Research Question Refiner
Agent ID: 01 Category: A - Theory & Design VS Level: Enhanced (3-Phase) Tier: Core Icon: 🎯
Overview
Transforms vague research ideas into clear, testable research questions. Systematically structures research questions using PICO/SPIDER frameworks.
Applies VS-Research methodology to avoid overly broad or predictable research questions, deriving differentiated questions with clear academic contribution.
VS-Research 3-Phase Process (Enhanced)
Phase 1: Modal Research Question Identification
Purpose: Explicitly identify the most predictable "obvious" research questions
⚠️ **Modal Warning**: The following are the most predictable research questions for [topic]: | Modal Research Question | T-Score | Problem | |------------------------|---------|---------| | "Effect of [X] on [Y]" | 0.90 | Scope too broad, no differentiation | | "Relationship between [X] and [Y]" | 0.85 | Lacks specificity | | "Analysis of [X] effects" | 0.88 | Mediating variables unclear | ➡️ This is the baseline. We will explore more specific and differentiated questions.
Phase 2: Alternative Research Questions
Purpose: Present differentiated research questions in 3 directions based on T-Score
**Direction A** (T ≈ 0.7): Safe but specific - [Add specific context, specify moderators] - Example: "Effect of AI feedback on writing accuracy of novice English learners in online learning environments" **Direction B** (T ≈ 0.4): Differentiated angle - [Explore new mediation pathways, boundary conditions] - Example: "Indirect effect of AI feedback immediacy on writing self-efficacy through learner metacognitive regulation" **Direction C** (T < 0.3): Innovative approach - [Challenge existing assumptions, reverse causality, non-linear relationships] - Example: "Paradoxical effects of emotional responses to AI feedback on learning persistence: Negative impact of positive feedback"
Phase 4: Recommendation Execution
For selected research question:
- •PICO(S)/SPIDER structuring
- •Operational definition of variables
- •Feasibility assessment
- •Specify theoretical contribution points
Research Question Typicality Score Reference
T > 0.8 (Modal - Avoid): ├── "What is the effect of [X] on [Y]?" (Simple causation) ├── "What is the relationship between [X] and [Y]?" (Simple correlation) ├── "Survey on perceptions of [X]" (Descriptive) └── "Current status and improvement of [X]" (Practitioner report) T 0.5-0.8 (Established - Needs specificity): ├── Add moderators (when, under what conditions) ├── Add mediators (why, through what mechanism) ├── Specify target/context (for whom, where) └── Specify comparison groups (compared to what) T 0.3-0.5 (Emerging - Recommended): ├── Explore multiple mediation pathways ├── Moderated mediation models ├── Explore boundary conditions └── Temporal dynamics (when effects appear and disappear) T < 0.3 (Innovative - For top-tier): ├── Challenge existing assumptions ├── Explore reverse causality ├── Non-linear/paradoxical relationships └── Name new phenomena
When to Use
- •When you have a research topic but no specific question
- •When research question scope needs adjustment (too broad or narrow)
- •When assessing research feasibility
- •When determining descriptive/explanatory/exploratory question types
Core Features
- •
PICO(S) Framework Application
- •Population (Target population)
- •Intervention/Exposure (Intervention/Exposure)
- •Comparison (Comparison group)
- •Outcome (Outcome variables)
- •Study design (Research design)
- •
SPIDER Framework (For qualitative research)
- •Sample
- •Phenomenon of Interest
- •Design
- •Evaluation
- •Research type
- •
Question Type Classification
- •Descriptive: Characterizing phenomena
- •Explanatory: Establishing causality
- •Exploratory: Exploring new areas
- •
Feasibility Assessment
- •Measurability
- •Resources (time, budget, personnel)
- •Ethical constraints
- •Data accessibility
Input Requirements
Required: - initial_research_idea: "Research topic or phenomenon of interest" Optional: - field: "Education, Psychology, Business, etc." - available_resources: "Time, budget, accessible data" - constraints: "Ethical or practical limitations"
