standard types of research report

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Table of Contents

Research Report

Definition:

Research Report is a written document that presents the results of a research project or study, including the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions, in a clear and objective manner.

The purpose of a research report is to communicate the findings of the research to the intended audience, which could be other researchers, stakeholders, or the general public.

Components of Research Report

Components of Research Report are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction sets the stage for the research report and provides a brief overview of the research question or problem being investigated. It should include a clear statement of the purpose of the study and its significance or relevance to the field of research. It may also provide background information or a literature review to help contextualize the research.

Literature Review

The literature review provides a critical analysis and synthesis of the existing research and scholarship relevant to the research question or problem. It should identify the gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the literature and show how the current study addresses these issues. The literature review also establishes the theoretical framework or conceptual model that guides the research.

Methodology

The methodology section describes the research design, methods, and procedures used to collect and analyze data. It should include information on the sample or participants, data collection instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis techniques. The methodology should be clear and detailed enough to allow other researchers to replicate the study.

The results section presents the findings of the study in a clear and objective manner. It should provide a detailed description of the data and statistics used to answer the research question or test the hypothesis. Tables, graphs, and figures may be included to help visualize the data and illustrate the key findings.

The discussion section interprets the results of the study and explains their significance or relevance to the research question or problem. It should also compare the current findings with those of previous studies and identify the implications for future research or practice. The discussion should be based on the results presented in the previous section and should avoid speculation or unfounded conclusions.

The conclusion summarizes the key findings of the study and restates the main argument or thesis presented in the introduction. It should also provide a brief overview of the contributions of the study to the field of research and the implications for practice or policy.

The references section lists all the sources cited in the research report, following a specific citation style, such as APA or MLA.

The appendices section includes any additional material, such as data tables, figures, or instruments used in the study, that could not be included in the main text due to space limitations.

Types of Research Report

Types of Research Report are as follows:

Thesis is a type of research report. A thesis is a long-form research document that presents the findings and conclusions of an original research study conducted by a student as part of a graduate or postgraduate program. It is typically written by a student pursuing a higher degree, such as a Master’s or Doctoral degree, although it can also be written by researchers or scholars in other fields.

Research Paper

Research paper is a type of research report. A research paper is a document that presents the results of a research study or investigation. Research papers can be written in a variety of fields, including science, social science, humanities, and business. They typically follow a standard format that includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections.

Technical Report

A technical report is a detailed report that provides information about a specific technical or scientific problem or project. Technical reports are often used in engineering, science, and other technical fields to document research and development work.

Progress Report

A progress report provides an update on the progress of a research project or program over a specific period of time. Progress reports are typically used to communicate the status of a project to stakeholders, funders, or project managers.

Feasibility Report

A feasibility report assesses the feasibility of a proposed project or plan, providing an analysis of the potential risks, benefits, and costs associated with the project. Feasibility reports are often used in business, engineering, and other fields to determine the viability of a project before it is undertaken.

Field Report

A field report documents observations and findings from fieldwork, which is research conducted in the natural environment or setting. Field reports are often used in anthropology, ecology, and other social and natural sciences.

Experimental Report

An experimental report documents the results of a scientific experiment, including the hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. Experimental reports are often used in biology, chemistry, and other sciences to communicate the results of laboratory experiments.

Case Study Report

A case study report provides an in-depth analysis of a specific case or situation, often used in psychology, social work, and other fields to document and understand complex cases or phenomena.

Literature Review Report

A literature review report synthesizes and summarizes existing research on a specific topic, providing an overview of the current state of knowledge on the subject. Literature review reports are often used in social sciences, education, and other fields to identify gaps in the literature and guide future research.

Research Report Example

Following is a Research Report Example sample for Students:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Academic Performance among High School Students

This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and academic performance among high school students. The study utilized a quantitative research design, which involved a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 200 high school students. The findings indicate that there is a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance, suggesting that excessive social media use can lead to poor academic performance among high school students. The results of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers, as they highlight the need for strategies that can help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities.

Introduction:

Social media has become an integral part of the lives of high school students. With the widespread use of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, students can connect with friends, share photos and videos, and engage in discussions on a range of topics. While social media offers many benefits, concerns have been raised about its impact on academic performance. Many studies have found a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance among high school students (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Paul, Baker, & Cochran, 2012).

Given the growing importance of social media in the lives of high school students, it is important to investigate its impact on academic performance. This study aims to address this gap by examining the relationship between social media use and academic performance among high school students.

Methodology:

The study utilized a quantitative research design, which involved a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 200 high school students. The questionnaire was developed based on previous studies and was designed to measure the frequency and duration of social media use, as well as academic performance.

The participants were selected using a convenience sampling technique, and the survey questionnaire was distributed in the classroom during regular school hours. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

The findings indicate that the majority of high school students use social media platforms on a daily basis, with Facebook being the most popular platform. The results also show a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance, suggesting that excessive social media use can lead to poor academic performance among high school students.

Discussion:

The results of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. The negative correlation between social media use and academic performance suggests that strategies should be put in place to help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities. For example, educators could incorporate social media into their teaching strategies to engage students and enhance learning. Parents could limit their children’s social media use and encourage them to prioritize their academic responsibilities. Policymakers could develop guidelines and policies to regulate social media use among high school students.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this study provides evidence of the negative impact of social media on academic performance among high school students. The findings highlight the need for strategies that can help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities. Further research is needed to explore the specific mechanisms by which social media use affects academic performance and to develop effective strategies for addressing this issue.

Limitations:

One limitation of this study is the use of convenience sampling, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Future studies should use random sampling techniques to increase the representativeness of the sample. Another limitation is the use of self-reported measures, which may be subject to social desirability bias. Future studies could use objective measures of social media use and academic performance, such as tracking software and school records.

Implications:

The findings of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. Educators could incorporate social media into their teaching strategies to engage students and enhance learning. For example, teachers could use social media platforms to share relevant educational resources and facilitate online discussions. Parents could limit their children’s social media use and encourage them to prioritize their academic responsibilities. They could also engage in open communication with their children to understand their social media use and its impact on their academic performance. Policymakers could develop guidelines and policies to regulate social media use among high school students. For example, schools could implement social media policies that restrict access during class time and encourage responsible use.

References:

• Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237-1245.
• Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of online social networking on student academic performance. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 8(1), 1-19.
• Pantic, I. (2014). Online social networking and mental health. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(10), 652-657.
• Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948-958.

Note*: Above mention, Example is just a sample for the students’ guide. Do not directly copy and paste as your College or University assignment. Kindly do some research and Write your own.

Applications of Research Report

Research reports have many applications, including:

• Communicating research findings: The primary application of a research report is to communicate the results of a study to other researchers, stakeholders, or the general public. The report serves as a way to share new knowledge, insights, and discoveries with others in the field.
• Informing policy and practice : Research reports can inform policy and practice by providing evidence-based recommendations for decision-makers. For example, a research report on the effectiveness of a new drug could inform regulatory agencies in their decision-making process.
• Supporting further research: Research reports can provide a foundation for further research in a particular area. Other researchers may use the findings and methodology of a report to develop new research questions or to build on existing research.
• Evaluating programs and interventions : Research reports can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and interventions in achieving their intended outcomes. For example, a research report on a new educational program could provide evidence of its impact on student performance.
• Demonstrating impact : Research reports can be used to demonstrate the impact of research funding or to evaluate the success of research projects. By presenting the findings and outcomes of a study, research reports can show the value of research to funders and stakeholders.
• Enhancing professional development : Research reports can be used to enhance professional development by providing a source of information and learning for researchers and practitioners in a particular field. For example, a research report on a new teaching methodology could provide insights and ideas for educators to incorporate into their own practice.

How to write Research Report

Here are some steps you can follow to write a research report:

• Identify the research question: The first step in writing a research report is to identify your research question. This will help you focus your research and organize your findings.
• Conduct research : Once you have identified your research question, you will need to conduct research to gather relevant data and information. This can involve conducting experiments, reviewing literature, or analyzing data.
• Organize your findings: Once you have gathered all of your data, you will need to organize your findings in a way that is clear and understandable. This can involve creating tables, graphs, or charts to illustrate your results.
• Write the report: Once you have organized your findings, you can begin writing the report. Start with an introduction that provides background information and explains the purpose of your research. Next, provide a detailed description of your research methods and findings. Finally, summarize your results and draw conclusions based on your findings.
• Proofread and edit: After you have written your report, be sure to proofread and edit it carefully. Check for grammar and spelling errors, and make sure that your report is well-organized and easy to read.
• Include a reference list: Be sure to include a list of references that you used in your research. This will give credit to your sources and allow readers to further explore the topic if they choose.
• Format your report: Finally, format your report according to the guidelines provided by your instructor or organization. This may include formatting requirements for headings, margins, fonts, and spacing.

Purpose of Research Report

The purpose of a research report is to communicate the results of a research study to a specific audience, such as peers in the same field, stakeholders, or the general public. The report provides a detailed description of the research methods, findings, and conclusions.

Some common purposes of a research report include:

• Sharing knowledge: A research report allows researchers to share their findings and knowledge with others in their field. This helps to advance the field and improve the understanding of a particular topic.
• Identifying trends: A research report can identify trends and patterns in data, which can help guide future research and inform decision-making.
• Addressing problems: A research report can provide insights into problems or issues and suggest solutions or recommendations for addressing them.
• Evaluating programs or interventions : A research report can evaluate the effectiveness of programs or interventions, which can inform decision-making about whether to continue, modify, or discontinue them.
• Meeting regulatory requirements: In some fields, research reports are required to meet regulatory requirements, such as in the case of drug trials or environmental impact studies.

When to Write Research Report

A research report should be written after completing the research study. This includes collecting data, analyzing the results, and drawing conclusions based on the findings. Once the research is complete, the report should be written in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher’s mind.

In academic settings, research reports are often required as part of coursework or as part of a thesis or dissertation. In this case, the report should be written according to the guidelines provided by the instructor or institution.

In other settings, such as in industry or government, research reports may be required to inform decision-making or to comply with regulatory requirements. In these cases, the report should be written as soon as possible after the research is completed in order to inform decision-making in a timely manner.

Overall, the timing of when to write a research report depends on the purpose of the research, the expectations of the audience, and any regulatory requirements that need to be met. However, it is important to complete the report in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher’s mind.

Characteristics of Research Report

There are several characteristics of a research report that distinguish it from other types of writing. These characteristics include:

• Objective: A research report should be written in an objective and unbiased manner. It should present the facts and findings of the research study without any personal opinions or biases.
• Systematic: A research report should be written in a systematic manner. It should follow a clear and logical structure, and the information should be presented in a way that is easy to understand and follow.
• Detailed: A research report should be detailed and comprehensive. It should provide a thorough description of the research methods, results, and conclusions.
• Accurate : A research report should be accurate and based on sound research methods. The findings and conclusions should be supported by data and evidence.
• Organized: A research report should be well-organized. It should include headings and subheadings to help the reader navigate the report and understand the main points.
• Clear and concise: A research report should be written in clear and concise language. The information should be presented in a way that is easy to understand, and unnecessary jargon should be avoided.
• Citations and references: A research report should include citations and references to support the findings and conclusions. This helps to give credit to other researchers and to provide readers with the opportunity to further explore the topic.

Advantages of Research Report

Research reports have several advantages, including:

• Communicating research findings: Research reports allow researchers to communicate their findings to a wider audience, including other researchers, stakeholders, and the general public. This helps to disseminate knowledge and advance the understanding of a particular topic.
• Providing evidence for decision-making : Research reports can provide evidence to inform decision-making, such as in the case of policy-making, program planning, or product development. The findings and conclusions can help guide decisions and improve outcomes.
• Supporting further research: Research reports can provide a foundation for further research on a particular topic. Other researchers can build on the findings and conclusions of the report, which can lead to further discoveries and advancements in the field.
• Demonstrating expertise: Research reports can demonstrate the expertise of the researchers and their ability to conduct rigorous and high-quality research. This can be important for securing funding, promotions, and other professional opportunities.
• Meeting regulatory requirements: In some fields, research reports are required to meet regulatory requirements, such as in the case of drug trials or environmental impact studies. Producing a high-quality research report can help ensure compliance with these requirements.

Limitations of Research Report

Despite their advantages, research reports also have some limitations, including:

• Time-consuming: Conducting research and writing a report can be a time-consuming process, particularly for large-scale studies. This can limit the frequency and speed of producing research reports.
• Expensive: Conducting research and producing a report can be expensive, particularly for studies that require specialized equipment, personnel, or data. This can limit the scope and feasibility of some research studies.
• Limited generalizability: Research studies often focus on a specific population or context, which can limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations or contexts.
• Potential bias : Researchers may have biases or conflicts of interest that can influence the findings and conclusions of the research study. Additionally, participants may also have biases or may not be representative of the larger population, which can limit the validity and reliability of the findings.
• Accessibility: Research reports may be written in technical or academic language, which can limit their accessibility to a wider audience. Additionally, some research may be behind paywalls or require specialized access, which can limit the ability of others to read and use the findings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Research report guide: Definition, types, and tips

Last updated

5 March 2024

Reviewed by

From successful product launches or software releases to planning major business decisions, research reports serve many vital functions. They can summarize evidence and deliver insights and recommendations to save companies time and resources. They can reveal the most value-adding actions a company should take.

However, poorly constructed reports can have the opposite effect! Taking the time to learn established research-reporting rules and approaches will equip you with in-demand skills. You’ll be able to capture and communicate information applicable to numerous situations and industries, adding another string to your resume bow.

• What are research reports?

A research report is a collection of contextual data, gathered through organized research, that provides new insights into a particular challenge (which, for this article, is business-related). Research reports are a time-tested method for distilling large amounts of data into a narrow band of focus.

Their effectiveness often hinges on whether the report provides:

Strong, well-researched evidence

Comprehensive analysis

Well-considered conclusions and recommendations

Though the topic possibilities are endless, an effective research report keeps a laser-like focus on the specific questions or objectives the researcher believes are key to achieving success. Many research reports begin as research proposals, which usually include the need for a report to capture the findings of the study and recommend a course of action.

A description of the research method used, e.g., qualitative, quantitative, or other

Statistical analysis

Causal (or explanatory) research (i.e., research identifying relationships between two variables)

Inductive research, also known as ‘theory-building’

Deductive research, such as that used to test theories

Action research, where the research is actively used to drive change

• Importance of a research report

Research reports can unify and direct a company's focus toward the most appropriate strategic action. Of course, spending resources on a report takes up some of the company's human and financial resources. Choosing when a report is called for is a matter of judgment and experience.

