Methodological Misalignment in Quantitative Health Sciences Research: A Scoping Review of Empirical Evidence, Conceptual Foundations, and Assessment Tools.

This scoping review systematically maps the empirical evidence, theoretical frameworks, and diagnostic tools related to methodological misalignment in quantitative health sciences research. Methodological misalignment occurs when there is an incongruity or logical disconnect between research questions, study designs, data collection methods, and analytical strategies. The primary objectives of this study are: 1. To synthesize existing empirical evidence regarding the prevalence, nature, and consequences of methodological misalignment across quantitative health research disciplines. 2. To examine the underlying conceptual and theoretical foundations used to define and evaluate methodological coherence. 3. To identify, categorize, and critically evaluate available assessment tools, checklists, and frameworks designed to detect or mitigate alignment errors in health sciences literature. Following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, this review conducts a comprehensive systematic search across primary bibliographic databases (including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). The expected outcome of this project is to provide a standardized theoretical taxonomy and an operational diagnostic roadmap to assist researchers, peer reviewers, and editors in identifying and preventing methodological disconnects, thereby promoting rigor and reproducibility in quantitative health research.