Example of a Quantitative Research Paper for Researchers

Why an Example Helps

Writing a quantitative research paper involves much more than inserting numbers into tables and describing what they mean. A strong paper must guide readers through a clear story: what problem you investigated, why it matters, how you collected and analysed your data, what you found, and how those findings relate to existing knowledge. For many new researchers, the challenge lies not only in doing the research, but also in writing about it in a structured, logical, and convincing way.

This article offers a detailed example of a quantitative research paper built around a simple, real-world scenario: customer behaviour in a local restaurant. The example follows the general recommendations of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA style), which is widely used in the social and behavioural sciences. The focus here is on how the paper is organised and how the argument develops step by step, rather than on advanced statistics. The same principles, however, apply whether your project involves descriptive counts, correlations, or complex models.

The Case: A “Family” Restaurant Under Debate

Imagine a small town called Quaintville, located just off a main highway a short drive from a university campus. Quaintville residents are debating whether to close Pudgy’s Burgers, the town’s only fast-food franchise. Loyal customers argue that Pudgy’s is the last remaining place where working families can afford a warm meal and let their children play indoors during harsh winters. Opponents see the restaurant as an eyesore and a threat to community health, especially for low-income families who already face diet-related illnesses.

A local newspaper, the Quaintville Times, publishes a nostalgic editorial describing Pudgy’s as “the only restaurant in Quaintville where a working family can still get a decent meal for a fair price, and a comfortable place to eat it too, out of the winter wind where the kids can run about and play.” Community newsletters and opinion pieces counter that high-fat fast food is dangerous and that describing the restaurant as a family haven ignores its nutritional impact on children.

At the same time, recent research on fast food and family health adds further complexity. Studies have linked frequent consumption of high-fat, low-nutrient fast food to obesity and chronic disease among low-income families and their children. Other work suggests that when healthier menu options are offered, they are not necessarily chosen, particularly in rural communities and small towns. Some researchers have even found that families with children may represent a smaller share of fast-food customers than expected, with single adults, shift workers, or teenagers using such restaurants as informal social spaces.

Against this backdrop, a student researcher decides to investigate how Pudgy’s actually functions in the lives of Quaintville residents. Is Pudgy’s truly a “family restaurant” in practice, or is that label more sentimental than factual?

Structuring the Introduction

The Introduction of a quantitative paper should move from the broad context to the specific research problem, and then to clear research questions and hypotheses. Using the Pudgy’s case, a well-structured Introduction might include the following components:

1. Context and Local Controversy

The Introduction begins by setting the scene in Quaintville. The writer briefly describes the town, the planned closure of Pudgy’s Burgers, and the conflicting public opinions about the restaurant’s value. Quotations from local media provide colourful evidence of how strongly some residents feel about the issue.

2. Link to Published Scholarship

After presenting the local debate, the Introduction connects it to the broader research literature. Here the author summarises a few key findings from recent studies on topics such as:

• The impact of inexpensive fast-food restaurants on the health of low-income families and children.
• The effectiveness (or lack thereof) of “healthier” fast-food menu options in changing customer choices.
• Patterns of fast-food use suggesting that families may not be the primary customers, with single adults and teenagers often predominating.

This section does not aim to provide a full literature review, but it shows that the local case raises questions that have also been explored in the wider scholarly community.

3. Identifying the Research Problem

The author then explains what is not yet known or what seems particularly interesting about the Pudgy’s case. For example, Pudgy’s offers both traditional fast-food items and a small set of healthier options. It has an indoor play area and a reputation as a family-friendly space. Long-term residents strongly defend it as vital for families. The researcher may therefore suspect that Pudgy’s might differ from the patterns found in other studies: perhaps families really are the main customers here, or perhaps the play area leads to more family-oriented use than in typical fast-food outlets.

4. Formulating Research Questions

To explore these issues systematically, the author translates the general problem into clear research questions such as:

• Do families constitute the majority of Pudgy’s regular clientele?
• Does the restaurant offer a “decent” meal for families at a “fair” price, compared with other local options?
• Do families tend to stay and linger in the restaurant’s warm, comfortable environment?
• Do children actually use the indoor play area provided by the restaurant, and under what conditions?

