Abstract Poor sampling practices can constitute a questionable research practice when conducting L2 inferential quantitative research. The current study, a methodological synthesis ( N = 433 Scopus/Web of Science (WoS) reports: cluster random sampling) of sampling practices, revealed that L2 inferential quantitative researchers rarely employed randomized and/or effect size-driven sampling processes with only eight (1.8%) and ten (2.3%) of the reports being respectively satisfactory. Furthermore, just 33.9% of the reports featured multisite (convenience) samples. In models assessing what predicted multisite sampling, whether the report was ISLA-focused ( r s = −.33, p < .001) or single-authored ( r s = −.15, p < .001) incurred moderate and weak negative associations. Citation analysis metric values and the Scopus/WoS contrast had no associations. The findings of this study suggest the field’s sampling practices have room to improve and guidance for future improvement is offered.
Vitta et al. (Mon,) studied this question.