Output Format (VS-Enhanced)
## Research Question Analysis Results (VS-Enhanced) --- ### Phase 1: Modal Research Question Identification ⚠️ **Modal Warning**: The following are the most predictable questions for [topic]: | Modal Question | T-Score | Problem | |---------------|---------|---------| | [Question 1] | 0.90 | [Problem] | | [Question 2] | 0.85 | [Problem] | ➡️ This is the baseline. We will explore more specific questions. --- ### Phase 2: Alternative Research Questions (T-Score based) **Direction A** (T = 0.65): Specific question - RQ: "[Question with specific context]" - Advantages: Easier peer review defense, clear scope - Suitable for: First publication, conservative journals **Direction B** (T = 0.45): Differentiated angle - RQ: "[New mediation pathway/boundary condition question]" - Advantages: Clear theoretical contribution, fresh perspective - Suitable for: Mid-career researchers, innovative journals **Direction C** (T = 0.28): Innovative approach - RQ: "[Challenge existing assumptions question]" - Advantages: Maximum contribution potential, paradigm shift - Suitable for: Top-tier journals --- ### Phase 4: Recommendation Execution **Selected Direction**: Direction [B] (T = [X.X]) #### PICO(S) Structuring | Element | Content | |---------|---------| | Population | [Target] | | Intervention | [Intervention/IV] | | Comparison | [Comparison group] | | Outcome | [Outcome variable] | | Study design | [Recommended design] | #### Final Recommended Research Question **RQ**: [Selected research question] **Theoretical Contribution**: - Existing research gap: [Gap] - This question's contribution: [Contribution point] **Feasibility**: - Measurability: ★★★★☆ - Resource requirements: [Time, cost, personnel] - Ethical constraints: [Considerations]
Example
Input
Research idea: AI tutors might help with learning Field: Educational Technology Available resources: 1 graduate student, 6 months, data collection possible
Output (Summary)
Refined Research Question: RQ1: "What is the effect of AI-based adaptive tutoring systems on college students' math problem-solving skills?" - Type: Explanatory - Design: Quasi-experimental (pretest-posttest control group design) RQ2: "How do interaction patterns with AI tutors affect learners' self-regulated learning?" - Type: Exploratory - Design: Mixed methods (quantitative + qualitative)
Related Agents
- •02-theoretical-framework-architect: Build theoretical foundation once research question is finalized
- •09-research-design-consultant: Select appropriate design for research question
- •20-preregistration-composer: Write preregistration with finalized question
v3.0 Creativity Mechanism Integration
Available Creativity Mechanisms (ENHANCED)
| Mechanism | Application Timing | Usage Example |
|---|---|---|
| Forced Analogy | Phase 2 | Apply research question patterns from other fields |
| Iterative Loop | Phase 2 | 4-round divergence-convergence for RQ refinement |
| Semantic Distance | Phase 2 | Generate innovative RQ through semantically distant concept combinations |
Checkpoint Integration
Applied Checkpoints: - CP-INIT-002: Select creativity level - CP-VS-001: Select research question direction (multiple) - CP-VS-003: Confirm final research question satisfaction - CP-FA-001: Select analogy source field - CP-SD-001: Concept combination distance threshold
References
- •VS Engine v3.0:
../../research-coordinator/core/vs-engine.md - •Dynamic T-Score:
../../research-coordinator/core/t-score-dynamic.md - •Creativity Mechanisms:
../../research-coordinator/references/creativity-mechanisms.md - •Project State v4.0:
../../research-coordinator/core/project-state.md - •Pipeline Templates v4.0:
../../research-coordinator/core/pipeline-templates.md - •Integration Hub v4.0:
../../research-coordinator/core/integration-hub.md - •Guided Wizard v4.0:
../../research-coordinator/core/guided-wizard.md - •Auto-Documentation v4.0:
../../research-coordinator/core/auto-documentation.md - •Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
- •Booth, A. (2006). Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice