Descriptive versus Analytical Studies in a Clinical Setup
The epidemiologic studies are either descriptive or analytical studies. Descriptive studies include case reports, case series reports, cross-sectional studies, surveillance studies, and ecological studies whereas analytical studies are either experimental or observational. Case–control and cohort studies are the type of observational studies out of which the latter is usually the prospective study.[2]
Hence, how can a study be “cross-sectional, i.e., descriptive” and “prospective” at the same time?
They have recruited a total of 100 consecutive patients, newly diagnosed as acne vulgaris, of age 15 years and above in the study. Hence, this is a cross-sectional study which gives the snapshot of the situation for the particular period. In a cross-sectional study, the investigator measures the outcome and the exposures in the study participants at the same time.[3] However, in a cohort study (written prospective in this article), the participants do not have the outcome of interest to begin with. They are selected based on the exposure status (acne vulgaris) of the individual. They are then followed over time to evaluate for the occurrence of the outcome of interest (psychosocial in the present article).[4]
references:-
2. Kaushal K. Quality of life and psychological morbidity in vitiligo patients: A study in a teaching hospital from North-East India. Indian J Dermatol. 2015;60:512.3. Setia MS. Methodology series module 3: Cross-sectional studies. Indian J Dermatol. 2016;61:261–4.4. Setia MS. Methodology series module 1: Cohort studies. Indian J Dermatol. 2016;61:21–5.
====================================
In forensic medicine ,, the classification of studies are different :-
Research on Human Subjects
1.Studies of physiological , biochemical , pathological process … ( may be observational studies)
or
specific intervention ( whether physiological , biochemical , pathological ) in healthy persons or patients.
Researcher goals are : effect & response
2.Controlled trials of diagnostic , preventive or therapeutic measures (in large groups of persons) >> to assess individual biological variation…
It is Experimental Studies
Researcher goal is : response
3.Studies designed to determine the consequence of specific preventive or therapeutic measures ( for individual & communities).
Consequence >> complication of this intervention ( whatever intervention is preventive or therapeutic).
4.Studies concerning human health-related behaviour ( in a variety of circumstances & environments).
Good healthy behaviours…
===========
================
=========================
Data collection methods are called tools :-
examples :-
Interview : oral or written
questionnaire (written) in interview
video / audio : telephone
online survey
self administrated questionnaire ( by the participant himself / herself)
experimental methods ( intervention )
*** If you need good examples about data collection tools :-
screening test : in medical filed
nutritional assessment : direct method for individual >>> Dietary Assessment & Evaluation.
This is a really interesting question, because people use the word "survey" in a couple of different ways.
Some write "survey" and actually mean "questionnaire", which is a data collection instrument.
Some write "survey" and mean a research design (or strand of a research design) in which systematic information is collected, usually from a large sample -- technically, that could be done using a wide variety of different data collection methods, not just questionnaires.
I'm in favour of the latter usage myself (you can see why it might be a problem to "conduct a survey using surveys as a data collection instrument", or to have "surveys as a technique used in surveys"...!). The important thing, though, is to decide what definition you will use and then be clear and consistent about what that definition is in writing about your research.
I just checked a survey research textbook, and it failed to give a definition, only listing several characteristics. I'd say "survey" encompasses all four of the characteristics that you mention. I'd call survey research the systematic collection of data using a standardized data collection instrument (often called a survey, or questionnaire). The data are analyzed quantitatively, and presumably meant to generalize to a population. The survey could be a census of everyone in the population, a probability sample, or a non-probability sample, The data can be used for descriptive statistics, but also for evaluations. Surveys can be a component of randomized control trials, of quasi-experimental designs, and as a tool in regression discontinuity analysis. Thus they are a tool that supports multiple kinds of research. I would differentiate a survey from an interview protocol in the sense that a survey typically has highly structured questions and responses, while an interview protocol is more free-flowing, both in the questions that are asked and in the responses that are collected. However, it is hard to draw a distinct line because surveys can have open-ended questions, and interview protocols can ask for structured responses.
A survey is a method of data collection; it is not in itself a research design, this, in my opinion, being how one actually goes about one's research, taking into account practical issues like resource constraints, access issues etc. Thus, research design is not methodology which is about the application of methods; some use both terms interchangeably, but I think that this can lead to muddled thinking about research.
Strictly, survey is a research strategy, and not a method in itself; however, the term seems to be commonly used to mean implementation of the methods involved such as questionnaire, interview etc..
Thus, I suppose that my previous post should read 'method'.