School-research articles rarely justify their samples, sample sizes, or sampling designs when reporting intensive longitudinal studies¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Only 15.6% of articles justified their sample, 4.7% justified sample size, and 7.8% explained the rationale for the sampling design. → Carina Schreiber & Michael Becker 2026

Evidence¶

Carina Schreiber & Michael Becker 2026¶

Carina Schreiber & Michael Becker. (2026). Intensive Longitudinal Methods in School Research: A Systematic Literature Review. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10203-x

q2 · i? · review · r3

Adherence coding against the Trull and Ebner-Priemer (2020) reporting guidelines (Table 2): justify sample 40 (15.6%), justify sample size 12 (4.7%), explain rationale for sampling design 20 (7.8%), rationale for sampling and scheduling 36 (14.0%). The review concludes justifications were "rarely provided".

"The justification for the sample and the sampling scheme and scheduling were rarely provided."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• School research using intensive longitudinal methods predominantly focuses on students, with teachers rarely assessed and simultaneous student–teacher perspectives rare — related
• School-based intensive longitudinal studies show wide heterogeneity in sample size, study duration, and assessment frequency, with a median sample of 157 participants and average duration of about 13 days — related
• Both publication year and journal five-year impact factor statistically significantly predict adherence to intensive longitudinal reporting guidelines — related