5. Developing Hypotheses

Next, the author states one or more hypotheses—predictions that can be tested with data. For example:

• H1: Families comprise the majority of Pudgy’s customers.
• H2: Families who visit Pudgy’s frequently make use of the indoor play area.
• H3: The availability of healthier menu items is positively associated with families’ overall spending and time spent in the restaurant.

It is important to note that a hypothesis can be confirmed or disconfirmed by the results; both outcomes are useful. In the Pudgy’s example, the primary hypothesis—H1—will ultimately prove incorrect, which provides an excellent opportunity to show how a good quantitative paper honestly reports unexpected findings.

6. Defining Key Terms

Before leaving the Introduction, the author clarifies how key terms will be used in the study. For instance:

• Family: the researcher might define a family as at least one adult accompanied by at least one child who appears to be under 18, or use a more inclusive definition that recognises non-traditional family structures.
• Decent meal: a combination of items that includes a main dish and a side or beverage, providing enough food for a full meal.
• Fair price: a price comparable to or lower than similar meals in other local restaurants, adjusted for portion size.
• Comfortable atmosphere: a setting in which customers have sufficient seating space, a reasonable noise level, and a warm indoor environment during winter months.

7. Preview of the Research Design

Finally, the Introduction ends with a brief overview of the research approach. For example, the author might write:

“To address these questions, I conducted non-participant observations of Pudgy’s customers over a two-month period during winter, recording detailed information about each visiting party using a structured Customer Fact Sheet. This observational dataset allows me to describe the clientele, examine patterns of behaviour, and test whether families are truly the main users of the restaurant.”

This sets up a smooth transition to the Method section, where the procedures are described in detail.

Method

The Method section of a quantitative paper explains exactly how the study was carried out so that others could, in principle, replicate the work. Clarity and transparency are essential. In the Pudgy’s study, the Method section might use subheadings such as Setting and Time Frame, Participants and Sampling, Instruments, Procedures, and Data Analysis.

Setting and Time Frame

The author first describes the research setting and time period. For example:

“All observations took place at Pudgy’s Burgers, a franchised fast-food restaurant located on Quaintville’s main street. Data were collected in January and February 2018, a period of particularly cold weather when indoor dining spaces are in high demand. Observation sessions lasted approximately four hours each, and I attempted to cover all opening hours of the week at least twice. Course constraints meant that Tuesday and Thursday afternoons were underrepresented; to compensate, a trained classmate observed on two Tuesday afternoons so that each opening hour was observed on at least two separate days.”

This paragraph informs readers about the context and acknowledges uneven coverage, which will later be relevant when discussing limitations.

Participants and Sampling

Because the study involves naturalistic observation rather than recruiting volunteers, “participants” are simply the customers who visit Pudgy’s during the observation hours. The researcher explains that every individual, couple, or group who purchased food or beverages during observation sessions was included. To give readers a sense of scale, the author reports that 600 separate customer parties were documented over 59 days, averaging just over 10 parties per day.

Instruments: The Customer Fact Sheet

To gather consistent, quantifiable data, the researcher designed a structured observation tool called the Customer Fact Sheet. This instrument ensures that the same key information is recorded for every visiting party. The Method section describes the fact sheet in prose and refers to its full layout in an appendix.

The sheet might include fields for:

• Date and time of visit.
• Weather conditions (e.g., heavy snow, clear and cold).
• Order type (eat-in vs. take-out).
• Number of people in the party and approximate age categories (children, teenagers, adults, seniors).
• Composition of the group (single adult, family with children, group of teenagers, etc.).
• Items purchased and whether any were labelled “healthy” on the menu.
• Estimated total spending and which party member paid.
• Use of the indoor play area by children and interactions with other customers.
• Arrival and departure times, allowing calculation of length of stay.

By capturing these details in a structured form, the researcher can later count, compare, and analyse patterns across many visits.

