding.co.uk
• THE HERTS BOOK BINDER - www.thehertsbookbinder.co.uk BOOKOBSCURE -
www.bookobscure.co.uk
• THE THESIS MAN - www.thethesisman.co.uk
• OTTER BOOKBINDING - http://otterbookbinding.com/
• PRONTAPRINT (RUSSELL SQUARE) - www.pprussellsquare.com/students.php HOLLINGWORTH
& MOSS LTD - www.mythesis.co.uk

Below is an example of a standard binding cover.

63
 Appendix X. Recommended books

Recommended books

Gosall and Gosall, 2015, The Doctors’s Guide to Critical Appraisal, Fourth Edition, UK, PasTest
Ltd

Greswell and Greswell, 2018, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches, Fifth Edition, UK, SAGE.

Norman and Streiner, 2014, Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials, fourth Edition, USA, PMPH-USA

64
 Appendix XI. Examples of a letter of consent and a patient information letter

Dear Patient,

This project set up by the College of Medicine and Dentistry (CoMD) is designed to collect data about
our patients (you) and your visit to the college clinic.

It is important for us to be able to measure our effectiveness as dentists, and the following short
questionnaire will enable us to do this. The questionnaire is divided into 3 sections,

Your General Health

Any pain you may be experiencing
Your level of satisfaction with your visit to the clinic

Please fill in the set of questions given to you as you are waiting for your treatment. This should take only a
few minutes. After your treatment you will be given a final sheet with some questions about your satisfaction.

The information you give is very important to the CoMD and the Dental profession.

Please also sign the slip below giving us permission to use the data you give us for research
purposes. Your personal details are for reference purposes only and will not be made public. If you
have any question please ask the researcher.

Thank you very much for your participation in this important study.

Research Director

I have discussed the project with XXXXXXXXXXX (the Researcher). I understand and give permission for
the information given by me in the following questionnaire to be used for the purpose of research by the
CoMD.

Participant Name ____________________________

Signature ____________________________

Date ______________________

Researcher Name ____________________________

Signature ____________________________

Date ______________________

65
Dental implants or dentures: Which to choose?

Patient Information Sheet

You are being invited to take part in a research study. Before you decide it is important for you to understand
why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take time to read the following information
carefully. Talk to others about the study if you wish.

Feel free to ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information but, most
importantly, take time to decide whether or not you wish to take part.

What is the purpose of the study?

The study examines how dentists and their patients make decisions about which treatments to have. In this
study we are looking at how people decide whether or not to have dental implants.

Why have I been chosen?

You have been identified by your dentist as someone who has recently had dental implants suggested to
them as a treatment option. It does not matter whether you have actually had the implants or not. We are
interested in hearing a range of experiences from people who have chosen to have implants and those who
have not. We want to interview you because your experiences are important.

Do I have to take part in the interview?

No. It’s up to you to decide whether or not to take part. If you decide to take part now you can change your
mind at any time, even after the interview has started. We will not tell your dentist if you choose to take part
or not, and your treatment from your dentist will not be affected in any way.

What will happen if I take part?

A research interviewer from the university will ask you questions about your general dental health and specific
questions about how implants were discussed with you, and how you came to the decision about whether to
have them or not. If you don’t want to answer a question you don’t have to, and you can end the interview at
any point. Your interview will last about an hour and will be tape recorded.

Why do you record interviews?

We record the interviews because it is hard to take notes of what people say, listen carefully and think all at
the same time! After the interview the recording will be listened to carefully and every word that both you and
the interviewer say will be typed down. We use this written record, to help us remember what people said.
The recording will be kept until the end of the study, and then destroyed.

What do I have to do?

If you are interested in taking part, please send back the enclosed form, making sure you fill in your telephone
number. A researcher will get in touch with you to answer any further questions you may have. After that, if
you would like to take part, they will find out what times suit you best to be interviewed. Usually we interview
people in their own homes, but if you prefer to be interviewed here at the university we can easily arrange
that. We can provide travelling expenses of up to £20. When the interviewer arrives to interview you, they
will ask you to fill in a consent form. This is to show that you understand what the study is about, that you are
happy to be interviewed and that you are happy for us to record the interview. You should keep this copy of
this information sheet and the consent form.

Are there any benefits to helping with the interview?

Although there are no direct benefits to you personally, we hope that you find being interviewed an interesting
experience. Your involvement will give us a better understanding of how people are offered dental implants
and how they make a decision about whether to proceed or not. We believe this will be of use to health care
professionals, giving them a better understanding of what sort of information patients would like, in order to
make important decisions about treatments.

66
Are there any disadvantages to helping with the interview?
The main disadvantage is the time it will take; an interview usually lasts about an hour. When talking about
how you made the decision about dental implants you might also talk about personal things, which you may
find a bit difficult, but our interviewer is well trained and used to hearing these kinds of things.

Will my taking part in the study be kept confidential?

Yes. Everything you tell us during the interview is completely confidential. We won’t tell your dentist or anyone
else anything. All personal information – your name, names of family or friends or your dentist - or anything
else which might identify you will be removed so that no-one can identify you personally. All recordings and
written records are treated as confidential material. The written records are stored securely within the
University under the supervision of XXXXXXXX, and in compliance with the Data Protection Act will be
retained for 10 years before being destroyed. They will not be played or shown to anyone outside the research
team.

Who has reviewed the study?

The scientific merit of the study was judged positively by reviewers selected by the Medical Research Council
and the study was given a favourable ethical opinion for conduct in the NHS by XXXXX Research Ethics
Committee.

How can I get more information about the study?

If you want to know about what the interview will involve or about the study in general please get in touch
with us. Our telephone number is: XXXXXXX, please ask for XXXXXX or XXXXX. Our address is:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
(Student) (Supervisor)

Date:…………………………………

67