1. The most essential condition for a valid hypothesis is that it should be capable of empirical verification, so that it has to be ultimately confirmed or refuted. Otherwise it will remain a proposition only. Therefore it should be formulated in such a way that it is possible to deduce certain inferences which in turn can be tested by observation in the field. It should not be a mere moral judgement.
2. Secondly, the hypothesis must be conceptually clear, definite and certain. It should not be vague or ambiguous. It should be properly expressed. The concepts should not only be formally defined in a clear-cut manner, but also operationally. If a hypothesis is loaded with un-defined or ill-defined concepts, it moves beyond empirical test because, understandably, there is no standard basis for cognizing what observable facts would constitute its test.
3. Thirdly, hypothesis must be specific and predictions indicated should be spelled out. A general hypothesis has limited scope in the sense that it may only serve as an indicator of an area of investigation rather than serving the hypothesis. A hypothesis of grandiose scope is simply not amenable to test. Narrower hypothesis involves a degree of humility and specific hypothesis is of any real use. A hypothesis must provide answer to the problem which initiated enquiry.
4. Fourthly, the possibility of actually testing the hypothesis can be approved. A hypothesis should be formulated in such a way that its conceptual content can be easily translated to understand the observable reality. If the hypothesis is not the closest to things observable, it would not be possible to test their accord with empirical facts.
5. Fifthly, the hypothesis should be related to a body of theory and should possess theoretical relevance. It must provide theoretical rationale by seeking answer to question as to what will be the theoretical gains of testing the hypothesis? If the hypothesis is derived from a theory, research will enable to confirm support, correct or refute the theory.
