A reporting verb is a claim about how strongly a study proved something. “Dela Cruz (2023) showed” and “Dela Cruz (2023) suggested” cite the same paper and commit you to two different positions. Choose the verb from the study’s design and its actual result, not from a list of synonyms.
Advisers rarely write “wrong verb” in the margin. They write “Are you sure?” or “Is that what the study says?” next to a single circled word, and most groups respond by changing the word to another one that means the same thing. That fixes nothing. This guide gives the procedure: what each band of reporting verbs commits you to, how to match the band to the design of the study you are citing, and a fifteen-minute audit for a finished Chapter 2.
Step 1: Learn the three stance bands before you touch a verb list
Expected output: you can say out loud, for any verb you use, what you are asking the reader to believe about that study.
Every reporting verb sits in one of three bands. The band, not the word, is what your panel reacts to.
- Neutral. You are telling the reader what the study did or said, and taking no position on whether it was right. stated, reported, described, presented, noted, examined, investigated, surveyed, measured, administered, compared.
- Tentative. You are saying the study points somewhere without settling the matter. suggested, indicated, implied, proposed, posited, argued, contended, maintained.
- Strong. You are endorsing the finding as established. demonstrated, established, confirmed, proved, revealed, showed, found, concluded.
There is a fourth band most manuals never mention and every panel notices: distancing verbs — claimed, alleged, asserted, purported. These signal that you do not accept the study’s own account of itself. They are legitimate, but only when you go on to say why, in the next sentence. Using “claimed” and moving on reads as a swipe you did not justify.
Step 2: Take the band from the study’s design, not from its abstract
Expected output: a verb whose band your reader could have predicted from the method section of the study you are citing.
This is the single rule that fixes most of the problem, and it is mechanical.
| Design of the study you are citing | Band it licenses | Verbs that fit | Verb that overreaches |
|---|---|---|---|
| Descriptive survey | Neutral | reported, described, found a level of, documented | proved, demonstrated |
| Correlational | Neutral to tentative | reported an association, found a relationship, suggested a link | showed that X causes Y |
| Comparative or causal-comparative | Neutral to tentative | found a difference, reported higher scores among | established the effect of |
| True or quasi-experimental | Strong is available | demonstrated, showed an effect of, established | proved (still rarely correct) |
| Qualitative, phenomenological or case study | Neutral to tentative | described, explored, identified themes of, suggested | found that most Filipinos |
| Systematic review or meta-analysis | Strong is available | synthesised, concluded, established across studies | discovered |
| Theoretical or conceptual paper | Tentative | argued, proposed, contended, theorised | found, showed |
Notice what the table does not do. It never lets a single undergraduate survey reach the strong band, no matter how large the sample was. If you are unsure which design a source used, that is not a verb problem — it is a sign you have not read the method section, and it is a much bigger correction than the one you were trying to fix. The distinction between the designs themselves is set out in the guide to choosing between quantitative and qualitative research.
Step 3: Match the verb to what the study actually reported, not to what it concluded
Expected output: no verb in your review that is stronger than the number behind it.
Authors overstate their own findings all the time. A paper that reports a weak correlation of r = .21 will often conclude, in its own abstract, that the variable “significantly influences” the outcome. If you copy the author’s stance verb, you inherit the author’s overclaim, and your panel will ask you about it rather than about them.
Read the results table, not the abstract. Then write:
“Santos (2024) reported a weak positive correlation between social media use and academic procrastination (r = .21, p = .03) among 210 senior high school students.”
rather than:
“Santos (2024) demonstrated that social media use significantly influences academic procrastination.”
The second sentence is not a paraphrase of the first. It has upgraded an association into an influence and a weak effect into a demonstration. Both upgrades happened inside the verb.
Step 4: Stop the double-reporting construction
Expected output: one reporting verb per citation, with the author as its subject.