Some development models used heavily in the engineering world, such as Waterfall development, are notorious for over-relying on research reports. With Waterfall development, there is a linear progression through each step of a project, and each stage is precisely documented and reported on before moving to the next.

The pace of the business world is faster than the speed at which your authors can produce and disseminate reports. So how do companies strike the right balance between creating and acting on research reports?

The answer lies, again, in the report's defined objectives. By paring down your most pressing interests and those of your stakeholders, your research and reporting skills will be the lenses that keep your company's priorities in constant focus.

Honing your company's primary objectives can save significant amounts of time and align research and reporting efforts with ever-greater precision.

Some examples of well-designed research objectives are:

Proving whether or not a product or service meets customer expectations

Demonstrating the value of a service, product, or business process to your stakeholders and investors

Improving business decision-making when faced with a lack of time or other constraints

Clarifying the relationship between a critical cause and effect for problematic business processes

Prioritizing the development of a backlog of products or product features

Comparing business or production strategies

Evaluating past decisions and predicting future outcomes

• Features of a research report

Research reports generally require a research design phase, where the report author(s) determine the most important elements the report must contain.

Just as there are various kinds of research, there are many types of reports.

Here are the standard elements of almost any research-reporting format:

Report summary. A broad but comprehensive overview of what readers will learn in the full report. Summaries are usually no more than one or two paragraphs and address all key elements of the report. Think of the key takeaways your primary stakeholders will want to know if they don’t have time to read the full document.

Introduction. Include a brief background of the topic, the type of research, and the research sample. Consider the primary goal of the report, who is most affected, and how far along the company is in meeting its objectives.

Methods. A description of how the researcher carried out data collection, analysis, and final interpretations of the data. Include the reasons for choosing a particular method. The methods section should strike a balance between clearly presenting the approach taken to gather data and discussing how it is designed to achieve the report's objectives.

Data analysis. This section contains interpretations that lead readers through the results relevant to the report's thesis. If there were unexpected results, include here a discussion on why that might be. Charts, calculations, statistics, and other supporting information also belong here (or, if lengthy, as an appendix). This should be the most detailed section of the research report, with references for further study. Present the information in a logical order, whether chronologically or in order of importance to the report's objectives.

Conclusion. This should be written with sound reasoning, often containing useful recommendations. The conclusion must be backed by a continuous thread of logic throughout the report.

• How to write a research paper

With a clear outline and robust pool of research, a research paper can start to write itself, but what's a good way to start a research report?

Research report examples are often the quickest way to gain inspiration for your report. Look for the types of research reports most relevant to your industry and consider which makes the most sense for your data and goals.

The research report outline will help you organize the elements of your report. One of the most time-tested report outlines is the IMRaD structure:

Introduction

...and Discussion

Pay close attention to the most well-established research reporting format in your industry, and consider your tone and language from your audience's perspective. Learn the key terms inside and out; incorrect jargon could easily harm the perceived authority of your research paper.

Along with a foundation in high-quality research and razor-sharp analysis, the most effective research reports will also demonstrate well-developed:

Internal logic

Narrative flow

Conclusions and recommendations

Readability, striking a balance between simple phrasing and technical insight

How to gather research data for your report

The validity of research data is critical. Because the research phase usually occurs well before the writing phase, you normally have plenty of time to vet your data.

However, research reports could involve ongoing research, where report authors (sometimes the researchers themselves) write portions of the report alongside ongoing research.

One such research-report example would be an R&D department that knows its primary stakeholders are eager to learn about a lengthy work in progress and any potentially important outcomes.

However you choose to manage the research and reporting, your data must meet robust quality standards before you can rely on it. Vet any research with the following questions in mind:

Does it use statistically valid analysis methods?

Do the researchers clearly explain their research, analysis, and sampling methods?

Did the researchers provide any caveats or advice on how to interpret their data?

Have you gathered the data yourself or were you in close contact with those who did?

Is the source biased?

Usually, flawed research methods become more apparent the further you get through a research report.

It's perfectly natural for good research to raise new questions, but the reader should have no uncertainty about what the data represents. There should be no doubt about matters such as:

Whether the sampling or analysis methods were based on sound and consistent logic

What the research samples are and where they came from

The accuracy of any statistical functions or equations

Validation of testing and measuring processes

When does a report require design validation?

A robust design validation process is often a gold standard in highly technical research reports. Design validation ensures the objects of a study are measured accurately, which lends more weight to your report and makes it valuable to more specialized industries.

Product development and engineering projects are the most common research-report examples that typically involve a design validation process. Depending on the scope and complexity of your research, you might face additional steps to validate your data and research procedures.

If you’re including design validation in the report (or report proposal), explain and justify your data-collection processes. Good design validation builds greater trust in a research report and lends more weight to its conclusions.

Choosing the right analysis method

Just as the quality of your report depends on properly validated research, a useful conclusion requires the most contextually relevant analysis method. This means comparing different statistical methods and choosing the one that makes the most sense for your research.

Most broadly, research analysis comes down to quantitative or qualitative methods (respectively: measurable by a number vs subjectively qualified values). There are also mixed research methods, which bridge the need for merging hard data with qualified assessments and still reach a cohesive set of conclusions.

Some of the most common analysis methods in research reports include:

Significance testing (aka hypothesis analysis), which compares test and control groups to determine how likely the data was the result of random chance.

Regression analysis , to establish relationships between variables, control for extraneous variables , and support correlation analysis.

Correlation analysis (aka bivariate testing), a method to identify and determine the strength of linear relationships between variables. It’s effective for detecting patterns from complex data, but care must be exercised to not confuse correlation with causation.

With any analysis method, it's important to justify which method you chose in the report. You should also provide estimates of the statistical accuracy (e.g., the p-value or confidence level of quantifiable data) of any data analysis.

This requires a commitment to the report's primary aim. For instance, this may be achieving a certain level of customer satisfaction by analyzing the cause and effect of changes to how service is delivered. Even better, use statistical analysis to calculate which change is most positively correlated with improved levels of customer satisfaction.

• Tips for writing research reports

There's endless good advice for writing effective research reports, and it almost all depends on the subjective aims of the people behind the report. Due to the wide variety of research reports, the best tips will be unique to each author's purpose.

Consider the following research report tips in any order, and take note of the ones most relevant to you:

No matter how in depth or detailed your report might be, provide a well-considered, succinct summary. At the very least, give your readers a quick and effective way to get up to speed.

Pare down your target audience (e.g., other researchers, employees, laypersons, etc.), and adjust your voice for their background knowledge and interest levels

For all but the most open-ended research, clarify your objectives, both for yourself and within the report.

Leverage your team members’ talents to fill in any knowledge gaps you might have. Your team is only as good as the sum of its parts.

Justify why your research proposal’s topic will endure long enough to derive value from the finished report.

Consolidate all research and analysis functions onto a single user-friendly platform. There's no reason to settle for less than developer-grade tools suitable for non-developers.

What's the format of a research report?

The research-reporting format is how the report is structured—a framework the authors use to organize their data, conclusions, arguments, and recommendations. The format heavily determines how the report's outline develops, because the format dictates the overall structure and order of information (based on the report's goals and research objectives).

What's the purpose of a research-report outline?

A good report outline gives form and substance to the report's objectives, presenting the results in a readable, engaging way. For any research-report format, the outline should create momentum along a chain of logic that builds up to a conclusion or interpretation.

What's the difference between a research essay and a research report?

There are several key differences between research reports and essays:

Research report:

Ordered into separate sections

More commercial in nature

Often includes infographics

Heavily descriptive

More self-referential

Usually provides recommendations

Research essay

Does not rely on research report formatting

More academically minded

Normally text-only

Less detailed

Omits discussion of methods

Usually non-prescriptive 

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

• Research Report: Definition, Types + [Writing Guide]

One of the reasons for carrying out research is to add to the existing body of knowledge. Therefore, when conducting research, you need to document your processes and findings in a research report. 

With a research report, it is easy to outline the findings of your systematic investigation and any gaps needing further inquiry. Knowing how to create a detailed research report will prove useful when you need to conduct research.  

What is a Research Report?

A research report is a well-crafted document that outlines the processes, data, and findings of a systematic investigation. It is an important document that serves as a first-hand account of the research process, and it is typically considered an objective and accurate source of information.

In many ways, a research report can be considered as a summary of the research process that clearly highlights findings, recommendations, and other important details. Reading a well-written research report should provide you with all the information you need about the core areas of the research process.

Features of a Research Report 

So how do you recognize a research report when you see one? Here are some of the basic features that define a research report. 

• It is a detailed presentation of research processes and findings, and it usually includes tables and graphs. 
• It is written in a formal language.
• A research report is usually written in the third person.
• It is informative and based on first-hand verifiable information.
• It is formally structured with headings, sections, and bullet points.
• It always includes recommendations for future actions. 

Types of Research Report 

The research report is classified based on two things; nature of research and target audience.

Nature of Research

• Qualitative Research Report

This is the type of report written for qualitative research . It outlines the methods, processes, and findings of a qualitative method of systematic investigation. In educational research, a qualitative research report provides an opportunity for one to apply his or her knowledge and develop skills in planning and executing qualitative research projects.

A qualitative research report is usually descriptive in nature. Hence, in addition to presenting details of the research process, you must also create a descriptive narrative of the information.

• Quantitative Research Report

A quantitative research report is a type of research report that is written for quantitative research. Quantitative research is a type of systematic investigation that pays attention to numerical or statistical values in a bid to find answers to research questions. 

In this type of research report, the researcher presents quantitative data to support the research process and findings. Unlike a qualitative research report that is mainly descriptive, a quantitative research report works with numbers; that is, it is numerical in nature. 

Target Audience

Also, a research report can be said to be technical or popular based on the target audience. If you’re dealing with a general audience, you would need to present a popular research report, and if you’re dealing with a specialized audience, you would submit a technical report. 

• Technical Research Report

A technical research report is a detailed document that you present after carrying out industry-based research. This report is highly specialized because it provides information for a technical audience; that is, individuals with above-average knowledge in the field of study. 

In a technical research report, the researcher is expected to provide specific information about the research process, including statistical analyses and sampling methods. Also, the use of language is highly specialized and filled with jargon. 

Examples of technical research reports include legal and medical research reports. 

• Popular Research Report

A popular research report is one for a general audience; that is, for individuals who do not necessarily have any knowledge in the field of study. A popular research report aims to make information accessible to everyone. 

It is written in very simple language, which makes it easy to understand the findings and recommendations. Examples of popular research reports are the information contained in newspapers and magazines. 

Importance of a Research Report 

• Knowledge Transfer: As already stated above, one of the reasons for carrying out research is to contribute to the existing body of knowledge, and this is made possible with a research report. A research report serves as a means to effectively communicate the findings of a systematic investigation to all and sundry.  
• Identification of Knowledge Gaps: With a research report, you’d be able to identify knowledge gaps for further inquiry. A research report shows what has been done while hinting at other areas needing systematic investigation. 
• In market research, a research report would help you understand the market needs and peculiarities at a glance. 
• A research report allows you to present information in a precise and concise manner. 
• It is time-efficient and practical because, in a research report, you do not have to spend time detailing the findings of your research work in person. You can easily send out the report via email and have stakeholders look at it. 

Guide to Writing a Research Report

A lot of detail goes into writing a research report, and getting familiar with the different requirements would help you create the ideal research report. A research report is usually broken down into multiple sections, which allows for a concise presentation of information.

Structure and Example of a Research Report

This is the title of your systematic investigation. Your title should be concise and point to the aims, objectives, and findings of a research report. 

• Table of Contents

This is like a compass that makes it easier for readers to navigate the research report.

An abstract is an overview that highlights all important aspects of the research including the research method, data collection process, and research findings. Think of an abstract as a summary of your research report that presents pertinent information in a concise manner. 

An abstract is always brief; typically 100-150 words and goes straight to the point. The focus of your research abstract should be the 5Ws and 1H format – What, Where, Why, When, Who and How. 

• Introduction

Here, the researcher highlights the aims and objectives of the systematic investigation as well as the problem which the systematic investigation sets out to solve. When writing the report introduction, it is also essential to indicate whether the purposes of the research were achieved or would require more work.

In the introduction section, the researcher specifies the research problem and also outlines the significance of the systematic investigation. Also, the researcher is expected to outline any jargons and terminologies that are contained in the research.  

• Literature Review

A literature review is a written survey of existing knowledge in the field of study. In other words, it is the section where you provide an overview and analysis of different research works that are relevant to your systematic investigation. 

It highlights existing research knowledge and areas needing further investigation, which your research has sought to fill. At this stage, you can also hint at your research hypothesis and its possible implications for the existing body of knowledge in your field of study. 

• An Account of Investigation

This is a detailed account of the research process, including the methodology, sample, and research subjects. Here, you are expected to provide in-depth information on the research process including the data collection and analysis procedures. 

In a quantitative research report, you’d need to provide information surveys, questionnaires and other quantitative data collection methods used in your research. In a qualitative research report, you are expected to describe the qualitative data collection methods used in your research including interviews and focus groups. 

In this section, you are expected to present the results of the systematic investigation. 

This section further explains the findings of the research, earlier outlined. Here, you are expected to present a justification for each outcome and show whether the results are in line with your hypotheses or if other research studies have come up with similar results.

• Conclusions

This is a summary of all the information in the report. It also outlines the significance of the entire study. 

• References and Appendices

This section contains a list of all the primary and secondary research sources. 

Tips for Writing a Research Report

• Define the Context for the Report

As is obtainable when writing an essay, defining the context for your research report would help you create a detailed yet concise document. This is why you need to create an outline before writing so that you do not miss out on anything. 

• Define your Audience

Writing with your audience in mind is essential as it determines the tone of the report. If you’re writing for a general audience, you would want to present the information in a simple and relatable manner. For a specialized audience, you would need to make use of technical and field-specific terms. 

• Include Significant Findings

The idea of a research report is to present some sort of abridged version of your systematic investigation. In your report, you should exclude irrelevant information while highlighting only important data and findings. 

• Include Illustrations

Your research report should include illustrations and other visual representations of your data. Graphs, pie charts, and relevant images lend additional credibility to your systematic investigation.

• Choose the Right Title

A good research report title is brief, precise, and contains keywords from your research. It should provide a clear idea of your systematic investigation so that readers can grasp the entire focus of your research from the title. 

• Proofread the Report

Before publishing the document, ensure that you give it a second look to authenticate the information. If you can, get someone else to go through the report, too, and you can also run it through proofreading and editing software. 

