Claims

Reporting quality was highest for data collection (84.2% high ratings) and data analysis (80.7%), and lowest for mixed methods study design (47.4%), aims and purposes (52.6%), and elements of writing (54.4%)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Across 57 mixed methods articles, high ratings were most frequent for data collection and data analysis and least frequent for study design labeling, aims and purposes, and elements of writing. → Matthew T. McCrudden · Macy Bowman · Gala Sofia Campos Oaxaca 2025

Evidence

Matthew T. McCrudden · Macy Bowman · Gala Sofia Campos Oaxaca 2025

Matthew T. McCrudden · Macy Bowman · Gala Sofia Campos Oaxaca. (2025). Reporting of Methodological Rigor in Empirical Mixed Methods Research in Educational Psychology. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10090-8

q2 · i? · review · r2

Content analysis of 57 articles coded with a six-element rubric adapted from Harrison et al. (2020) by two independent raters (94.7% pre-reconciliation agreement). The review reports "data collection (84.2%; n = 48/57) and data analysis (80.7%; n = 46/57)" received the most high ratings.

"The two characteristics with the greatest quantity of high ratings were data collection (84.2%; n = 48/57) and data analysis (80.7%; n = 46/57). The articles also tended to receive high ratings for integration (71.9%; n = 41/57)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id reporting-quality-varies-by-rigor-element
title Reporting quality was highest for data collection (84.2% high ratings) and data analysis (80.7%), and lowest for mixed methods study design (47.4%), aims and purposes (52.6%), and elements of writing (54.4%)
description Reporting quality was highest for data collection (84.2% high ratings) and data analysis (80.7%), and lowest for mixed methods study design (47.4%), aims and purposes (52.6%), and elements of writing (54.4%)
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2025
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-22
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — matthew-t-mccrudden-macy-bowman-gala-sofia-campos-oaxaca-2025

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.