The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rethinking Convenience Sampling: Defining Quality Criteria
Open accessAbstract
Convenience sampling is one of the most commonly used sampling procedures in second language acquisition studies, but this non-random sampling procedure suffers from a lot of problems including the inability of controlling for initial differences between experimental and control groups.The present study tries to introduce conditions and criteria which enable researchers to account for these drawbacks and at the same time make validity claims.Individual scores and group statistics are compared with regard to a group of essential factors known to be important for the purpose of the study.The overall value calculated for essential factors is then used to make judgments about the groups' comparability.The contribution of this method to the current procedures of sampling arises from its factual accuracy which is supposed to enhance the validity of findings obtained from studies employing non-probability sampling procedures.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings
(2002) · doi:10.1353/book4583 · Cited by 3,502
Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research
Maxwell, J. (1992) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826 · Cited by 2,951 · cited 1×
“However, an important point when it comes to research is what Maxwell (1992) calls descriptive validity.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Farrokhi, F., & Mahmoudi-Hamidabad, A.
- Venue
- Theory and Practice in Language Studies
- Publisher
- Academy Publication
- Published
- 2012-04-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 1799-2591 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2063306306
- Cited by
- 310
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 41.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rethinking Convenience Sampling: Defining Quality Criteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4304/tpls.2.4.784-792
- The paper
- Farrokhi, F., & Mahmoudi-Hamidabad, A. (2012). Rethinking Convenience Sampling: Defining Quality Criteria. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.4.784-792
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