This is the most common single error in a Philippine Chapter 2, and it comes from spoken English rather than from carelessness:
✗ “According to Reyes (2023), she stated that teachers who received training reported higher confidence.”
✗ “In the study of Reyes (2023), it was found by her that…”
✓ “Reyes (2023) reported that teachers who received training expressed higher confidence.”
✓ “Teachers who received training reported higher confidence (Reyes, 2023).”
“According to X” is already a reporting frame. Adding “she stated that” reports the same thing twice, and the sentence then has no clear subject. Pick one frame. The second correct version — the parenthetical form — is worth using deliberately, because it puts the finding in the subject position and the citation out of the way, which is what a synthesis paragraph needs. The mechanics of the parenthetical form itself are covered in the guide to getting APA 7th references right before you submit.
A related habit worth breaking: “the study of Reyes (2023)” and “in the study conducted by Reyes (2023)” are both longer ways of writing “Reyes (2023)”. Across a forty-page review they cost you several hundred words that a panel will read as padding.
Step 5: Rotate verbs without changing your stance
Expected output: no verb repeated more than twice in any paragraph, and no unintended stance change.
Repeating “stated” fourteen times is a real fault, but the usual cure makes things worse: the writer reaches for a thesaurus and drifts across bands without noticing. “Noted”, “observed” and “remarked” are all neutral and interchangeable. “Revealed” and “established” are not neutral, and swapping one in to break up the rhythm silently endorses the study.
The safe method is to rotate within the band you already chose:
- Neutral rotation: reported → noted → described → examined → observed.
- Tentative rotation: suggested → indicated → proposed → implied.
- Strong rotation: demonstrated → established → confirmed.
And when several studies agree, stop citing them one verb at a time. “Three Philippine studies report the same pattern (Dela Cruz, 2023; Reyes, 2024; Santos, 2024)” carries one verb and three sources, which is exactly the move that turns a list into the synthesis your review of related literature is supposed to be.
Step 6: Use the same discipline on your own findings
Expected output: a Chapter 4 discussion in which your verbs are no stronger than your own statistics.
The verb problem does not stop at Chapter 2. When you compare your result to the literature in your discussion, you are reporting two studies at once — theirs and yours — and the second one is a descriptive or correlational undergraduate survey.
The shape that survives questioning is: your finding, neutral verb; their finding, neutral verb; the relationship between them, hedged.
“The present study found a moderate positive relationship between time management and academic performance (r = .48, p < .001). This is consistent with Reyes (2024), who reported a similar relationship in a comparable senior high school sample, and may indicate that the pattern holds across both public and private settings — although neither study was designed to establish that.”
“May indicate” and “was not designed to establish” are doing deliberate work there. Where that paragraph belongs, and the three-move structure it follows, are set out in the guide to writing Chapter 4 table by table.
Step 7: Run the fifteen-minute verb audit
Expected output: a list of every reporting verb in Chapter 2, with the strong ones checked against the studies behind them.
- Open Chapter 2 and use Find to search for each of these one at a time: proved, demonstrated, showed, revealed, established, confirmed, found.
- For every hit, open the source and read its method section. Was it experimental or a review? If not, downgrade the verb.
- Search for “According to”. Delete any second reporting verb that follows it in the same sentence.
- Search for “the study of” and “conducted by”. Cut both phrases wherever the author’s name alone will do.
- Read one theme section aloud. If the same verb appears three times in a paragraph, rotate within the band.
- Check that every distancing verb — claimed, alleged — is followed by a sentence saying why.
Steps 1 and 2 are the ones that change marks. The rest are polish.
What advisers send Chapter 2 back for
- “Proved.” Almost nothing in an undergraduate reference list proves anything. It is the single most reliable trigger for a defence question.
- A causal verb on a correlational study. “Influences”, “affects”, “leads to” and “results in” are causal claims wearing ordinary clothes.
- Double reporting. “According to X (2023), he said that…”
- Author’s stance copied wholesale. You inherited an overclaim from the paper’s abstract.