How to Gather Research Data for Your Report  

• Understand the Problem

Every research aims at solving a specific problem or set of problems, and this should be at the back of your mind when writing your research report. Understanding the problem would help you to filter the information you have and include only important data in your report. 

• Know what your report seeks to achieve

This is somewhat similar to the point above because, in some way, the aim of your research report is intertwined with the objectives of your systematic investigation. Identifying the primary purpose of writing a research report would help you to identify and present the required information accordingly. 

• Identify your audience

Knowing your target audience plays a crucial role in data collection for a research report. If your research report is specifically for an organization, you would want to present industry-specific information or show how the research findings are relevant to the work that the company does. 

• Create Surveys/Questionnaires

A survey is a research method that is used to gather data from a specific group of people through a set of questions. It can be either quantitative or qualitative. 

A survey is usually made up of structured questions, and it can be administered online or offline. However, an online survey is a more effective method of research data collection because it helps you save time and gather data with ease. 

You can seamlessly create an online questionnaire for your research on Formplus . With the multiple sharing options available in the builder, you would be able to administer your survey to respondents in little or no time. 

Formplus also has a report summary too l that you can use to create custom visual reports for your research.

Step-by-step guide on how to create an online questionnaire using Formplus  

• Sign into Formplus

In the Formplus builder, you can easily create different online questionnaires for your research by dragging and dropping preferred fields into your form. To access the Formplus builder, you will need to create an account on Formplus. 

Once you do this, sign in to your account and click on Create new form to begin. 

• Edit Form Title : Click on the field provided to input your form title, for example, “Research Questionnaire.”
• Edit Form : Click on the edit icon to edit the form.
• Add Fields : Drag and drop preferred form fields into your form in the Formplus builder inputs column. There are several field input options for questionnaires in the Formplus builder. 
• Edit fields
• Click on “Save”
• Form Customization: With the form customization options in the form builder, you can easily change the outlook of your form and make it more unique and personalized. Formplus allows you to change your form theme, add background images, and even change the font according to your needs. 
• Multiple Sharing Options: Formplus offers various form-sharing options, which enables you to share your questionnaire with respondents easily. You can use the direct social media sharing buttons to share your form link to your organization’s social media pages.  You can also send out your survey form as email invitations to your research subjects too. If you wish, you can share your form’s QR code or embed it on your organization’s website for easy access. 

Conclusion  

Always remember that a research report is just as important as the actual systematic investigation because it plays a vital role in communicating research findings to everyone else. This is why you must take care to create a concise document summarizing the process of conducting any research. 

In this article, we’ve outlined essential tips to help you create a research report. When writing your report, you should always have the audience at the back of your mind, as this would set the tone for the document. 

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• ethnographic research survey
• research report
• research report survey
• busayo.longe

You may also like:

21 Chrome Extensions for Academic Researchers in 2022

In this article, we will discuss a number of chrome extensions you can use to make your research process even seamless

How to Write a Problem Statement for your Research

Learn how to write problem statements before commencing any research effort. Learn about its structure and explore examples

Ethnographic Research: Types, Methods + [Question Examples]

Simple guide on ethnographic research, it types, methods, examples and advantages. Also highlights how to conduct an ethnographic...

Assessment Tools: Types, Examples & Importance

In this article, you’ll learn about different assessment tools to help you evaluate performance in various contexts

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Research Reports: Definition and How to Write Them

Reports are usually spread across a vast horizon of topics but are focused on communicating information about a particular topic and a niche target market. The primary motive of research reports is to convey integral details about a study for marketers to consider while designing new strategies.

Certain events, facts, and other information based on incidents need to be relayed to the people in charge, and creating research reports is the most effective communication tool. Ideal research reports are extremely accurate in the offered information with a clear objective and conclusion. These reports should have a clean and structured format to relay information effectively.

What are Research Reports?

Research reports are recorded data prepared by researchers or statisticians after analyzing the information gathered by conducting organized research, typically in the form of surveys or qualitative methods .

A research report is a reliable source to recount details about a conducted research. It is most often considered to be a true testimony of all the work done to garner specificities of research.

The various sections of a research report are:

• Background/Introduction
• Implemented Methods
• Results based on Analysis
• Deliberation

Learn more: Quantitative Research

Components of Research Reports

Research is imperative for launching a new product/service or a new feature. The markets today are extremely volatile and competitive due to new entrants every day who may or may not provide effective products. An organization needs to make the right decisions at the right time to be relevant in such a market with updated products that suffice customer demands.

The details of a research report may change with the purpose of research but the main components of a report will remain constant. The research approach of the market researcher also influences the style of writing reports. Here are seven main components of a productive research report:

• Research Report Summary: The entire objective along with the overview of research are to be included in a summary which is a couple of paragraphs in length. All the multiple components of the research are explained in brief under the report summary.  It should be interesting enough to capture all the key elements of the report.
• Research Introduction: There always is a primary goal that the researcher is trying to achieve through a report. In the introduction section, he/she can cover answers related to this goal and establish a thesis which will be included to strive and answer it in detail.  This section should answer an integral question: “What is the current situation of the goal?”.  After the research design was conducted, did the organization conclude the goal successfully or they are still a work in progress –  provide such details in the introduction part of the research report.
• Research Methodology: This is the most important section of the report where all the important information lies. The readers can gain data for the topic along with analyzing the quality of provided content and the research can also be approved by other market researchers . Thus, this section needs to be highly informative with each aspect of research discussed in detail.  Information needs to be expressed in chronological order according to its priority and importance. Researchers should include references in case they gained information from existing techniques.
• Research Results: A short description of the results along with calculations conducted to achieve the goal will form this section of results. Usually, the exposition after data analysis is carried out in the discussion part of the report.

Learn more: Quantitative Data

• Research Discussion: The results are discussed in extreme detail in this section along with a comparative analysis of reports that could probably exist in the same domain. Any abnormality uncovered during research will be deliberated in the discussion section.  While writing research reports, the researcher will have to connect the dots on how the results will be applicable in the real world.
• Research References and Conclusion: Conclude all the research findings along with mentioning each and every author, article or any content piece from where references were taken.

Learn more: Qualitative Observation

15 Tips for Writing Research Reports

Writing research reports in the manner can lead to all the efforts going down the drain. Here are 15 tips for writing impactful research reports:

• Prepare the context before starting to write and start from the basics:  This was always taught to us in school – be well-prepared before taking a plunge into new topics. The order of survey questions might not be the ideal or most effective order for writing research reports. The idea is to start with a broader topic and work towards a more specific one and focus on a conclusion or support, which a research should support with the facts.  The most difficult thing to do in reporting, without a doubt is to start. Start with the title, the introduction, then document the first discoveries and continue from that. Once the marketers have the information well documented, they can write a general conclusion.
• Keep the target audience in mind while selecting a format that is clear, logical and obvious to them:  Will the research reports be presented to decision makers or other researchers? What are the general perceptions around that topic? This requires more care and diligence. A researcher will need a significant amount of information to start writing the research report. Be consistent with the wording, the numbering of the annexes and so on. Follow the approved format of the company for the delivery of research reports and demonstrate the integrity of the project with the objectives of the company.
• Have a clear research objective: A researcher should read the entire proposal again, and make sure that the data they provide contributes to the objectives that were raised from the beginning. Remember that speculations are for conversations, not for research reports, if a researcher speculates, they directly question their own research.
• Establish a working model:  Each study must have an internal logic, which will have to be established in the report and in the evidence. The researchers’ worst nightmare is to be required to write research reports and realize that key questions were not included.

Learn more: Quantitative Observation

• Gather all the information about the research topic. Who are the competitors of our customers? Talk to other researchers who have studied the subject of research, know the language of the industry. Misuse of the terms can discourage the readers of research reports from reading further.
• Read aloud while writing. While reading the report, if the researcher hears something inappropriate, for example, if they stumble over the words when reading them, surely the reader will too. If the researcher can’t put an idea in a single sentence, then it is very long and they must change it so that the idea is clear to everyone.
• Check grammar and spelling. Without a doubt, good practices help to understand the report. Use verbs in the present tense. Consider using the present tense, which makes the results sound more immediate. Find new words and other ways of saying things. Have fun with the language whenever possible.
• Discuss only the discoveries that are significant. If some data are not really significant, do not mention them. Remember that not everything is truly important or essential within research reports.

Learn more: Qualitative Data

• Try and stick to the survey questions. For example, do not say that the people surveyed “were worried” about an research issue , when there are different degrees of concern.
• The graphs must be clear enough so that they understand themselves. Do not let graphs lead the reader to make mistakes: give them a title, include the indications, the size of the sample, and the correct wording of the question.
• Be clear with messages. A researcher should always write every section of the report with an accuracy of details and language.
• Be creative with titles – Particularly in segmentation studies choose names “that give life to research”. Such names can survive for a long time after the initial investigation.
• Create an effective conclusion: The conclusion in the research reports is the most difficult to write, but it is an incredible opportunity to excel. Make a precise summary. Sometimes it helps to start the conclusion with something specific, then it describes the most important part of the study, and finally, it provides the implications of the conclusions.
• Get a couple more pair of eyes to read the report. Writers have trouble detecting their own mistakes. But they are responsible for what is presented. Ensure it has been approved by colleagues or friends before sending the find draft out.

Learn more: Market Research and Analysis

MORE LIKE THIS

NPS Survey Platform: Types, Tips, 11 Best Platforms & Tools

Apr 26, 2024

User Journey vs User Flow: Differences and Similarities

Best 7 Gap Analysis Tools to Empower Your Business

Apr 25, 2024

12 Best Employee Survey Tools for Organizational Excellence

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Uncomplicated Reviews of Educational Research Methods

• Writing a Research Report

.pdf version of this page

This review covers the basic elements of a research report. This is a general guide for what you will see in journal articles or dissertations. This format assumes a mixed methods study, but you can leave out either quantitative or qualitative sections if you only used a single methodology.

This review is divided into sections for easy reference. There are five MAJOR parts of a Research Report:

1.    Introduction 2.    Review of Literature 3.    Methods 4.    Results 5.    Discussion

As a general guide, the Introduction, Review of Literature, and Methods should be about 1/3 of your paper, Discussion 1/3, then Results 1/3.

Section 1 : Cover Sheet (APA format cover sheet) optional, if required.

Section 2: Abstract (a basic summary of the report, including sample, treatment, design, results, and implications) (≤ 150 words) optional, if required.

Section 3 : Introduction (1-3 paragraphs) •    Basic introduction •    Supportive statistics (can be from periodicals) •    Statement of Purpose •    Statement of Significance

Section 4 : Research question(s) or hypotheses •    An overall research question (optional) •    A quantitative-based (hypotheses) •    A qualitative-based (research questions) Note: You will generally have more than one, especially if using hypotheses.

Section 5: Review of Literature ▪    Should be organized by subheadings ▪    Should adequately support your study using supporting, related, and/or refuting evidence ▪    Is a synthesis, not a collection of individual summaries

Section 6: Methods ▪    Procedure: Describe data gathering or participant recruitment, including IRB approval ▪    Sample: Describe the sample or dataset, including basic demographics ▪    Setting: Describe the setting, if applicable (generally only in qualitative designs) ▪    Treatment: If applicable, describe, in detail, how you implemented the treatment ▪    Instrument: Describe, in detail, how you implemented the instrument; Describe the reliability and validity associated with the instrument ▪    Data Analysis: Describe type of procedure (t-test, interviews, etc.) and software (if used)

Section 7: Results ▪    Restate Research Question 1 (Quantitative) ▪    Describe results ▪    Restate Research Question 2 (Qualitative) ▪    Describe results

Section 8: Discussion ▪    Restate Overall Research Question ▪    Describe how the results, when taken together, answer the overall question ▪    ***Describe how the results confirm or contrast the literature you reviewed

Section 9: Recommendations (if applicable, generally related to practice)

Section 10: Limitations ▪    Discuss, in several sentences, the limitations of this study. ▪    Research Design (overall, then info about the limitations of each separately) ▪    Sample ▪    Instrument/s ▪    Other limitations

Section 11: Conclusion (A brief closing summary)

Section 12: References (APA format)

Share this:

About research rundowns.

Research Rundowns was made possible by support from the Dewar College of Education at Valdosta State University .

• Experimental Design
• What is Educational Research?
• Writing Research Questions
• Mixed Methods Research Designs
• Qualitative Coding & Analysis
• Qualitative Research Design
• Correlation
• Effect Size
• Instrument, Validity, Reliability
• Mean & Standard Deviation
• Significance Testing (t-tests)
• Steps 1-4: Finding Research
• Steps 5-6: Analyzing & Organizing
• Steps 7-9: Citing & Writing

Blog at WordPress.com.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

4.1: Common Types of Research Reports and Documents

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 175389

Common Types of Research Reports & Documents

Research is central to most work in STEM fields and you may often be required to conduct various types of research as part of your professional life. Lab reports, recommendation reports, proposals, and white papers are just some of the professional documents that rely on research. These are the kinds of documents that can help organizations make decisions, solicit new clients and contracts, and communicate with the public.

For more information on these common types of professional correspondence, see the Workplace Communications chapter.

Writing up a Research Report

• First Online: 10 November 2021

Cite this chapter

• Stefan Hunziker 3 &
• Michael Blankenagel 3  

3066 Accesses

A research report is one big argument how and why you came up with your conclusions. To make it a convincing argument, a typical guiding structure has developed. In the different chapters, distinct issues need to be addressed to explain to the reader why your conclusions are valid. The governing principle for writing the report is full disclosure: to explain everything and ensure replicability by another researcher.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Barros, L. O. (2016). The only academic phrasebook you’ll ever need. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.

Google Scholar  

Field, A. (2016). An adventure in statistics. The reality enigma . SAGE.

Field, A. (2020). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.

Früh, M., Keimer, I., & Blankenagel, M. (2019). The impact of Balanced Scorecard excellence on shareholder returns. IFZ Working Paper No. 0003/2019. Retrieved June 09, 2021, from https://zenodo.org/record/2571603#.YMDUafkzZaQ .

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wirtschaft/IFZ – Campus Zug-Rotkreuz, Hochschule Luzern, Zug-Rotkreuz, Zug , Switzerland

Stefan Hunziker & Michael Blankenagel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2021). Writing up a Research Report. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_4

Published : 10 November 2021

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-34356-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-34357-6

eBook Packages : Business and Economics (German Language)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

U.S. Surveys

Pew Research Center has deep roots in U.S. public opinion research.  Launched initially  as a project focused primarily on U.S. policy and politics in the early 1990s, the Center has grown over time to study a wide range of topics vital to explaining America to itself and to the world. Our hallmarks: a rigorous approach to methodological quality, complete transparency as to our methods, and a commitment to exploring and evaluating ongoing developments in data collection. Learn more about how we conduct our domestic surveys  here .