Procedures

The Procedures subsection explains exactly what the researcher did during each observation session. In the Pudgy’s example, the author positioned themselves at a staff table in a dimly lit corner with the restaurant manager’s permission. From this vantage point, they could observe the service counter, dining area, children’s play corner, and drive-through lane without being conspicuous.

During each session, the researcher completed one Customer Fact Sheet for each new party that ordered food or beverages. When a classmate assisted, that person was trained to use the same observation categories and fact sheet format. This consistency increases the reliability of the data and reduces the risk that different observers will interpret customer behaviours in radically different ways.

The Method section may also mention any supplementary information used, such as access to anonymised receipt summaries provided by the manager, or brief informal conversations with serving staff to clarify family relationships or whether certain menu items were left uneaten.

Data Analysis

Next, the author describes how the completed fact sheets were turned into analysable data. For example:

• Customer parties were categorised into types: families with children, single adults, couples, groups of teenagers, and others.
• Counts and percentages were calculated for each category across all days, and separately for each day of the week.
• Average spending and average length of stay were computed for each customer type.
• The proportion of parties purchasing at least one “healthy” menu item was calculated by customer type.
• Simple cross-tabulations explored relationships between variables (e.g., customer type and use of the play area).

For a more advanced project, the author might also mention statistical tests (such as chi-square tests for association between categorical variables), but even basic descriptive statistics can answer many practical questions if they are carefully reported.

Ethical Considerations and Limitations

Although the study observes behaviour in a public or semi-public space, ethical reflection is still important. The researcher obtained the manager’s permission, avoided recording identifying details, and ensured that no individual customers were named. Limitations such as uneven observation coverage, reliance on estimated ages, and potential observer bias are acknowledged in the Method section or later in the Discussion.

---

Results

The Results section presents what the analysis actually revealed, without interpretation or speculation. It returns to the research questions and hypotheses and uses clear prose along with references to tables and figures.

Reporting the Main Findings

In the Pudgy’s example, the first research question asks whether families constitute the majority of the restaurant’s clientele. The findings are surprising:

“Across the 600 documented customer parties, family groups (defined as at least one adult and one child) accounted for just over 25% of visits (152 parties). Individuals dining alone were the most common customers, representing approximately half of all visits, while groups of teenagers formed the second-largest category on several weekday evenings. Families approached 50% of visits only on Sundays, when they averaged 48% of the clientele over eight observation days.”

This result clearly contradicts the original hypothesis that families are the main customers. The researcher then describes other patterns relevant to the remaining questions:

• Average spending per family group compared with single adults and teenagers.
• Frequency of healthy menu item purchases by each customer type.
• Average time spent in the restaurant, with families staying longer than take-out customers but not always longer than groups of teenagers.
• Observed use of the play area, including instances where its use was hindered by older customers occupying the space.

These findings can be supported by figures (such as bar charts showing the distribution of customer types) and tables (summarising means and percentages). The text should guide readers through the key trends while leaving the detailed numbers in the visuals.

Staying Focused and Factual

In a well-written Results section, the author avoids drifting into interpretation or emotional commentary. Phrases like “surprisingly” may be used sparingly, but the emphasis remains on what the data show. The interpretation of what those findings mean for the town, for families, or for health policy belongs in the Discussion.

---

Discussion

The Discussion section answers the “So what?” question. It interprets the results, connects them to the original hypotheses and the literature, and considers their implications and limitations.

Revisiting the Hypotheses and Questions

The author begins by briefly summarising the main results in relation to the hypotheses. For example, the data clearly do not support the hypothesis that families are the majority of Pudgy’s customers. Instead, individuals and teenagers dominate. This finding challenges the local editorial’s claim that Pudgy’s is primarily a family haven.

However, the Discussion also notes that families still represent a substantial minority of customers and that they are particularly visible on Sundays. It further observes that single fathers with children appear frequently among family groups, suggesting that Pudgy’s may serve an important role for this specific subset of residents.

Connecting to the Literature

The author then relates these findings back to prior studies. For example, the limited uptake of healthier menu options at Pudgy’s matches earlier work showing that simply adding “healthy” items does not guarantee they will be chosen. The observation that teenagers often occupy the play area and sometimes discourage younger children from using it also resonates with research on social behaviour in shared public spaces.