- One verb for fourteen sources. Reads as a list, which is the fault the whole chapter is graded on.
- Distancing with no follow-up. “Claimed” without a reason is an unexplained attack.
- Verbs stronger than your own data in Chapter 4. The panel will simply read your correlation coefficient back to you.
A worked paragraph, before and after
Before:
According to Dela Cruz (2023), she stated that engagement was moderate. In the study conducted by Santos (2024), it was proved that online engagement is low. Reyes (2024) revealed that engagement affects academic performance.
After:
Studies of engagement in Philippine higher education report moderate levels overall, with findings diverging by delivery mode. Dela Cruz (2023) described moderate engagement in face-to-face classes, while Santos (2024) reported markedly lower levels online, which suggests that mode of delivery matters more than earlier work assumed. Reyes (2024) found a positive association between engagement and academic performance, although the correlational design does not establish that one produces the other.
Same three sources, same findings, no new reading. Every change is a verb, a frame or a hedge — and the second version is the one that survives the question “what did that study actually do?” Those are the questions the panel asks at a defence, and Chapter 2 is where they start.
Write Chapter 2 with the source attached to the claim
Tesify keeps every citation tied to the study it came from, so when you have to check whether a verb is too strong, the method section is one click away instead of one download away. Over 9,000 students have written more than 15,000 chapters with it, and every word is still written by you.
Frequently asked questions
What is a reporting verb in a thesis?
A reporting verb is the verb that introduces what a source did or said — reported, suggested, demonstrated, argued. It carries your position on how strongly that source established its finding, which is why two verbs can cite the same paper and commit you to different claims.
What reporting verbs should I use in a review of related literature?
Mostly neutral ones: reported, described, examined, noted, investigated. Move to tentative verbs such as suggested or indicated when a study points somewhere without settling the question, and reserve demonstrated or established for experimental studies and systematic reviews.
Can I write that a study proved something?
Almost never in an undergraduate reference list. “Proved” belongs to mathematics and to replicated experimental evidence. A descriptive survey, however large, reports levels; a correlational study reports relationships. Neither proves anything.
What is wrong with “According to Dela Cruz (2023), she stated that”?
It reports the same thing twice. “According to X” is already a reporting frame, so adding “she stated that” leaves the sentence with no clear subject. Write “Dela Cruz (2023) stated that” or “According to Dela Cruz (2023),” and pick one.
Is “showed” acceptable in a literature review?
It sits in the strong band, so it is acceptable when the study was experimental or a systematic review and the result was clear. On a descriptive survey it overreaches, and “reported” says the same thing without the claim.
How do I avoid repeating the same verb?
Rotate within the band you already chose rather than opening a thesaurus. Reported, noted, described, examined and observed are interchangeable. Revealed and established are not interchangeable with them, because they change your stance.
Which verbs signal that I disagree with a source?
Claimed, alleged, asserted and purported. They are legitimate, but only when the next sentence says why you are distancing yourself — a small sample, an unvalidated instrument, a conclusion the data does not support.
Do reporting verbs matter in Chapter 4?
Yes, and more than in Chapter 2, because there you are reporting your own study. Keep your verbs no stronger than your own statistics, and hedge the comparison between your finding and the literature.
Does APA 7th specify which reporting verbs to use?
No. APA governs the citation form, not your stance. The verb is your editorial choice, which is exactly why a panel treats it as one and asks you to defend it.
How do I check my verbs quickly before submitting?
Use Find to search Chapter 2 for proved, demonstrated, showed, revealed, established, confirmed and found, then open each source and check its design. That single pass catches most overclaims in about fifteen minutes.
My source is a thesis from another school. Which verb should I use?
Use the neutral band and name the source type: “In an unpublished thesis, Cruz (2022) reported…” That is honest about the level of review the work received, and it protects you if a panellist asks how the study was vetted.