The American Trends Panel

Try our email course on polling

Want to know more about polling? Take your knowledge to the next level with a short email mini-course from Pew Research Center. Sign up now .

From the 1980s until relatively recently, most national polling organizations conducted surveys by telephone, relying on live interviewers to call randomly selected Americans across the country. Then came the internet. While it took survey researchers some time to adapt to the idea of online surveys, a quick look at the public polls on an issue like presidential approval reveals a landscape now dominated by online polls rather than phone polls.

Most of our U.S. surveys are conducted on the American Trends Panel (ATP), Pew Research Center’s national survey panel of over 10,000 randomly selected U.S. adults. ATP participants are recruited offline using random sampling from the U.S. Postal Service’s residential address file. Survey length is capped at 15 minutes, and respondents are reimbursed for their time. Respondents complete the surveys online using smartphones, tablets or desktop devices. We provide tablets and data plans to adults without home internet. Learn more  about how people in the U.S. take Pew Research Center surveys.

Methods 101

Our video series helps explain the fundamental concepts of survey research including random sampling , question wording , mode effects , non probability surveys and how polling is done around. the world.

The Center also conducts custom surveys of special populations (e.g., Muslim Americans , Jewish Americans , Black Americans , Hispanic Americans , teenagers ) that are not readily studied using national, general population sampling. The Center’s survey research is sometimes paired with demographic or organic data to provide new insights. In addition to our U.S. survey research, you can also read more details on our  international survey research , our demographic research and our data science methods.

Our survey researchers are committed to contributing to the larger community of survey research professionals, and are active in AAPOR and is a charter member of the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)  Transparency Initiative .

Frequently asked questions about surveys

• Why am I never asked to take a poll?
• Can I volunteer to be polled?
• Why should I participate in surveys?
• What good are polls?
• Do pollsters have a code of ethics? If so, what is in the code?
• How are your surveys different from market research?
• Do you survey Asian Americans?
• How are people selected for your polls?
• Do people lie to pollsters?
• Do people really have opinions on all of those questions?
• How can I tell a high-quality poll from a lower-quality one?

Reports on the state of polling

• Key Things to Know about Election Polling in the United States
• A Field Guide to Polling: 2020 Edition
• Confronting 2016 and 2020 Polling Limitations
• What 2020’s Election Poll Errors Tell Us About the Accuracy of Issue Polling
• Q&A: After misses in 2016 and 2020, does polling need to be fixed again? What our survey experts say
• Understanding how 2020 election polls performed and what it might mean for other kinds of survey work
• Can We Still Trust Polls?
• Political Polls and the 2016 Election
• Flashpoints in Polling: 2016

Sign up for our Methods newsletter

The latest on survey methods, data science and more, delivered quarterly.

OTHER RESEARCH METHODS

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics

• Report PDF (690 KB)
• Report - All Formats .ZIP (1.1 MB)
• Share on X/Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Send as Email

Business R&D Performance in the United States Tops $600 Billion in 2021

September 28, 2023

Funds spent for business R&D performed in the United States, by type of R&D, source of funds, and size of company: 2018–21

i = more than 50% of the estimate is a combination of imputation and reweighting to account for nonresponse.

a Domestic R&D performance is the cost of R&D paid for and performed by the respondent company and paid for by others outside of the company and performed by the respondent company. b R&D comprises creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge and to devise new applications of available knowledge. This includes (1) activities aimed at acquiring new knowledge or understanding without specific immediate commercial applications or uses (basic research), (2) activities aimed at solving a specific problem or meeting a specific commercial objective (applied research), and (3) systematic work, drawing on research and practical experience and resulting in additional knowledge, which is directed to producing new processes or to improving existing products—goods or services—or processes (development). c Includes foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies. d Includes companies located inside and outside the United States; U.S. state government agencies and laboratories; U.S. universities, colleges, and academic researchers; and all other organizations located inside and outside the United States. e Includes only companies with 10 or more domestic employees.

Detail may not add to total because of rounding.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and Census Bureau, Business Enterprise Research and Development Survey.

R&D Performance, by Type of R&D, Industry Sector, and Source of Funding

In 2021, of the $602 billion that companies spent on R&D, $40 billion (7%) was spent on basic research, $86 billion (14%) on applied research, and $476 billion (79%) on development ( table 1 ). In 2021, companies in manufacturing industries performed $326 billion (54%) of domestic R&D , defined as R&D performed in the 50 states and Washington, DC ( table 2 ). Most of the funding came from these companies’ own funds (88%). Companies in nonmanufacturing industries performed $276 billion of domestic R&D (46% of total domestic R&D performance), 87% of which was paid for from companies’ own funds.

The U.S. federal government was a large source of external funding for R&D ( also referred to as R&D paid for by others ) across all industries. Of the $75 billion paid for by others, the federal government accounted for $24 billion. Seventy-four percent of federal government funding went to three industry groups: aerospace products and parts (North American Industry Classification System [NAICS] code 3364) ($11 billion), scientific research and development services (NAICS 5417) ($4 billion), and computer and electronic products (NAICS 334) ($3 billion). Companies also received funds from other U.S. companies ($27 billion) and foreign companies—including foreign parent companies of U.S. subsidiaries ($23 billion). Eighteen billion dollars (69%) of all business R&D funded by other U.S. companies was for scientific research and development services (NAICS 5417). The distribution of foreign company R&D funding was spread more broadly across multiple industries ( table 2 ). (See “ Survey Information and Data Availability ” for information on the availability of data tables with full industry detail.)

Funds spent for business R&D performed in the United States, by source of funds, selected industry, and company size: 2021

D = suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information; i = more than 50% of the estimate is a combination of imputation and reweighting to account for nonresponse; r = relative standard error is more than 50%.

NAICS = North American Industry Classification System; nec = not elsewhere classified.

a All R&D is the cost of R&D paid for and performed by the respondent company and paid for by others outside of the company and performed by the respondent company. b Includes foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies ($32.1 billion). c Includes foreign parent companies of U.S. subsidiaries ($20.8 billion) and unaffiliated companies ($2.5 billion). Excludes funds from foreign subsidiaries to U.S. companies paid for through intercompany transactions ($32.1 billion). d Includes U.S. state government agencies and laboratories ($0.3 billion); U.S. universities, colleges, and academic researchers (< $0.01 billion); and all other organizations located inside ($0.7 billion) and outside the United States (< $0.01 billion). e Includes only companies with 10 or more domestic employees.

Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Industry classification was based on the dominant business code for domestic R&D performance, where available. For companies that did not report business codes, the classification used for sampling was assigned. Statistics are representative of companies located in the United States that performed or funded $50,000 or more of R&D.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and Census Bureau, Business Enterprise Research and Development Survey, 2021.

Sales, R&D Intensity, and Employment of Companies That Performed or Funded R&D

U.S. companies that performed or funded R&D reported domestic net sales of $13 trillion in 2021 ( table 3 ). ​ Determining the amount of domestic net sales and operating revenues was left to the reporting company. However, guidance was given to include revenues from foreign operations and subsidiaries and from discontinued operations and to exclude intracompany transfers, returns, allowances, freight charges, and excise, sales, and other revenue-based taxes. For all industries, the R&D intensity (R&D-to-sales ratio) was 4.6%; for manufacturers, 5.0%; and for nonmanufacturers, 4.2%. Manufacturing industries with high levels of R&D intensity in 2021 were pharmaceuticals and medicines (NAICS 3254) (16.1%) and computer and electronic products (NAICS 334) (13.0%). Among the nonmanufacturing industries, industries with high levels of R&D intensity were scientific research and development services (NAICS 5417) (41.2%), software publishers (NAICS 5112) (12.9%), and computer systems design and related services (NAICS 5415) (10.2%).

Businesses that performed or funded R&D employed 23.7 million people in the United States in 2021 ( table 3 ). ​ Employment statistics in this InfoBrief are headcounts unless they are designated as full-time equivalent (FTE) estimates. R&D employees include researchers (defined as R&D scientists and engineers and their managers) and the technicians, technologists, and support staff members who work on R&D or who provide direct support to R&D activities. Approximately 2.1 million (9%) were business R&D employees. ​ The number of persons employed who were assigned full time to R&D plus a prorated number of employees who worked on R&D only part of the time was 1.9 million FTEs, of which 1.3 million FTEs were R&D researchers.

Of the 2.1 million people working on R&D in companies that performed or funded business R&D in 2021, 1.5 million were men and 0.6 million were women; 48% of the men and 45% of the women worked in manufacturing industries ( table 4 ). Researchers—that is, scientists, engineers, and their managers—accounted for 1.4 million of the 2.1 million R&D workers (67%). Of the R&D workers, 130,000 (9%) held PhD degrees. R&D technicians numbered 501,000, and 205,000 were grouped as other supporting staff.

Sales, R&D, R&D intensity, and employment for companies that performed or funded business R&D in the United States, by selected industry and company size: 2021

a Dollar values are for goods sold or services rendered by R&D-performing or R&D-funding companies located in the United States to customers outside of the company, including the U.S. federal government, foreign customers, and the company's foreign subsidiaries. Included are revenues from a company’s foreign operations and subsidiaries and from discontinued operations. If a respondent company is owned by a foreign parent company, sales to the parent company and to affiliates not owned by the respondent company are included. Excluded are intracompany transfers, returns, allowances, freight charges, and excise, sales, and other revenue-based taxes. b All R&D is the cost of R&D paid for and performed by the respondent company and paid for by others outside of the company and performed by the respondent company. c R&D intensity is the cost of domestic R&D paid for by the respondent company and others outside of the company and performed by the company divided by domestic net sales of companies that performed or funded R&D. d Data recorded on 12 March represent employment figures for the year. e Headcounts of researchers, R&D managers, technicians, clerical staff, and others assigned to R&D groups. f Includes only companies with 10 or more domestic employees.

Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Industry classification was based on the dominant business code for domestic R&D performance, where available. For companies that did not report business codes, the classification used for sampling was assigned.

Domestic employment, R&D employment by sex and work activity, R&D researchers by level of education, and full-time equivalent researcher employment for companies that performed or funded business R&D in the United States, by industrial sector: 2021

NAICS = North American Industry Classification System.

a Data recorded on 12 March represent employment figures for the year. b Includes R&D scientists and engineers and their managers. c Includes clerical staff and others assigned to R&D groups. d The number of persons employed who were assigned full time to R&D, plus a prorated number of employees who worked on R&D only part of the time.

Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Industry classification was based on the dominant business code for domestic R&D performance, where available. For companies that did not report business codes, the classification used for sampling was assigned. Excludes data for federally funded research and development centers. Also available in the full set of data tables are statistics on domestic R&D employment, by state; foreign R&D personnel headcounts, by country; and headcounts of leased (i.e., external) R&D personnel, by function.

R&D Performance, by Company Size

Small- and medium-sized companies (10–249 domestic employees) performed 9.8% of the nation’s total business R&D in 2021 ( table 3 ). Frascati Manual ; see Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2015. Frascati Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. The Measurement of Scientific, Technological, and Innovation Activities . Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/frascati-manual-2015_9789264239012-en . Anderson and Kindlon (2019) provide estimates of R&D performance and employment using these new classifications over 2008–15. The authors also compare the trends to those observed in SIRD for the time prior to 2008. The ABS, also cosponsored by NCSES and the Census Bureau, collects R&D data from companies with fewer than 10 employees for 2017 and beyond. See Anderson G, Kindlon A; NCSES. 2019. Indicators of R&D in Small Businesses: Data from the 2009–15 Business R&D and Innovation Survey . InfoBrief NSF 19-316. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19316/ ." data-bs-content="Company size classifications changed for 2017 and subsequent years in response to the revised Frascati Manual ; see Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2015. Frascati Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. The Measurement of Scientific, Technological, and Innovation Activities . Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/frascati-manual-2015_9789264239012-en . Anderson and Kindlon (2019) provide estimates of R&D performance and employment using these new classifications over 2008–15. The authors also compare the trends to those observed in SIRD for the time prior to 2008. The ABS, also cosponsored by NCSES and the Census Bureau, collects R&D data from companies with fewer than 10 employees for 2017 and beyond. See Anderson G, Kindlon A; NCSES. 2019. Indicators of R&D in Small Businesses: Data from the 2009–15 Business R&D and Innovation Survey . InfoBrief NSF 19-316. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19316/ ." data-endnote-uuid="bbd761ec-4ed8-45ec-810e-9b53647fe422">​ Company size classifications changed for 2017 and subsequent years in response to the revised Frascati Manual ; see Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2015. Frascati Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. The Measurement of Scientific, Technological, and Innovation Activities . Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/frascati-manual-2015_9789264239012-en . Anderson and Kindlon (2019) provide estimates of R&D performance and employment using these new classifications over 2008–15. The authors also compare the trends to those observed in SIRD for the time prior to 2008. The ABS, also cosponsored by NCSES and the Census Bureau, collects R&D data from companies with fewer than 10 employees for 2017 and beyond. See Anderson G, Kindlon A; NCSES. 2019. Indicators of R&D in Small Businesses: Data from the 2009–15 Business R&D and Innovation Survey . InfoBrief NSF 19-316. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19316/ . For these companies as a group, the R&D intensity was 8.8%. These companies accounted for 5% of sales and employed 7% of the 23.7 million employees who worked for R&D-performing or R&D-funding companies. They employed 18% of the 2.1 million employees engaged in business R&D in the United States.

Large companies with 250–24,999 domestic employees performed 52% of the nation’s total business R&D in 2021, and their R&D intensity was 4.7%. They accounted for 51% of sales, employed 42% of those who worked for R&D-performing or R&D-funding companies, and employed 51% of R&D employees in the United States.

The largest companies (25,000 or more domestic employees) performed 38% of the nation’s total business R&D in 2021, and their R&D intensity was 4.0%. They accounted for 44% of sales, employed 51% of those who worked for R&D-performing or R&D-funding companies, and employed 31% of business R&D employees in the United States.

