TEXTUM COLLECTION
Thinking Methodologically About Scientific Research

HT-02

TEXTUM Tool for Assessing the Methodological Coherence of the Theoretical Reference Framework

20 Questions to Assess Its Construction and Methodological Coherence

Author: Vilma María Pérez Viñas
TEXTUM. International Academic Mentoring
Version 1.0 — August 2026

Tool Profile

Code: HT-02
Type: Diagnostic Tool
Purpose: To assess the construction and methodological coherence of the Theoretical Reference Framework.
Associated Methodological Category: MC-01. The Theoretical Reference Framework
Related Principle: PT-01. The Scientific Problem Guides the Entire Research Process.
Outcome: Identification of strengths, gaps, and inconsistencies in the construction and articulation of the Theoretical Reference Framework.

Purpose of the Tool

The Theoretical Reference Framework fulfills a methodological function within the research system when scientific knowledge is selected, analyzed, discussed, systematized, and reconstructed coherently to:

• understand and theoretically ground the Scientific Problem and research object;
• orient methodological decisions; and
• provide a theoretical foundation for the Scientific Outcome.

A Theoretical Reference Framework may be extensively documented and still be methodologically weak if the scientific knowledge it contains is not organized according to the needs of the research.

HT-02 does not assess the length of the Theoretical Reference Framework, the number of references used, or compliance with a particular formal structure. It assesses the methodological function performed by scientific knowledge within the research system.

Instructions for Use

Answer Yes or No to each question based on the research you are developing.

Mark Yes only when you can identify concrete evidence in your research that supports the answer.

Mark No when the aspect is absent, insufficiently developed, or cannot be demonstrated.

For each answer, identify the evidence that supports your decision.

HT-02 can be used during the construction of the Theoretical Reference Framework and again when reviewing an advanced or final version of the research.

I. Scientific Problem and Research Object

1. Understanding the Scientific Problem

☐ Yes ☐ No

Does the scientific knowledge organized in the Theoretical Reference Framework make it possible to understand and explain the Scientific Problem beyond a general description of the research topic?

Evidence: You can identify the knowledge, conceptual relationships, or scientific positions within the Theoretical Reference Framework that contribute to explaining the Scientific Problem.

Weight: 1 point

2. Relationship Between the Scientific Problem and Research Object

☐ Yes ☐ No

Does the scientific knowledge organized in the Theoretical Reference Framework make it possible to understand the relationship between the Scientific Problem and the research object?

Evidence: You can explain which conceptual knowledge makes this relationship understandable.

Weight: 1 point

3. Conceptual Understanding of the Research Object

☐ Yes ☐ No

Does the Theoretical Reference Framework provide the conceptual knowledge required to understand the aspects of the research object that are relevant to the Scientific Problem and the purposes of the research?

Evidence: You can identify the aspects of the research object that require conceptual grounding for the research to be developed.

Weight: 1 point

II. Study and Systematization of Scientific Knowledge

4. Relevance of the Knowledge Selected

☐ Yes ☐ No

Can you justify why the principal scientific knowledge included in the Theoretical Reference Framework is relevant to your Scientific Problem and research object?

Evidence: You can explain the methodological function performed by the principal knowledge selected within the construction of the Theoretical Reference Framework.

Weight: 1 point

5. Systematization of Scientific Knowledge

☐ Yes ☐ No

Has the selected scientific knowledge been analyzed, related, and systematized to construct an integrated understanding of the Scientific Problem?

Evidence: The Theoretical Reference Framework establishes meaningful relationships among the knowledge analyzed rather than presenting scientific information successively or as an accumulation of isolated contributions.

Weight: 2 points — Critical Aspect

6. Contributions, Differences, Limitations, and Gaps

☐ Yes ☐ No

Does the systematization of scientific knowledge make it possible to identify the principal contributions, differences, limitations, or insufficiently explained aspects that are relevant to the research?

Evidence: You can identify which aspects of existing knowledge support, condition, or make further research necessary.

Weight: 1 point

III. Theoretical References and Theoretical Discussion

7. Relevant Scientific Positions

☐ Yes ☐ No

Do the selected Theoretical References make it possible to recognize the principal scientific positions relevant to understanding the Scientific Problem?