Exploring Complexity

Rather than making sweeping judgments, a thoughtful Discussion acknowledges nuance. The author might argue that the newspaper’s claim about Pudgy’s being “the only place” for a decent, affordable family meal is exaggerated, especially since other local restaurants offer comparable or slightly healthier options at similar prices. At the same time, it would be equally simplistic to declare Pudgy’s useless or purely harmful. The study reveals that:

• Single adults, including shift workers, use Pudgy’s as a place to eat, warm up, and occasionally socialise.
• Teenagers treat the restaurant as a convenient, informal gathering place out of the cold.
• Families, though not numerically dominant, do rely on the restaurant at particular times (such as Sunday afternoons), and some appear to value the opportunity to let children play while adults talk.

These insights suggest that Pudgy’s plays multiple social roles that go beyond the simple labels of “family restaurant” or “unhealthy fast-food outlet.”

Limitations and Recommendations

The Discussion also addresses limitations. For example, the data cover only two winter months, so customer patterns in warmer seasons might differ. Some observation periods were underrepresented due to schedule constraints. Age estimates and family relationships were sometimes inferred rather than confirmed. These factors should temper how confidently the findings are generalised.

Despite these limitations, the author may propose practical recommendations, such as:

• Improving the visibility and affordability of healthier menu items, making them more attractive to families without dramatically increasing cost.
• Establishing clearer guidelines to ensure that teenagers do not monopolise the children’s play area, making it safer and more welcoming for younger customers.
• Considering targeted promotions or special “family times” to better serve the family customers who do use the restaurant.

If the future of Pudgy’s were still undecided, such evidence-based recommendations could contribute meaningfully to local discussions.

Concluding the Discussion

The Discussion ends with a concise conclusion that reiterates the main message: the data challenge the simple story that Pudgy’s is “the” family restaurant of Quaintville, but they also reveal that the establishment serves diverse customers and has more complex social value than critics might assume. The conclusion may also suggest directions for future research, such as comparing Pudgy’s with other local restaurants, surveying customers about their perceptions, or conducting similar observations in other towns.

---

References

In a real quantitative paper, all sources cited in the text must be included in a reference list formatted according to the relevant style guide. For APA style, this means listing authors’ names, publication dates, titles, and publication details in a consistent, specific format.

Below is a sample reference list adapted from the Pudgy’s case. In print or PDF, book titles and journal names would appear in italics.

Chapton, D. (2017, September 29). Will Quaintville lose its favourite family restaurant? Quaintville Times, pp. A1, A3.

Local dive sees last days. (2017, Autumn). Quaintville Community Newsletter, pp. 1–2.

Shemble, M. (2017). Is anyone really eating healthy fast food in rural towns? Country Food & Families, 14, 12–23.

Shunts, P. (2013). The true cost of high-fat fast food for low-income families. Journal of Family Health & Diet, 37, 3–19.

Parkson, L. (2016). Family diets, fast foods and unhealthy choices. In S. Smith & J. Jones (Eds.), Modern diets and family health (pp. 277–294). Philadelphia, PA: The Family Press.

Whinner, N. (2015). Healthy families take time: The impact of fatty fast foods on child health. Journal of Family Health & Diet, 39, 31–43.

---

Practical Checklist for Your Own Quantitative Paper

Having examined the structure, logic, and writing style of a quantitative research paper through the Quaintville example, it is useful to end with a practical, step-by-step checklist. This checklist can guide you as you plan, write, and revise your own research projects, regardless of your topic, discipline, or methodology. Think of it as a roadmap that helps you maintain clarity, coherence, and rigor from the first idea to the final draft.

1. Before You Begin: Clarify the Foundations

• Identify a real and relevant research problem. What issue, phenomenon, or debate motivates your study?
• Review existing literature. Summarise what is already known and where inconsistencies or gaps remain.
• Formulate specific research questions. These should be answerable using empirical data.
• Develop clear, testable hypotheses. Each hypothesis should flow logically from your literature review.
• Define key terms and variables. Avoid ambiguity—operational definitions are crucial in quantitative work.