R&D Performance, by State

In 2021, of the $602 billion of R&D performed in the United States, businesses in California alone accounted for 35.1% ( table 5 ). Other states with large amounts of business R&D were Washington (8.1% of the national total in 2021), Massachusetts (6.6%), Texas (4.7%), New York (4.4%), and New Jersey (4.2%). Over Half of U.S. Business R&D Performed in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2015 . InfoBrief NSF 19-322. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19322/ . Also see Shackelford B, Wolfe R; NCSES. 2020. Businesses Performed 60% of Their U.S. R&D in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2018 . InfoBrief NSF 21-331. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21331 . Information and statistics on U.S. state trends in R&D, science and engineering education, workforce, patents and publications, and knowledge-intensive industries is also available in the Science and Engineering State Indicators data tool at https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/states ." data-bs-content="In addition to statistics for all states and for all states by industry, below-state level statistics are available in the full set of data tables and in other InfoBriefs; see Shackelford B, Wolfe R; NCSES. 2019. Over Half of U.S. Business R&D Performed in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2015 . InfoBrief NSF 19-322. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19322/ . Also see Shackelford B, Wolfe R; NCSES. 2020. Businesses Performed 60% of Their U.S. R&D in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2018 . InfoBrief NSF 21-331. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21331 . Information and statistics on U.S. state trends in R&D, science and engineering education, workforce, patents and publications, and knowledge-intensive industries is also available in the Science and Engineering State Indicators data tool at https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/states ." data-endnote-uuid="8051c6cd-6983-4989-9a6c-bbc5713eaaa4">​ In addition to statistics for all states and for all states by industry, below-state level statistics are available in the full set of data tables and in other InfoBriefs; see Shackelford B, Wolfe R; NCSES. 2019. Over Half of U.S. Business R&D Performed in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2015 . InfoBrief NSF 19-322. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19322/ . Also see Shackelford B, Wolfe R; NCSES. 2020. Businesses Performed 60% of Their U.S. R&D in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2018 . InfoBrief NSF 21-331. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21331 . Information and statistics on U.S. state trends in R&D, science and engineering education, workforce, patents and publications, and knowledge-intensive industries is also available in the Science and Engineering State Indicators data tool at https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/states .

Funds spent for business R&D performed in the United States, by state and source of funds: 2021

a All R&D is the cost of domestic R&D paid for by the respondent company and others outside of the company and performed by the respondent company. b Includes data reported that were not allocated to a specific state by multi-establishment companies. For single-establishment companies, data reported were allocated to the state in the address used to mail the survey form.

Capital Expenditures

Companies that performed or funded R&D in the United States in 2021 spent $793 billion on capital, that is, assets with expected useful lives of more than 1 year ( table 6 ). Of this amount, $53 billion (7%) was for assets used for domestic R&D operations (i.e., land acquisitions, buildings and land improvement, equipment, capitalized software, and other assets). Companies in manufacturing industries spent $28 billion on capital for domestic R&D, and companies in nonmanufacturing industries spent $24 billion. Industries with high levels of capital expenditures on assets used for domestic R&D in 2021 were pharmaceuticals and medicines (NAICS 3254) ($7.5 billion, or 14% of national capital expenditures on assets used for R&D) and semiconductor and other electronic products (NAICS 3344) ($5 billion, or 9%). Among all types of capital assets, manufacturing industries spent the most on equipment ($15 billion, or 53% of total capital assets used for domestic R&D), and nonmanufacturing industries disbursed the most on capitalized software ($13.7 billion, or 56%).

Capital expenditures in the United States, total and used for domestic R&D, by type of expenditure, industry, and company size: 2021

* = amount < $500,000; i = more than 50% of the estimate is a combination of imputation and reweighting to account for nonresponse; r = relative standard error is more than 50%.

a Domestic R&D is the R&D paid for by the respondent company and others outside of the company and performed by the company. b Capital expenditures are payments by a business for assets that usually have a useful life of more than 1 year. The value of assets acquired or improved through capital expenditures is recorded on a company’s balance sheet. BERD Survey statistics exclude the cost of assets acquired through mergers and acquisitions. c Capital expenditures for long-lived assets used in a company’s R&D operations are not included in its R&D expense, but any depreciation recorded for those assets is included in its R&D expense. For 2021, depreciation associated with domestic R&D paid for and performed by the company was $18.4 billion and with domestic R&D performed by the company and paid for by others was $2.7 billion. d Includes the cost of purchased or improved buildings and other facilities that are fixed to the land. e Includes the cost of other capital expenditures, including purchased patents and other intangible assets, and expenditures not distributed among the categories shown. f Includes only companies with 10 or more domestic employees.

Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Industry classification was based on dominant business code for domestic R&D performance, where available. For companies that did not report business codes, the classification used for sampling was assigned. An estimate range may be displayed in place of a single estimate to avoid disclosing operations of individual companies.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau, Business Enterprise Research and Development Survey, 2021.

Survey Information and Data Availability

The sample for the BERD Survey was selected to represent all for-profit, nonfarm companies that were publicly or privately held, had 10 or more employees in the United States, and performed or funded R&D either domestically or abroad. The estimates in this InfoBrief are based on responses from a sample of the population and may differ from actual values because of sampling variability or other factors. As a result, apparent differences between the estimates for two or more groups may not be statistically significant. All comparative statements in this InfoBrief have undergone statistical testing and are significant at the 90% confidence level unless otherwise noted. The variances of estimates in this report were calculated using design-based formulas. Also, because the statistics from the survey are based on a sample, they are subject to both sampling and nonsampling errors. (See the 2021 “Technical Notes” at https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/business-enterprise-research-development/ .) ​ The Census Bureau reviewed the information in this InfoBrief for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and approved the disclosure avoidance practices applied (Project No. P-7504682, Disclosure Review Board (DRB) approval number: CBDRB-FY23-0161).

Beginning in survey year 2018, companies that performed or funded less than $50,000 of R&D were excluded from tabulation.

In this InfoBrief, money amounts are expressed in current U.S. dollars and are not adjusted for inflation. A company is defined as a business organization located in the United States, either U.S. owned or a U.S. affiliate of a foreign parent company, of one or more establishments under common ownership or control.

For 2020, a total of 47,500 companies were sampled to represent the population of 1,140,000 companies; for 2021, a total of 47,500 companies were sampled, representing 1,137,000 companies. The actual numbers of reporting units in the sample that remained within the scope of the survey between sample selection and tabulation were 44,500 for 2020 and 44,000 for 2021. These lower counts represent the number of reporting units that were determined to be within the scope of the survey after all data collected were processed. Reasons for the reduced counts include mergers, acquisitions, and instances where companies had fewer than 10 employees in the United States or had gone out of business in the interim. Of these in-scope reporting units, 67% were considered to have met the criteria for a complete response to the 2020 survey; 69% fulfilled the 2021 complete response criteria. Coverage of the previous year’s known positive R&D stratum for 2020 was 92%; the coverage rate for 2021 was also 92%. Industry classification was based on the dominant business activity for domestic R&D performance, where available. For reporting units that did not report business activity codes for R&D, the classification used for sampling was assigned.

The estimation methodology for state estimates in the BERD Survey takes the form of a hybrid estimator, combining the unweighted reported amount, by state, with a weighted amount apportioned (or raked) across states with relevant industrial activity. The hybrid estimator smooths the estimate over states with R&D activity, by industry, and accounts for real observed change within a state. Table 5 shows the adjusted state estimates after this estimation methodology was applied.

The full set of data tables from the 2021 survey will be available at the BERD Survey page . Individual data tables and tables with relative standard errors and imputation rates from the 2021 survey are available from the author in advance of the full release. To minimize reporting burden, survey items are rotated on and off the survey on an odd- and even-numbered year schedule. Statistics on patents, intellectual property, and technology transfer activities were rotated off the survey for 2021. Items rotated on the survey for 2021 include questions on R&D performed by others by type of performer, federal R&D by government agency, and R&D by application area.

The BERD Survey contains confidential data that are protected under Title 13 and Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Restricted microdata can be accessed at the secure Federal Statistical Research Data Centers (FSRDCs) administered by the Census Bureau. FSRDCs are partnerships between federal statistical agencies and leading research institutions. FSRDCs provide secure environments supporting qualified researchers using restricted-access data while protecting respondent confidentiality. Researchers interested in using the microdata can submit a proposal to the Census Bureau, which evaluates proposals based on their benefit to the Census Bureau, scientific merit, feasibility, and risk of disclosure. To learn more about the FSRDCs and how to apply, please visit https://www.census.gov/about/adrm/fsrdc.html .

Suggested Citation

Britt R; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2023. Business R&D Performance in the United States Tops $600 Billion in 2021 . NSF 23-350. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at http://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23350 .

1 NSF has cosponsored an annual business R&D survey since 1953. The Survey of Industrial Research and Development (SIRD) collected data for 1953–2007, and its successor, the Business R&D and Innovation Survey (BRDIS), collected data for 2008–16. Beginning with 2017, the collection of innovation data was moved to the Annual Business Survey (ABS), another survey cosponsored with the Census Bureau, and BRDIS became the Business Research and Development Survey (BRDS). Beginning with 2019, the business R&D data collection reported here was renamed the Business Enterprise Research and Development (BERD) Survey for international comparability.

2 Determining the amount of domestic net sales and operating revenues was left to the reporting company. However, guidance was given to include revenues from foreign operations and subsidiaries and from discontinued operations and to exclude intracompany transfers, returns, allowances, freight charges, and excise, sales, and other revenue-based taxes.

3 Employment statistics in this InfoBrief are headcounts unless they are designated as full-time equivalent (FTE) estimates. R&D employees include researchers (defined as R&D scientists and engineers and their managers) and the technicians, technologists, and support staff members who work on R&D or who provide direct support to R&D activities.

4 The number of persons employed who were assigned full time to R&D plus a prorated number of employees who worked on R&D only part of the time was 1.9 million FTEs, of which 1.3 million FTEs were R&D researchers.

5 Company size classifications changed for 2017 and subsequent years in response to the revised Frascati Manual ; see Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2015. Frascati Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. The Measurement of Scientific, Technological, and Innovation Activities . Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/frascati-manual-2015_9789264239012-en . Anderson and Kindlon (2019) provide estimates of R&D performance and employment using these new classifications over 2008–15. The authors also compare the trends to those observed in SIRD for the time prior to 2008. The ABS, also cosponsored by NCSES and the Census Bureau, collects R&D data from companies with fewer than 10 employees for 2017 and beyond. See Anderson G, Kindlon A; NCSES. 2019. Indicators of R&D in Small Businesses: Data from the 2009–15 Business R&D and Innovation Survey . InfoBrief NSF 19-316. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19316/ .

6 In addition to statistics for all states and for all states by industry, below-state level statistics are available in the full set of data tables and in other InfoBriefs; see Shackelford B, Wolfe R; NCSES. 2019. Over Half of U.S. Business R&D Performed in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2015 . InfoBrief NSF 19-322. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19322/ . Also see Shackelford B, Wolfe R; NCSES. 2020. Businesses Performed 60% of Their U.S. R&D in 10 Metropolitan Areas in 2018 . InfoBrief NSF 21-331. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21331 . Information and statistics on U.S. state trends in R&D, science and engineering education, workforce, patents and publications, and knowledge-intensive industries is also available in the Science and Engineering State Indicators data tool at https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/states .

7 The Census Bureau reviewed the information in this InfoBrief for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and approved the disclosure avoidance practices applied (Project No. P-7504682, Disclosure Review Board (DRB) approval number: CBDRB-FY23-0161).

Report Author

Ronda Britt Survey Manager NCSES Tel: (703) 292-7765 E-mail: [email protected]

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences National Science Foundation 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite W14200 Alexandria, VA 22314 Tel: (703) 292-8780 FIRS: (800) 877-8339 TDD: (800) 281-8749 E-mail: [email protected]

Source Data & Analysis

Data Tables (NSF 23-351)

Get e-mail updates from NCSES

NCSES is an official statistical agency. Subscribe below to receive our latest news and announcements.

Navigation Menu

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests..., provide feedback.

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly.

To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation .

• Notifications

NTRS - NASA Technical Reports Server

Available downloads, related records.

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 25.4.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Smartphone-Based Speech Therapy for Poststroke Dysarthria: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating Efficacy and Feasibility

Authors of this article:

Original Paper

• Yuyoung Kim 1 , MSc   ; 
• Minjung Kim 1, 2 , MS   ; 
• Jinwoo Kim 1, 2 , PhD   ; 
• Tae-Jin Song 3 , MD, PhD  

1 Human Computer Interaction Lab, Graduate Program in Cognitive Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

2 HAII Corporation, Seoul, Republic of Korea

3 Department of Neurology, Seoul Hospital, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Corresponding Author:

Tae-Jin Song, MD, PhD

Department of Neurology

Seoul Hospital

Ewha Womans University College of Medicine

22, Ewhayeodae 1an-gil, Seodaemun-gu

Seoul, 03766

Republic of Korea

Phone: 82 10 8919 8764

Email: [email protected]

Background: Dysarthria is a common poststroke speech disorder affecting communication and psychological well-being. Traditional speech therapy is effective but often poses challenges in terms of accessibility and patient adherence. Emerging smartphone-based therapies may offer promising alternatives for the treatment of poststroke dysarthria.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and feasibility of smartphone-based speech therapy for improving speech intelligibility in patients with acute and early subacute poststroke dysarthria. This study also explored the impact of the intervention on psychological well-being, user experience, and overall feasibility in a clinical setting.

Methods: Participants were divided into 2 groups for this randomized, evaluator-blinded trial. The intervention group used a smartphone-based speech therapy app for 1 hour per day, 5 days per week, for 4 weeks, with guideline-based standard stroke care. The control group received standard guideline-based stroke care and rehabilitation. Speech intelligibility, psychological well-being, quality of life, and user acceptance were assessed using repeated measures ANOVA.

Results: In this study, 40 patients with poststroke dysarthria were enrolled, 32 of whom completed the trial (16 in each group). The intervention group showed significant improvements in speech intelligibility compared with the control group. This was evidenced by improvements from baseline ( F 1,30 =34.35; P <.001), between-group differences ( F 1,30 =6.18; P =.02), and notable time-by-group interactions ( F 1,30 =6.91; P =.01). Regarding secondary outcomes, the intervention led to improvements in the percentage of correct consonants over time ( F 1,30 =5.57; P =.03). In addition, significant reductions were noted in the severity of dysarthria in the intervention group over time ( F 1,30 =21.18; P <.001), with a pronounced group effect ( F 1,30 =5.52; P =.03) and time-by-group interaction ( F 1,30 =5.29; P =.03). Regarding quality of life, significant improvements were observed as measured by the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire ( F 1,30 =13.25; P <.001) and EQ-VAS ( F 1,30 =7.74; P =.009) over time. The adherence rate to the smartphone-based app was 64%, with over half of the participants completing all the sessions. The usability of the app was rated high (system usability score 80.78). In addition, the intervention group reported increased self-efficacy in using the app compared with the control group ( F 1,30 =10.81; P =.003).

Conclusions: The smartphone-based speech therapy app significantly improved speech intelligibility, articulation, and quality of life in patients with poststroke dysarthria. These findings indicate that smartphone-based speech therapy can be a useful assistant device in the management of poststroke dysarthria, particularly in the acute and early subacute stroke stages.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05146765; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05146765

Introduction

Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide [ 1 ]. Approximately 40% of people who had survived a stroke experience disabilities [ 2 , 3 ], and over half of the patients with acute stroke develop motor speech disorders, particularly dysarthria [ 4 ]. Poststroke dysarthria results from weakened, slow, or impaired speech production muscles caused by cranial nerve damage [ 5 ]. Poststroke dysarthria can cause abnormalities in vocal quality, pace, strength, and volume, ultimately leading to reduced speech intelligibility. Consequently, decreased speech intelligibility may trigger communication problems, impaired social interactions, anxiety, depression, and decreased quality of life [ 6 , 7 ].

Starting speech therapy immediately after a stroke can enhance recovery [ 8 - 10 ]. Evidence indicates that early, consistent, intensive treatment yields significantly better outcomes [ 11 , 12 ]. However, despite the recognized importance of early intervention, there is a notable lack of clinical studies that specifically address poststroke dysarthria, particularly in the early stages of stroke. The lack of evidence underscores the need for further studies. In animal studies, neuroplastic changes after an ischemic stroke have been shown to aid neural recovery. However, the direct applicability of these findings in human patients remains uncertain [ 13 , 14 ]. Therefore, further research is needed to define the benefits and risks of early interventions after stroke [ 10 ].

Unfortunately, treatment adherence is negatively affected by the perception that current speech treatments are tedious and repetitive [ 15 ]. Furthermore, patients may face restrictions regarding therapeutic resources because speech therapy requires substantial time and effort by clinicians or speech-language pathologists (SLPs) [ 16 ]. Approximately one-third of the patients received sufficient speech therapy. Additionally, the amount and frequency of therapy received varies among patients [ 17 ].

Digital speech therapy apps may offer significant advancements over traditional approaches [ 18 , 19 ]. They also enhance therapeutic accessibility and patient engagement. Additionally, they deliver effective therapeutic dosages and offer tailored feedback to patients [ 6 ]. Most importantly, smartphone-based speech therapy apps offer flexibility and ease of access. This is particularly beneficial for patients with stroke who find clinic visits challenging. In addition, smartphone-based speech therapy apps can reduce time and economic burden [ 20 ]. Smartphone-based speech therapy can play a crucial role in increasing therapy intensity. High-intensity practice leads to better outcomes in poststroke dysarthria treatment [ 5 , 21 ]. Smartphone-based speech therapy can be delivered using multimedia resources. This approach enhances patient engagement through repetitive practice. Finally, smartphone-based speech therapy enables patients to practice speech independently by measuring various vocal parameters and providing tailored feedback [ 22 ]. Real-time feedback can assist patients in recognizing and correcting inappropriate speech patterns [ 23 , 24 ]. This system can enhance the effectiveness of speech therapy by providing valuable insights and improving motivation. Additionally, such feedback is crucial to enhance patient self-efficacy and promote positive behavioral changes [ 25 ].

Our primary aim was to evaluate the effect of smartphone-based speech therapy on speech intelligibility, particularly in patients with poststroke dysarthria in the acute and early subacute stroke stages. Additionally, we focused on articulation function, dysarthria severity, and psychological well-being, including depression, anxiety, and quality of life. This study also assessed the feasibility of the trial by examining the adherence, recruitment, and dropout rates. Furthermore, we evaluated the usability and self-efficacy of the app experienced by the participants. This study aimed to explore the efficacy of early intervention and assess how digital tools can enhance speech therapy outcomes in patients with poststroke dysarthria.

Study Design

This was a prospective, randomized, evaluator-blinded trial study. Participants were allocated to intervention and control groups. They were recruited from 2 stroke centers in South Korea: Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital and Mokdong Hospital. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05146765).

The participants were screened for eligibility and randomly allocated to the intervention or control groups. Demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded, and a detailed baseline assessment of poststroke dysarthria was conducted. After 4 weeks, the participants underwent a postevaluation to reassess their condition and measure the efficacy of the intervention. The trial was designed according to the CONSORT-EHEALTH (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile Health Applications and Online Telehealth) checklist ( Multimedia Appendix 1 ).

Ethical Considerations

In adherence to our commitment to ethical research standards, we observed several vital considerations throughout this study. Our adherence to these ethical principles was fundamental to ensuring all participants’ dignity, rights, safety, and well-being. Upon receiving ethics approval from the Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital Institutional Review Board (approval SEUMC 2021-12-011), we ensured that all research procedures strictly adhered to the guidelines outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki [ 26 ]. Before participating, participants identified as neurologically stable and survived a stroke in the acute and early subacute stages received detailed information about the study’s goals, procedures, and potential benefits and risks. Each participant provided written informed consent to affirm their voluntary participation and understanding of the study. This consent process was necessary to ensure participants were fully informed and their autonomy respected. Next, strict data protection measures were implemented to safeguard our participants’ privacy and confidentiality. All collected data were anonymized throughout the research process to preserve participants’ privacy. We offered participants a monetary compensation of ₩50,000 (US $40) for their involvement in the study, which amounts to ₩25,000 (US $20) per visit. This compensation was offered as a token of appreciation for their valuable contribution to our research and to acknowledge the personal investment each participant made by dedicating their time to our study.

Participants

A principal investigator (TJS), specializing in stroke, screened and enrolled the eligible participants. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients diagnosed with dysarthria by a stroke specialist [ 27 ], (2) patients who are neurologically stable, (3) first-time patients with stroke, (4) patients who are in the acute or early subacute phase of stroke defined as having experienced their initial stroke event within the past 1 month, (5) patients with sufficient cognitive abilities to use a smartphone-based speech therapy app (Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥26) [ 28 ], and (6) patients with adequate vision [ 29 ], hearing [ 30 ], communication skills, and motor skills [ 27 ]. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) coexisting language disorders (eg, aphasia) or neurological disorders (eg, dementia, Pick disease, Huntington disease, Parkinson disease, or Parkinsonism) that could influence dysarthria, (2) history of severe mental disorders (eg, depression, schizophrenia, alcohol addiction, or drug addiction), (3) inability to use or access smartphone technology, (4) illiteracy, and (5) inability to communicate in Korean, the primary language of the study location.

Randomization and Masking

An independent researcher managed the randomization. A computerized system with permuted block sizes of 2 and 4 was used to ensure a balanced and unpredictable group distribution [ 31 ]. The block sizes were disclosed to the participants or researchers at the end of the trial to ensure randomization.

Given the intervention’s interactive nature, it was impossible to blind the participants to their group assignments [ 32 ]. However, independent evaluators and those not involved in the treatment process were blinded to the group allocation to minimize potential bias. This masking was crucial to maintain the integrity of the assessment. To preserve the integrity of the blinded assessment, participants were instructed not to disclose any intervention-related details during the evaluation sessions.

Intervention

Intervention group.

Participants in the intervention group received a smartphone-based speech therapy app and standard guideline-based stroke care. This app allowed participants to achieve speech therapy independently without the support of caregivers or therapists. The participants were instructed to use the app for 1 hour daily for at least 5 days per week for 4 consecutive weeks. The intervention could be completed in a single session or distributed across multiple daily sessions.

The app was tailored for older adults with poststroke dysarthria and optimized for users facing age-related challenges [ 33 ]. The interface was designed to minimize unintentional interactions for participants with motor impairments. Intuitive design elements, such as sequential tabs and text-labeled buttons, were included to enhance usability for older adults [ 34 ]. Moreover, button size and spacing were adjusted to facilitate ease of use and reduce inadvertent presses.

The app provided 6 components of speech exercises for 1 day based on established behavioral therapies [ 5 , 10 ]. These included oro-motor exercises, sustained sound, pitch variation, velopharyngeal closure, reading practice, and syllable repetition ( Table 1 ). The primary goal of these exercises was to improve overall speech intelligibility and enhance articulation.

Speech exercises such as sustaining sounds, repeating syllables, and reading provided real-time auditory and visual feedback. Real-time feedback was provided throughout the sessions to promote attention and self-awareness during speech therapy. Pronunciations and speech signals were transmitted during speech exercises. Our engine analyzed the speech parameters and provided feedback. The feedback results were displayed on the participants’ devices. For instance, the “sustaining sound” task required participants to sustain a vowel sound, such as /ah/, for 5-15 seconds. Subsequently, real-time feedback on the loudness, sound length, and pitch was provided. Participants could address speech errors through insights gained from the feedback (eg, “Speak more loudly!” in Figure 1 B).

The treatment results are presented in 2 formats as shown in Figure 2 . First, a summary of each therapy session focused on speech outcomes, including pronunciation accuracy, loudness, and pitch. The participants understood these outcomes better through voice- and text-guided interactions. After the exercise, they listened to their recorded voices and provided feedback. This feedback helped them assess their progress ( Figure 2 A). Second, the app provided cumulative analysis. The analysis included the daily treatment results, weekly and monthly progress, and speech outcome scores ( Figure 2 B).

The app automatically logged all the results in a database. The researchers could access these results using a data-logging system. Researchers monitored the participants’ adherence to the intervention and offered coaching for lapses or technical issues. The researchers evaluated the app use every evening to monitor participants’ adherence. If reduced adherence was observed, the researchers contacted the participants the following day via phone call or SMS text message to encourage therapeutic engagement. The participants were encouraged to report any app-related issues, which were promptly addressed by the researchers.

Control Group

Participants in the control group received standard stroke care for 4 weeks. Standard stroke care includes medical treatment, routine stroke therapy, and rehabilitative exercises, as outlined in the basic guidelines [ 35 , 36 ]. This care encompassed the conventional speech treatment recommended in standard protocols, such as vocal and articulation exercises. Care was provided by clinicians and SLPs who adhered to the conventional stroke therapy methods. Treatment was tailored to each participant’s clinical needs, established through a collaborative agreement between clinicians and participants, and modified to reflect their progress. Additionally, after the 4-week study period, participants in the control group were allowed to use a smartphone-based speech therapy app.

Outcome Measures

Assessments were conducted at 2 time points: at baseline and then immediately after the 4-week intervention period.

Primary Outcome: Speech Intelligibility

The primary outcome of this study was a change in speech intelligibility. To evaluate speech intelligibility, participants were asked to read the “Gaeul” passage, a standardized tool used in Korean paragraph reading tests for speakers with motor speech disorders, developed by Kim [ 37 ]. This passage consists of 369 syllables representing the frequency of occurrence of Korean vowels and consonants.

Participants were instructed to read the passage aloud at their natural pitch and loudness. Recordings were made using a high-quality digital recorder (Sony ICD-UX560F) positioned 30 cm from the participants in a quiet room. The evaluation was carried out in an environment free from noise, which ensured that the conditions were consistent for every assessment [ 38 ]. Participants were seated close to the evaluator to ensure optimal sound quality. The primary SLP evaluator conducted the assessment in the room during the recording. Subsequently, experienced SLPs, who were blinded to the participants’ group allocation, listened to each recording and assessed the speech intelligibility. All 3 SLPs who conducted the assessment possessed over 6 years of clinical experience, specialized in poststroke dysarthria, and held certifications in Korean speech-language pathology. Additionally, they had experienced specialized training in poststroke dysarthria. Speech intelligibility was rated on a scale ranging from 0 (intelligible, can be understood without difficulty) to 6 (unintelligible, cannot be understood at all) [ 39 ]. The other 2 evaluators assessed speech intelligibility based on the recorded audio. The average score from the 3 SLPs was used to determine each participant’s final speech intelligibility score.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary outcomes were measured to assess factors related to dysarthria and psychological well-being. First, the Urimal Test of Articulation and Phonology 2 (U-TAP2) was used [ 40 ]. This measurement was used to identify the percentage of consonants correct for detecting articulation anomalies [ 41 ]. Participants were asked to read 30 words from U-TAP2 in a quiet room. The SLPs then recorded these readings and calculated the percentage of consonants correct by marking misarticulated consonants (94 in total) and converting them into a percentage score.

Stroke-related neurological deficits were measured using the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale [ 27 ], with a specific focus on components related to dysarthria. Stroke specialists quickly evaluated the severity of dysarthric speech. As the participants spoke specific words, the severity was rated on a 3-point scale: 0=normal, 1=mild to moderate, and 2=severe. This assessment was conducted by a seasoned neurologist with over 20 years of experience in stroke specialization and certified in the Korean National Institute of Health Stroke Scale.

Finally, participants’ psychological well-being was measured using self-reported questionnaires. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [ 42 , 43 ] and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale [ 44 , 45 ] were used to evaluate depressive and anxiety symptoms. Furthermore, the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire [ 46 ] was used to assess the participants’ quality of life across 5 different areas: their ability to move around, care for themselves, perform their usual activities, levels of pain or discomfort, and mood. To assign specific values to these quality-of-life measures, we applied weights based on the preferences of the South Korean population. These weights were calculated using the time trade-off method and scores from a visual analog scale [ 47 ].

Feasibility and User Acceptance

Feasibility was assessed based on several aspects. The participant recruitment rates were documented to reflect the level of engagement. Adherence to the intervention was evaluated by tracking the completion rates of the prescribed speech therapy sessions within the app, the frequency of app use, and the average duration of each session. These data, which were transmitted to a dedicated web system, allowed for a detailed analysis of adherence. Potential adverse events and safety concerns were continuously monitored. Any reported issues with app use or challenges faced by the participants were investigated by analyzing the app’s log data.

The usability and acceptance of smartphone-based speech therapy apps were measured using 2 surveys: the System Usability Scale (SUS) [ 48 ] and the Modified Computer Self-Efficacy Scale (mCSES) [ 49 ]. The usability of the app was evaluated using a 10-item, 5-point Likert scale that measured effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. The mCSES was used to gauge participants’ confidence in using the new technology, especially tailored for older patients and those with disabilities.

Statistical Analysis

Power analysis focused on measuring the changes in speech intelligibility. We initially calculated that 32 participants were required to achieve 80% power [ 50 ] to detect a moderate effect size of 0.29 [ 51 ] with a significance level set at .02. However, we aimed to enroll 8 more participants to account for an anticipated dropout rate of 25%. Therefore, our goal was to recruit 40 participants with 20 participants per group [ 52 ].

