State what was measured, who was included, how data was collected and what the limits are.
Genwealth 360 Research Institute™
Research should earn
the right to be cited.
Our methodology standard separates educational frameworks, illustrative tools and future empirical findings so readers can see exactly what a claim is based on.
01 — Principles
Clarity before conclusions.
The Institute will distinguish between conceptual frameworks, self-reported educational tools, observational data, survey findings and externally sourced evidence. A polished visual should never be mistaken for an empirical finding.
Use questions and dimensions that reflect the economic complexity of physicians rather than generic household finance alone.
Document the scoring, definitions and analytical approach well enough for the logic to be understood.
Avoid causal claims, population claims or outcome promises the underlying evidence cannot support.
02 — Evidence Classification
Every Genwealth research asset should tell you what kind of evidence it is.
FRAMEWORK
A conceptual model developed for education and financial architecture discussion.
ILLUSTRATIVE TOOL
A self-selected input experience such as the current public Physician Wealth Index™. It is not population research.
SURVEY DATA
Responses collected under a defined protocol with sample size, field dates and respondent criteria disclosed.
OBSERVATIONAL DATA
De-identified data analyzed under a documented methodology and applicable permissions.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
Statistics or findings attributed to credible third-party sources with citations and dates.
03 — Future Physician Wealth Index™ Research
The public tool is not yet a population benchmark.
The interactive Physician Wealth Index™ currently available on this site is educational and illustrative. A future research edition would require a defined instrument, respondent criteria, sample size, fielding period, data-quality controls, scoring methodology and published limitations before population comparisons are presented.
- Define the physician population and segmentation criteria.
- Predefine the seven architecture dimensions and question set.
- Document scoring and weighting before results are analyzed.
- Report sample sizes for every specialty or subgroup comparison.
- Separate descriptive findings from interpretation.
- Protect respondent confidentiality and avoid exposing client-specific information.
Citation architecture
See how this standard appears across the live site.
The Evidence & Citation Standard turns these research principles into visible page-level labels and a machine-readable registry.
Open Evidence Center04 — Publication Standard
A finding should travel with its methodology.
Future research reports should include a methodology note, sample description, definitions, limitations, date of fieldwork and clear attribution. Supporting web pages should link back to that methodology rather than repeating statistics without context.
05 — Limitations
Research informs questions. It does not replace individualized advice.
Even high-quality aggregate research cannot determine what is appropriate for an individual physician, household, practice or estate. Tax, legal, investment, insurance and financial decisions depend on facts that population-level data cannot capture.
Return to the Research Institute