2. Writing an Effective Introduction

• Start with context. Show why the problem matters, both locally and academically.
• Incorporate relevant theories and prior studies. Demonstrate familiarity with the field.
• Build a logical bridge to your own study. Explain how your work extends, challenges, or refines existing evidence.
• End with your research questions and hypotheses. Make these explicit—clarity at this stage prevents confusion later.

3. Planning and Reporting the Method Section

The Method section should be detailed enough that another researcher could replicate your work. Use subheadings to organise it clearly.

• Participants and Sampling: Who or what is being studied? How were participants selected?
• Setting: Where and under what conditions did data collection take place?
• Instruments and Materials: Describe questionnaires, observation sheets, tests, or technological tools used.
• Procedures: Explain step-by-step what you did, including time frames, protocols, and controls.
• Ethical Considerations: Note permissions, consent, confidentiality, and strategies to minimise bias.
• Analytic Strategy: Outline the statistics or quantitative techniques used to interpret the data.

4. Crafting a Clear Results Section

• Return to your research questions. Organise your results around answering them directly.
• Report findings factually. Reserve interpretation for the Discussion section.
• Use tables and figures wisely. Present data visually when it enhances clarity.
• Report all relevant outcomes. Include findings that contradict your expectations.
• Provide numerical details. Use percentages, means, ranges, and counts as appropriate.
• Keep it selective. Highlight the patterns that matter most for:
  • testing your hypotheses
  • answering your research questions
  • setting up your discussion

5. Building a Thoughtful Discussion Section

• Start by restating your main findings. Briefly summarise what the data show.
• Discuss whether your hypotheses were supported. Be honest and balanced.
• Interpret the meaning of your findings. Explain why the results occurred and how they relate to existing research.
• Address complexities and unexpected results. Quantitative data often reveal nuanced patterns.
• Consider real-world implications. Who is affected by the results, and how?
• Acknowledge limitations. Discuss sources of bias, sampling weaknesses, or methodological constraints.
• Suggest future research directions. Point out where next steps could enrich or refine the field.
• End with a strong concluding statement. Summarise the significance of the study in one or two sentences.

6. Finalising Your Paper

• Ensure APA or required style guide compliance. Format citations, references, headings, and tables precisely.
• Check flow and coherence. Make sure each section builds naturally on the one before it.
• Verify all numbers, percentages, and figures. Quantitative work depends on accuracy.
• Confirm the distinction between results and interpretation. Avoid mixing these sections.
• Proofread thoroughly. Clarity and correctness directly affect credibility.

7. Common Pitfalls to Avoid

• Writing hypotheses that cannot be tested quantitatively. Every hypothesis must be measurable.
• Collecting excessive but irrelevant data. Focus on information that answers your research questions.
• Reporting raw data without synthesis. Summaries, trends, and patterns are what readers need.
• Over-interpreting weak results or small samples. Be realistic about what your data can support.
• Ignoring contradictory findings. These are often the most interesting and important.
• Using inconsistent definitions or categories. Precision is essential for quantitative work.

8. A Quick Template for Structuring Your Paper

If you need a fast model to follow, use this streamlined template:

1. Title – Clear, specific, and informative.
2. Abstract – One paragraph summarising background, method, results, and implications.
3. Introduction – Context → literature → research gap → questions → hypotheses → definitions.
4. Method – Participants → setting → instruments → procedures → analytics → ethics.
5. Results – Findings organised by research question; tables and figures as needed.
6. Discussion – Interpretation → comparison to past research → implications → limitations → future work.
7. References – Complete, accurate, consistent.
8. Appendices – Instruments, fact sheets, extended tables, or raw data summaries.

Final Thoughts

Writing a quantitative research paper is an exercise in clarity, logic, and precision. The Quaintville case shows that even a small observational study becomes powerful when the paper is structured well: the introduction frames a real problem, the method documents every step, the results report evidence without distortion, and the discussion interprets findings with honesty and insight. Whether your project is small or complex, following a systematic checklist like the one above will help you produce work that is not only academically sound but also clear, persuasive, and valuable to future researchers.