Descriptive statistics (mean, SD, and percentage) were used to summarize the clinical and demographic characteristics of the participants. To ensure homogeneity between the intervention and control groups, a 2-tailed independent sample t test was conducted for continuous variables, whereas a chi-square test was used for categorical variables. Following the intention-to-treat principle, repeated measures ANOVA was applied to detect changes in outcome measures between and within groups. This analysis incorporated fixed effects for time, group, and time-by-group interactions, with measures taken at baseline and 4 weeks after the intervention. All analyses were performed using SPSS (version 27.0; IBM Corp). Statistical significance was set at P <.05 and was considered statistically significant.

Data Management

All data were encrypted to ensure privacy. After encryption, the system was securely transmitted to a dedicated web system. This process maintained the confidentiality and safety of the data. Real-time data such as app use frequency, session duration, and speech performance metrics are necessary for monitoring therapeutic progress and adapting the intervention as needed. Our research team used proactive measures to ensure consistent participation. For instance, reduced adherence to the app triggered alerts, which prompted our team to reconnect with the participants to understand and address their concerns. While participants could withdraw from the study at any time, the research team reserved the right to exclude those who required immediate medical attention for reasons that were not limited to the study parameters.

We recruited 129 patients with acute to early subacute cerebral infarction between January 18, 2022, and May 31, 2022. These patients were screened based on the eligibility criteria. Of these, 81 patients exhibited symptoms of dysarthria. During the screening process, 14 patients were excluded due to coexisting aphasia, 10 due to psychological problems or medication, 11 due to dementia or cognitive dysfunction, 3 due to inability to use or access smartphone technology, and 3 due to visual or hearing impairment. Finally, 40 participants were enrolled.

The 40 participants were randomized into 2 study groups, as shown in Figure 3 . We excluded 7 participants who could not complete the study for personal reasons: 5 in the intervention group and 2 in the control group. Additionally, 1 participant in the control group was excluded because of another speech disorder, apraxia. The final analysis included 32 participants (16 each in the treatment and control groups).

Table 2 presents the baseline characteristics of the participants. Chi-square and independent 2-tailed t tests revealed no significant differences between the 2 study groups. Among the 32 participants, 25 were male and 7 were female, with a mean age of 65.25 (SD 12.97; treatment group: mean 60.44, SD 11.94 and control group: mean 70.06, SD 12.47) years. All the participants were in the acute and early subacute phases of poststroke dysarthria. The treatment group participants were observed for an average of 7.06 (SD 3.66) days after stroke. In contrast, the control group participants were assessed on an average of 7.88 (SD 6.45) days after stroke.

a N/A: not applicable.

b U-TAP2: Urimal Test of Articulation and Phonology 2.

c NIHSS: National Institute of Health Stroke Scale.

d PHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire-9.

e GAD-7: Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale.

f mCSES: Modified Computer Self-Efficacy Scale.

Primary Outcome

During the baseline assessment, none of the participants were rated as 0=completely understandable or 6=completely unintelligible. Of the total 32 participants, 16 had a rating of 1, indicating slight difficulties in speech intelligibility. Another 8 participants had a rating of 2, demonstrating mild dysarthria. A range of speech intelligibility issues was observed: 5 participants had a rating of 3, which indicated moderate dysarthria; and 2 participants had a rating of 4, which suggested more severe difficulties. Only 1 participant had a rating of 5, which indicated they were close to being unintelligible.

Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess the impact of time, group, and time-by-group interactions on speech intelligibility. The results revealed a significant effect of time ( F 1,30 =34.35; P <.001). This finding indicated that there were significant changes in speech intelligibility between baseline and 4 weeks after the intervention. The mean speech intelligibility score in the intervention group improved from 1.56 (SD 0.89) at baseline to 0.69 (SD 1.09) after intervention. Additionally, a significant group effect was observed ( F 1,30 =6.18; P =.02). This analysis suggested significant differences in speech intelligibility between the treatment and control groups. Furthermore, the interaction effect between time and group was also significant ( F 1,30 =6.91; P =.01), which indicates that the changes in speech intelligibility over time varied significantly between the groups.

The intervention group demonstrated notable improvements in secondary outcomes compared with the control group after intervention ( Table 3 ).

a U-TAP2: Urimal Test of Articulation and Phonology 2.

b NIHSS: National Institute of Health Stroke Scale.

c PHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire-9.

d GAD-7: Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale.

e mCSES: Modified Computer Self-Efficacy Scale.

First, the percentage of correct consonants measured by the U-TAP2 showed a significant time effect ( F 1,30 =5.57; P =.03) compared to the change between baseline and 4 weeks after the intervention. However, the group effect ( F 1,30 =3.52; P =.07) and time-by-group interaction ( F 1,30 =4.13; P =.05) were not statistically significant.

Second, significant findings emerged from the assessment of the severity of poststroke dysarthria. The time effect was significant ( F 1,30 =2.21; P ≤.001). This highlights a notable improvement in the severity over 4 weeks. Furthermore, a significant group effect ( F 1,30 =5.52; P =.03) indicated differences in severity between the treatment and control groups. Most importantly, the significant time-by-group interaction ( F 1,30 =5.29; P =.03) suggests that the groups experienced different trajectories of severity over time.

Third, no significant benefits were observed for depression or anxiety. For depression, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, there was no significant time effect ( F 1,30 =1.42; P =.24), and the time-by-group interaction was also not significant ( F 1,30 =0.66; P =.42). However, a significant group effect was observed ( F 1,30 =8.33; P =.007). In terms of anxiety levels, as assessed by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale, no significant effects were found for time ( F 1,30 =2.09; P =.16; group: F 1,30 =2.15; P =.15; or time-by-group interaction: F 1,30 =0.13; P =.91).

Finally, a significant time effect was noted for the overall quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-3L ( F 1,30 =13.25; P ≤.001). No significant effects were observed for group ( F 1,30 =3.64; P =.07) or time-by-group interactions ( F 1,30 =0.76; P =.79). In addition, the EQ-VAS scores showed a significant time effect ( F 1,30 =7.74; P =.009) and group effect ( F 1,30 =6.06; P =.02). However, there was no significant time-by-group interaction ( F 1,30 =0.15; P =.70).

Feasibility

We met our recruitment goal by successfully enrolling 40 participants during the study period. The final assessment completion rate was 80%. Regarding adherence, 64% (n=20) of participants in the intervention group consistently used the smartphone-based speech therapy app throughout the designated period. More than 51% (n=16) of the participants completed the prescribed sessions.

System usability was considered excellent, as measured by the mean SUS score of 80.78 (SD 16.27). Concerning self-efficacy, measured by the mCSES, the intervention group had a substantial group effect ( F 1,30 =10.81; P =.003), but there were no significant changes over time ( F 1,30 =2.99; P =.09) or in the time-by-group interaction ( F 1,30 =0.97; P =.33). No significant adverse events were observed during the study period.

Principal Findings

Despite its significant impact on communication and psychosocial well-being, poststroke dysarthria remains underresearched. In particular, there is a lack of evidence on poststroke dysarthria interventions, highlighting the urgent need for more comprehensive research [ 53 ]. Understanding the prognosis of speech therapy in the critical initial months after stroke is vital because early intervention can hasten recovery [ 9 ]. Unfortunately, there is a knowledge gap in the evidence regarding poststroke dysarthria during the acute and early subacute phases [ 54 ]. Our trial findings provide evidence of the efficacy of smartphone-based speech therapy in the treatment of poststroke dysarthria.

In this study, participants experienced significant improvements in speech intelligibility and articulation after 4 weeks of using the smartphone-based speech therapy app compared to those receiving standard stroke care. This intervention was effective in several ways. It showed the potential for reducing the severity of dysarthria. It also helped alleviate depression and improve the quality of life of the participants. Consistent with prior studies, these results underscore the reliability of smartphone-based interventions [ 55 , 56 ].

The efficacy of traditional behavioral speech therapy has been proven in the chronic phase; however, studies on patients with acute and early subacute strokes are limited. Prior studies have shown encouraging results for behavioral speech therapy such as breathing exercises, nonspeech oro-motor exercises, and Lee Silverman Voice Treatment for the chronic poststroke phase [ 57 ]. One study used the Lee Silverman Voice Treatment that focuses on high phonatory effort and reading exercises [ 58 ]. This study showed promising results in a small group of 4 individuals who have survived a stroke with dysarthria for 9 months. According to another study, repetitive speech therapy had a positive effect on patients with stroke for at least 6 months [ 59 ].

Our study expands traditional behavioral speech therapy into a digital format using a smartphone-based app [ 58 - 61 ]. This approach overcomes the limitations of traditional methods by offering more accessible, engaging, and cost-effective speech therapy that enables self-management [ 62 - 65 ]. Patients can perform various speech exercises at home. Home-based treatment reduces the need for frequent clinical visits and reduces expenses [ 66 , 67 ]. Moreover, the app provides uninterrupted therapy sessions, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. This serves as a reliable alternative to clinical treatment [ 68 ].

Patients with poststroke dysarthria also commonly experience adverse psychological effects [ 6 , 7 ]. Previous studies focusing on speech therapy in participants with poststroke aphasia have demonstrated improvements in depression [ 69 ], anxiety [ 70 ], and quality of life [ 71 ]. However, specific evidence for poststroke dysarthria remains limited. Although we observed a significant decrease in depressive symptoms, no significant changes in anxiety levels were observed. Notably, the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-VAS scores indicated a substantial improvement in quality of life over time and a positive effect of the intervention. However, the lack of significant group differences in these scores suggests that improvements in quality of life were not solely attributable to the intervention. This divergence in findings highlights the complexity of assessing the full effect of speech therapy interventions on psychological well-being. Due to the significant impact of psychological well-being deterioration in patients with poststroke dysarthria, cognitive behavioral therapy should also be considered as a potential treatment [ 72 ]. Since this study is primarily focused on speech intelligibility, it may not have fully captured the broader impact of speech therapy on psychological well-being. Given these findings, there is a clear need for further research with larger sample sizes to provide a better understanding of the benefits of speech therapy interventions on the psychological well-being of patients with poststroke dysarthria. This can help develop effective treatment strategies, specifically in the areas of speech and psychological well-being.

Meanwhile, the average SUS score of 80.78 (SD 16.27) signifies excellent usability, which indicates that the participants found the app user-friendly and efficient. Participants also noted increased self-efficacy in app use compared with before treatment. These results suggest that the app helped overcome apprehensions about using the technology, particularly among older users. This increased system feasibility is a promising sign of active participation in therapy.

However, the treatment adherence was lower than expected. Notably, measuring adherence was challenging because of variable internet connectivity among the participants. Due to low-specification phones or unstable home internet connections, many participants, especially older users, experienced frequent internet disconnections. These challenges hindered the proper storage of log data, which may have led to inaccuracies in adherence measurements. Our app includes features, such as progress graphs and feedback, to address adherence-related issues and encourage self-monitoring [ 12 ]. Although these features are standard in health apps and are crucial for self-therapy, they have limited long-term effectiveness [ 73 , 74 ]. This limitation is particularly relevant for older adults who are unfamiliar with digital devices [ 75 , 76 ]. Given these challenges, future research should focus on improving adherence to therapy and making it more accessible to diverse patient groups. Including more subjects and a broader range of variables could enhance our understanding of how digital interventions can be most effectively used in poststroke care. Regarding home therapies, various factors, such as the patient’s social context and home environment, can affect the treatment effectiveness. For example, providing an admin system to monitor and control patient performance data is recommended. This would allow clinicians or family caregivers to remotely track adherence and performance and address potential issues arising from the lack of face-to-face interactions. This could help older adults maintain adherence and maximize the therapeutic effects of treatment [ 77 ].

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, even as a pilot trial, this study included a small number of participants. Additionally, there was a gender imbalance with a significantly higher number of male participants. Future studies should aim for larger sample sizes and consider recruitment from multiple centers to improve the feasibility and generalizability.

Second, this study focused only on patients with poststroke dysarthria in the acute and early subacute stages. However, dysarthria affects patients in both the acute and chronic stages of stroke. To validate the effectiveness of the intervention across diverse patient profiles, future research should include a broader range of patients with stroke and consider the onset period and severity of dysarthria. Additionally, this study only recruited patients in the acute and early subacute stages of joint impairment after stroke, which may have resulted in the exclusion of patients with severe joint impairment. These selection criteria may have influenced the observed effects of smartphone-based speech therapy. In future studies, it would be beneficial to include participants with varying degrees of dysarthria to understand better the efficacy of this therapy across a spectrum of severity. A more detailed analysis, which may include secondary assessments, can be carried out to evaluate the therapy’s efficacy in addressing speech impairments of varying severity. This approach would enable a deeper understanding of the therapy’s applicability to a broader range of dysarthria cases after stroke.

Third, regarding the measurement of consonant accuracy using U-TAP2 at the word level, we recognize that this approach has limitations, particularly in adult poststroke dysarthria. While U-TAP2 is extensively used to assess articulatory precision in Korean children with developmental articulation disorders, its application is limited [ 40 ]. When measuring speech intelligibility in adults with poststroke dysarthria, particularly in continuous speech, U-TAP2 may not fully capture all the complexities. This tool needs to be equipped to grasp the full range of speech intelligibility challenges this adult population faces. Specifically, this method may overlook critical aspects of speech, such as rhythm, prosody, and coarticulation effects, which are essential for understanding overall speech severity. The choice of U-TAP2 was influenced by the absence of standardized assessment tools for adult poststroke dysarthria in the Korean clinical environment. However, we acknowledge that future research should explore more comprehensive tools like the Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment to analyze the various influencing factors of dysarthria more thoroughly [ 78 ].

Finally, the smartphone-based speech therapy app used in this study was developed in Korean. Future research should aim to create multilingual versions of the app. Studying multilingual versions would enable researchers to assess their effectiveness across different nationalities and broaden their reach.

Conclusions

This study emphasized the importance of digital speech therapy in the treatment of poststroke dysarthria. Smartphone apps designed for speech therapy can be used alongside traditional speech therapies and have shown promising results in improving speech outcomes and the overall quality of life. Our findings provide encouraging evidence for the integration of these apps into existing treatment plans. However, more extensive and comprehensive studies are needed to fully understand the impact of digital speech therapy and optimize its use in treating poststroke dysarthria.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Technology Development Program (S3301230) and funded by the Ministry of SMEs and Startups (Korea). We sincerely thank all the participants for their valuable time and commitment to this study. This research was supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant RS-2023-00262087 to TJS). This research was supported by the Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT 2022-0-00621) for the development of artificial intelligence technology that provides dialog-based multimodal explainability. This paper presents the original work of the authors and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Authors' Contributions

All authors contributed significantly to this study. YK developed app content conceived, designed the study, analyzed and interpreted the data, and drafted and revised the paper. MK contributed to the app design and development and paper revision. As the principal investigator, TJS recruited participants and critically reviewed the paper. JK and TJS secured the funding for this study. All authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the paper for submission.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

CONSORT-EHEALTH (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile Health Applications and Online Telehealth) V 1.6.1 checklist.