Evidence: You can identify the scientific positions considered relevant and explain their relationship to the Scientific Problem.

Weight: 1 point

8. Theoretical Discussion

☐ Yes ☐ No

Are the relevant scientific positions analyzed and critically confronted to establish their relationships, convergences, and differences in relation to the Scientific Problem?

Evidence: You can demonstrate how the different scientific positions have been brought into dialogue and critically analyzed.

Weight: 2 points — Critical Aspect

9. Conclusions of the Theoretical Discussion

☐ Yes ☐ No

Does the Theoretical Discussion make it possible to identify which contributions, limitations, or insufficiently explained aspects of existing knowledge are significant for the research?

Evidence: You can explain which conclusions emerging from the Theoretical Discussion are relevant to the research you are developing.

Weight: 1 point

10. From Theoretical Discussion to Taking a Theoretical Position

☐ Yes ☐ No

Do the conclusions of the Theoretical Discussion provide sufficient grounds for the theoretical position you assume to understand and interpret the Scientific Problem?

Evidence: You can explain how the conclusions of the Theoretical Discussion support the Taking of a Theoretical Position.

Weight: 2 points — Critical Aspect

IV. Theoretical Bases and Taking a Theoretical Position

11. Construction of the Theoretical Bases

☐ Yes ☐ No

Are the Theoretical Bases constructed from the scientific knowledge analyzed and systematized within the Theoretical References?

Evidence: You can establish a clear relationship between the knowledge analyzed in the Theoretical References and the conceptions that constitute the Theoretical Bases.

Weight: 2 points — Critical Aspect

12. Explicit Theoretical Position

☐ Yes ☐ No

Can you clearly explain the theoretical position from which you understand and interpret the Scientific Problem?

Evidence: You can formulate and explain the theoretical position that guides your interpretation of the Scientific Problem.

Weight: 1 point

13. Argumentation of the Theoretical Position

☐ Yes ☐ No

Is the theoretical position you assume scientifically argued on the basis of the different positions analyzed in the research?

Evidence: You can explain why particular conceptions are assumed rather than others, using scientific arguments derived from the Theoretical Discussion and systematization of knowledge.

Weight: 2 points — Critical Aspect

14. Conceptual Orientation of Methodological Decisions

☐ Yes ☐ No

Can you identify concrete methodological decisions whose conceptual foundation derives from the Theoretical Bases?

Evidence: You can identify specific methodological decisions and explain which conceptual foundations within the Theoretical Bases support them.

Weight: 2 points — Critical Aspect

V. Theoretical Foundations and Scientific Outcome

15. Reconstruction and Integration

☐ Yes ☐ No

Do the Theoretical Foundations reconstruct and integrate the Theoretical Bases according to the specific context and Scientific Outcome being developed, rather than merely reproducing them?

Evidence: You can identify how the conceptions assumed within the Theoretical Bases have been reconstructed and contextualized to support the Scientific Outcome.

Weight: 2 points — Critical Aspect

16. Theoretical Support for the Scientific Outcome

☐ Yes ☐ No

Can you identify the conceptions, principles, or conceptual relationships that theoretically support the decisions involved in constructing your Scientific Outcome?

Evidence: You can relate specific decisions involved in constructing the Scientific Outcome to the conceptual foundations that support them.

Weight: 2 points — Critical Aspect

17. Continuity Between Problem and Scientific Outcome

☐ Yes ☐ No

Does the theoretical support of the Scientific Outcome maintain a coherent relationship with the scientific knowledge used to understand and explain the Scientific Problem?

Evidence: You can explain the conceptual continuity between the knowledge used to understand the Scientific Problem and the theoretical support of the Scientific Outcome.

Weight: 2 points — Critical Aspect

VI. Architecture and Methodological Integration

18. Differentiated and Articulated Functions

☐ Yes ☐ No

Do the Theoretical References, Theoretical Bases, and Theoretical Foundations perform differentiated functions while maintaining explicit relationships within the Theoretical Reference Framework?