• Feigin VL, Brainin M, Norrving B, Martins S, Sacco RL, Hacke W, et al. World Stroke Organization (WSO): Global Stroke Fact Sheet 2022. Int J Stroke. 2022;17(1):18-29. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hackett ML, Duncan JR, Anderson CS, Broad JB, Bonita R. Health-related quality of life among long-term survivors of stroke: results from the Auckland Stroke Study, 1991-1992. Stroke. 2000;31(2):440-447. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hankey GJ, Jamrozik K, Broadhurst RJ, Forbes S, Anderson CS. Long-term disability after first-ever stroke and related prognostic factors in the Perth Community Stroke Study, 1989-1990. Stroke. 2002;33(4):1034-1040. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Flowers HL, Silver FL, Fang J, Rochon E, Martino R. The incidence, co-occurrence, and predictors of dysphagia, dysarthria, and aphasia after first-ever acute ischemic stroke. J Commun Disord. 2013;46(3):238-248. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Duffy JR. Motor Speech Disorders: Substrates, Differential Diagnosis, and Management. 4th Edition. St. Louis, MO. Elsevier Mosby; 2020.
• Dickson S, Barbour RS, Brady M, Clark AM, Paton G. Patients' experiences of disruptions associated with post-stroke dysarthria. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2008;43(2):135-153. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mackenzie C, Kelly S, Paton G, Brady M, Muir M. The Living with Dysarthria group for post-stroke dysarthria: the participant voice. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2013;48(4):402-420. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lancaster GA, Dodd S, Williamson PR. Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004;10(2):307-312. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Coleman ER, Moudgal R, Lang K, Hyacinth HI, Awosika OO, Kissela BM, et al. Early rehabilitation after stroke: a narrative review. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2017;19(12):59. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Godecke E, Armstrong E, Rai T, Ciccone N, Rose ML, Middleton S, et al. A randomized control trial of intensive aphasia therapy after acute stroke: the Very Early Rehabilitation for SpEech (VERSE) study. Int J Stroke. 2021;16(5):556-572. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kiran S, Thompson CK. Neuroplasticity of language networks in aphasia: advances, updates, and future challenges. Front Neurol. 2019;10:295. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Robertson SJ, Thomson F. Speech therapy in Parkinson's disease: a study of the efficacy ad long term effects of intensive treatment. Br J Disord Commun. 1984;19(3):213-224. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Krakauer JW, Carmichael ST, Corbett D, Wittenberg GF. Getting neurorehabilitation right: what can be learned from animal models? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26(8):923-931. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cramer SC. Repairing the human brain after stroke: I. Mechanisms of spontaneous recovery. Ann Neurol. 2008;63(3):272-287. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Tamayo-Serrano P, Garbaya S, Bouakaz S, Blazevic P. A game-based rehabilitation therapy for post-stroke patients: an approach for improving patient motivation and engagement. IEEE Syst Man Cybern Mag. 2020;6(4):54-62. [ CrossRef ]
• Avan A, Digaleh H, Di Napoli M, Stranges S, Behrouz R, Shojaeianbabaei G, et al. Socioeconomic status and stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and worldwide burden: an ecological analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):191. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dobkin BH, Dorsch A. New evidence for therapies in stroke rehabilitation. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2013;15(6):331. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Valentin LSS. Can digital games be a way of improving the neuroplasticity in stroke damage? Can the adult brain grow new cells or rewire itself in response to a new experience? Open J Med Psychol. 2017;6(2):153-165. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suchak P, Ameer K, Gaylard J, Newman J, Ali K. Improving patients experience in a neuro-rehabilitation unit using tablet computers. Eur J Pers Cent Healthc. 2016;4(2):289. [ CrossRef ]
• Macoir J, Lavoie M, Routhier S, Bier N. Key factors for the success of self-administered treatments of poststroke aphasia using technologies. Telemed J E Health. 2019;25(8):663-670. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fox CM, Ramig LO, Ciucci MR, Sapir S, McFarland DH, Farley BG. The science and practice of LSVT/LOUD: neural plasticity-principled approach to treating individuals with Parkinson disease and other neurological disorders. Semin Speech Lang. 2006;27(4):283-299. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chen YPP, Johnson C, Lalbakhsh P, Caelli T, Deng G, Tay D, et al. Systematic review of virtual speech therapists for speech disorders. Comput Speech Lang. 2016;37:98-128. [ CrossRef ]
• Bakker M, Beijer L, Rietveld T. Considerations on effective feedback in computerized speech training for dysarthric speakers. Telemed J E Health. 2019;25(5):351-358. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Muñoz ML, Hoffman LM, Brimo D. Be smarter than your phone: a framework for using apps in clinical practice. CICSD. 2013;40(Fall):138-150. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chiviacowsky S, Lessa HT. Choices over feedback enhance motor learning in older adults. J Mot Learn Dev. 2017;5(2):304-318. [ CrossRef ]
• World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Oh MS, Yu KH, Lee JH, Jung S, Ko IS, Shin JH, et al. Validity and reliability of a Korean version of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. J Clin Neurol. 2012;8(3):177-183. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kim J, Shin I, Yoon J, Lee H. Comparison of diagnostic validities between MMSE-K and K-MMSE for screening of dementia. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2003;42(1):124-130. [ FREE Full text ]
• Rowe F, Brand D, Jackson CA, Price A, Walker L, Harrison S, et al. Visual impairment following stroke: do stroke patients require vision assessment? Age Ageing. 2009;38(2):188-193. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Isaacson JE, Vora NM. Differential diagnosis and treatment of hearing loss. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68(6):1125-1132. [ FREE Full text ] [ Medline ]
• Broglio K. Randomization in clinical trials: permuted blocks and stratification. JAMA. 2018;319(21):2223-2224. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what. Lancet. 2002;359(9307):696-700. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wildenbos GA, Jaspers MWM, Schijven MP, Dusseljee-Peute LW. Mobile health for older adult patients: using an aging barriers framework to classify usability problems. Int J Med Inform. 2019;124:68-77. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• de Barros AC, Leitão R, Ribeiro J. Design and evaluation of a mobile user interface for older adults: navigation, interaction and visual design recommendations. Procedia Comput Sci. 2014;27:369-378. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ko SB, Park HY, Kim BM, Heo JH, Rha JH, Kwon SU, et al. 2019 update of the Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines of Stroke for endovascular recanalization therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke. J Stroke. 2019;21(2):231-240. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kleindorfer DO, Towfighi A, Chaturvedi S, Cockroft KM, Gutierrez J, Lombardi-Hill D, et al. 2021 guideline for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2021;52(7):e364-e467. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kim HH. Perceptual, acoustical, and physiological tools in ataxic dysarthria management: a case report. 1996. Presented at: Proceedings of the KSPS Conference; 1996;9-22; South Korea. URL: https://koreascience.kr/article/CFKO199613842057217.page
• Patel RR, Awan SN, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Courey M, Deliyski D, Eadie T, et al. Recommended protocols for instrumental assessment of voice: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association expert panel to develop a protocol for instrumental assessment of vocal function. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;27(3):887-905. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lousada M, Jesus LMT, Hall A, Joffe V. Intelligibility as a clinical outcome measure following intervention with children with phonologically based speech-sound disorders. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2014;49(5):584-601. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kim YT, Park H, Kang JK, Kim JA, Shin MJ, Kim SJ, et al. Validity and reliability analyses for the development of Urimal Test of Articulation and Phonology-2. Commun Sci Disord. 2018;23(4):959-970. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shriberg LD, Austin D, Lewis BA, McSweeny JL, Wilson DL. The percentage of consonants correct (PCC) metric: extensions and reliability data. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997;40(4):708-722. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA. 1999;282(18):1737-1744. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Choi HS, Choi JH, Park KH, Joo KJ, Ga H, Ko HJ, et al. Standardization of the Korean version of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 as a screening instrument for major depressive disorder. J Korean Acad Fam Med. 2007;28(2):114-119. [ FREE Full text ]
• Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092-1097. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ahn JK, Kim Y, Choi KH. The psychometric properties and clinical utility of the Korean version of GAD-7 and GAD-2. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:127. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337-343. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lee YK, Nam HS, Chuang LH, Kim KY, Yang HK, Kwon IS, et al. South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1187-1193. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Brooke J. SUS: a 'quick and dirty' usability scale. In: Jordan PW, McClelland IL, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, editors. Usability Evaluation in Industry. Boca Raton, FL. CRC Press; 1996;189-194.
• Laver K, George S, Ratcliffe J, Crotty M. Measuring technology self efficacy: reliability and construct validity of a modified computer self efficacy scale in a clinical rehabilitation setting. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(3):220-227. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Muller KE, Lavange LM, Ramey SL, Ramey CT. Power calculations for general linear multivariate models including repeated measures applications. J Am Stat Assoc. 1992;87(420):1209-1226. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Levy ES, Moya-Galé G, Chang YHM, Freeman K, Forrest K, Brin MF, et al. The effects of intensive speech treatment on intelligibility in Parkinson's disease: a randomised controlled trial. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;24:100429. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mitchell C, Bowen A, Tyson S, Conroy P. ReaDySpeech for people with dysarthria after stroke: protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018;4:25. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sellars C, Hughes T, Langhorne P. Speech and language therapy for dysarthria due to non-progressive brain damage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(3):CD002088. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Spencer KA, Brown KA. Dysarthria following stroke. Semin Speech Lang. 2018;39(1):15-24. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sapir S, Spielman JL, Ramig LO, Story BH, Fox C. Effects of intensive voice treatment (the Lee Silverman Voice Treatment [LSVT]) on vowel articulation in dysarthric individuals with idiopathic Parkinson disease: acoustic and perceptual findings. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007;50(4):899-912. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Tickle-Degnen L, Ellis T, Saint-Hilaire MH, Thomas CA, Wagenaar RC. Self-management rehabilitation and health-related quality of life in Parkinson's disease: a randomized controlled trial. Mov Disord. 2010;25(2):194-204. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chiaramonte R, Pavone P, Vecchio M. Speech rehabilitation in dysarthria after stroke: a systematic review of the studies. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;56(5):547-562. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mahler LA, Ramig LO. Intensive treatment of dysarthria secondary to stroke. Clin Linguist Phon. 2012;26(8):681-694. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Park S, Theodoros D, Finch E, Cardell E. Be Clear: a new intensive speech treatment for adults with nonprogressive dysarthria. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2016;25(1):97-110. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wenke RJ, Cornwell P, Theodoros DG. Changes to articulation following LSVT® and traditional dysarthria therapy in non-progressive dysarthria. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010;12(3):203-220. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Beijer LJ, Rietveld ACM, Ruiter MB, Geurts ACH. Preparing an E-learning-based Speech Therapy (EST) efficacy study: identifying suitable outcome measures to detect within-subject changes of speech intelligibility in dysarthric speakers. Clin Linguist Phon. 2014;28(12):927-950. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Abbadessa G, Brigo F, Clerico M, De Mercanti S, Trojsi F, Tedeschi G, et al. Digital therapeutics in neurology. J Neurol. 2022;269(3):1209-1224. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kamoen O, Maqueda V, Yperzeele L, Pottel H, Cras P, Vanhooren G, et al. Stroke coach: a pilot study of a personal digital coaching program for patients after ischemic stroke. Acta Neurol Belg. 2020;120(1):91-97. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Karlsen C, Ludvigsen MS, Moe CE, Haraldstad K, Thygesen E. Experiences of community-dwelling older adults with the use of telecare in home care services: a qualitative systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2017;15(12):2913-2980. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Griffin M, Bentley J, Shanks J, Wood C. The effectiveness of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment therapy issued interactively through an iPad device: a non-inferiority study. J Telemed Telecare. 2018;24(3):209-215. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Abelson JS, Kaufman E, Symer M, Peters A, Charlson M, Yeo H. Barriers and benefits to using mobile health technology after operation: a qualitative study. Surgery. 2017;162(3):605-611. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bowser DM, Shepard DS, Nandakumar A, Okunogbe A, Morrill T, Halasa-Rappell Y, et al. Cost effectiveness of mobile health for antenatal care and facility births in Nigeria. Ann Glob Health. 2018;84(4):592-602. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou X, Snoswell CL, Harding LE, Bambling M, Edirippulige S, Bai X, et al. The role of telehealth in reducing the mental health burden from COVID-19. Telemed J E Health. 2020;26(4):377-379. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Baker C, Worrall L, Rose M, Hudson K, Ryan B, O'Byrne L. A systematic review of rehabilitation interventions to prevent and treat depression in post-stroke aphasia. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(16):1870-1892. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kneebone I, Walker-Samuel N, Swanston J, Otto E. Relaxation training after stroke: potential to reduce anxiety. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(9):771-774. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Aprile I, Di Stasio E, Romitelli F, Lancellotti S, Caliandro P, Tonali P, et al. Effects of rehabilitation on quality of life in patients with chronic stroke. Brain Inj. 2008;22(6):451-456. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ahrens J, Shao R, Blackport D, Macaluso S, Viana R, Teasell R, et al. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for managing depressive and anxiety symptoms after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2023;30(4):368-383. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Damschroder LJ, Buis LR, McCant FA, Kim HM, Evans R, Oddone EZ, et al. Effect of adding telephone-based brief coaching to an mHealth App (Stay Strong) for promoting physical activity among veterans: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(8):e19216. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ly K, Janni E, Wrede R, Sedem M, Donker T, Carlbring P, et al. Experiences of a guided smartphone-based behavioral activation therapy for depression: a qualitative study. Internet Interv. 2015;2(1):60-68. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim H, Lee SH, Cho NB, You H, Choi T, Kim J. User-dependent usability and feasibility of a swallowing training mHealth app for older adults: mixed methods pilot study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(7):e19585. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lu SC, Wen TN, Chang PL. The study of smartphone usage competency assessment and training for the elderly. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;245:161-165. [ Medline ]
• Chen Y, Abel KT, Janecek JT, Chen Y, Zheng K, Cramer SC. Home-based technologies for stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2019;123:11-22. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Enderby P. Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 1980;15(3):165-173. [ CrossRef ]

Abbreviations

Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 16.01.24; peer-reviewed by SJ Lee; comments to author 13.02.24; revised version received 21.02.24; accepted 20.03.24; published 25.04.24.

©Yuyoung Kim, Minjung Kim, Jinwoo Kim, Tae-Jin Song. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 25.04.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.