Evidence: You can explain how the three components are related and what methodological function each performs within the conceptual system.

Weight: 1 point

19. Orientation of Methodological Decisions

☐ Yes ☐ No

Does the scientific knowledge constructed within the Theoretical Reference Framework orient relevant methodological decisions throughout the research process?

Evidence: You can identify relevant research decisions whose conceptual orientation derives from the knowledge constructed within the Theoretical Reference Framework.

Weight: 1 point

20. Global Methodological Coherence

☐ Yes ☐ No

Can you reconstruct a coherent line connecting the scientific knowledge systematized in the Theoretical Reference Framework, the Scientific Problem, the methodological decisions, and the Scientific Outcome?

Evidence: You can demonstrate how the knowledge constructed within the Theoretical Reference Framework relates to the Scientific Problem, provides a conceptual foundation for methodological decisions, and contributes to supporting the Scientific Outcome.

Weight: 2 points — Condition of Methodological Integrity

Scoring System

HT-02 uses differentiated weighting.

Questions worth 1 point assess relevant aspects of the construction of the Theoretical Reference Framework.

Questions worth 2 points assess structural methodological relationships whose absence may significantly affect the function of the Theoretical Reference Framework.

Maximum score: 30 points

• 10 questions × 1 point = 10 points
• 10 questions × 2 points = 20 points
• Total maximum = 30 points

Methodological Coherence Index

Methodological Coherence Index = (Points Obtained ÷ 30) × 100

The result is expressed on a scale from 0 to 100.

Interpretation of the Global Result

90–100% — High Methodological Coherence

The Theoretical Reference Framework presents a solid conceptual architecture and consistently fulfills its functions of understanding, methodological orientation, and theoretical support within the research system.

Condition for this classification:

• P20 = Yes
• No unresolved structural critical alerts remain.

A high score alone is therefore insufficient.

75–89% — Adequate Methodological Coherence

The Theoretical Reference Framework presents a functional construction, although some aspects require strengthening or some methodological relationships need to be made more explicit.

Identified structural alerts should be addressed during revision.

60–74% — Methodological Coherence in Development

Relevant weaknesses are identified in the construction or articulation of the Theoretical Reference Framework.

These weaknesses require methodological review before its function within the research can be considered consolidated.

0–59% — Insufficient Methodological Coherence

The Theoretical Reference Framework presents weaknesses that significantly compromise its methodological function.

A substantial review of its construction and its relationships with the rest of the research is required.

Structural Alerts

The global score does not replace the diagnosis provided by the critical questions.

A No response to any question worth 2 points generates a Structural Alert.

A. Construction Alerts

P5 — Systematization of Scientific Knowledge
Diagnosis: The research does not sufficiently demonstrate that scientific knowledge has been analyzed, related, and systematized to construct an integrated understanding of the Scientific Problem.
Suggested Review: Reconstruct the relationships among the selected knowledge and make explicit the integrated understanding that emerges from its systematization.

P8 — Theoretical Discussion
Diagnosis: The research does not sufficiently demonstrate a critical confrontation of the relevant scientific positions.
Suggested Review: Analyze the relationships, convergences, and differences among the relevant positions in relation to the Scientific Problem.

P10 — Taking a Theoretical Position Derived from the Discussion
Diagnosis: The conclusions of the Theoretical Discussion do not sufficiently justify the theoretical position assumed.
Suggested Review: Make explicit how the analysis of the different scientific positions leads to the theoretical position adopted.

P11 — Construction of the Theoretical Bases
Diagnosis: The relationship between the scientific knowledge analyzed and systematized within the Theoretical References and the Theoretical Bases constructed is insufficiently demonstrated.
Suggested Review: Reconstruct the relationship between the systematization performed and the conceptions that constitute the Theoretical Bases.

P13 — Argumentation of the Theoretical Position
Diagnosis: The theoretical position assumed is not sufficiently supported by the analysis undertaken.
Suggested Review: Justify the conceptions assumed through scientific arguments derived from the Theoretical Discussion and the systematization of knowledge.

P15 — Reconstruction and Integration of the Theoretical Foundations
Diagnosis: The Theoretical Foundations do not sufficiently demonstrate the reconstruction and contextualization of the Theoretical Bases according to the Scientific Outcome.
Suggested Review: Reconstruct the Theoretical Bases according to the specific context and the theoretical support required by the Scientific Outcome.

B. Articulation Alerts

P14 — Methodological Orientation
Diagnosis: The relationship between the Theoretical Bases and concrete methodological decisions is insufficiently demonstrated.
Suggested Review: Identify the methodological decisions grounded in the Theoretical Bases and make the conceptual relationship supporting them explicit.

P16 — Theoretical Support of the Scientific Outcome
Diagnosis: The conceptual foundations supporting the decisions involved in constructing the Scientific Outcome cannot be sufficiently identified.
Suggested Review: Relate the decisions involved in constructing the Scientific Outcome to the conceptions, principles, and conceptual relationships that support them.

P17 — Problem–Scientific Outcome Articulation
Diagnosis: A possible conceptual break exists between the scientific knowledge used to understand the Scientific Problem and the theoretical support of the Scientific Outcome.
Suggested Review: Reconstruct the conceptual continuity between the understanding of the Scientific Problem, the Theoretical Bases, the Theoretical Foundations, and the Scientific Outcome.

C. Integration Alert

P20 — Global Integration
Diagnosis: A sufficiently clear line of methodological coherence cannot be reconstructed among the scientific knowledge systematized in the Theoretical Reference Framework, the Scientific Problem, the methodological decisions, and the Scientific Outcome.
Suggested Review: Reconstruct the global architecture of the Theoretical Reference Framework and its relationship with the research system.

Condition of Methodological Integrity

P20 receives special treatment.

A No response to P20 indicates that the researcher cannot reconstruct a coherent line connecting the principal elements of the research system.

Therefore:

A research study with P20 = No cannot be classified as having High Methodological Coherence, regardless of its global score.

Reading by Dimensions

Dimension	Questions	Maximum
Scientific Problem and Research Object	1–3	3
Study and Systematization	4–6	4
Theoretical References and Theoretical Discussion	7–10	6
Theoretical Bases and Taking a Theoretical Position	11–14	7
Theoretical Foundations and Scientific Outcome	15–17	6
Architecture and Methodological Integration	18–20	4
Total	1–20	30

How to Use the Diagnosis

HT-02 should not be used merely to obtain a score. Its principal purpose is to identify methodological relationships that require review.

For every negative response, ask:

• What evidence is missing?
• What methodological relationship is weakened?
• What needs to be reconstructed?

In this way, HT-02 transforms self-assessment into a methodological review process, rather than a simple checklist or score.

TEXTUM Criterion

The quality of the Theoretical Reference Framework does not depend on the volume of scientific information incorporated.

It depends on the researcher's capacity to select, analyze, discuss, systematize, and reconstruct relevant knowledge according to the Scientific Problem, methodological decisions, and Scientific Outcome.

TEXTUM Proposal

TEXTUM proposes using HT-02 at different points in the development of the research:

Initial construction → Theoretical systematization → Methodological design → Scientific Outcome → Advanced draft → Final review

The purpose is not to obtain a high score at the earliest stage. The purpose is to identify weaknesses while they can still be reconstructed.

TEXTUM Reflection

A Theoretical Reference Framework can contain numerous references, extensive theoretical discussion, and carefully written sections and still fail to fulfill its methodological function.

The essential question is not: How much scientific information does the framework contain?

It is: What does that knowledge make possible within the research?

How to Cite

Pérez Viñas, V. M. (2026). HT-02. TEXTUM Tool for Assessing the Methodological Coherence of the Theoretical Reference Framework: 20 Questions to Assess Its Construction and Methodological Coherence. Thinking Methodologically About Scientific Research. TEXTUM. Academic Mentoring. Version 1.0.

About the Collection

This document is part of the collection Thinking Methodologically About Scientific Research, developed by TEXTUM. Academic Mentoring.

The collection integrates TEXTUM Principles (PT), Methodological Categories (MC), and TEXTUM Tools (HT), designed to strengthen methodological thinking and coherence in scientific research.