Examining Sampling Methodology in the Academic Performance‐Delinquency Study
Introduction
Studies examining the foundation behind correlations often considered standard by society must have a robust methodology to challenge or support the status quo. The high quality of participant data is a major element of such analyses. For example, picking a sampling technique that represents the whole selected population is vital to the generalizability of results. The article “Explaining the Academic Performance‐Delinquency Relationship” looks at students to determine whether there exists a link between their grades and the risks of delinquency. The sampling technique in the study is randomized, and the sample is large, which increases the conclusion’s quality.
Article Analysis
As the article deals with the connection between academic performance and delinquency, the main population considered in the work is students. In particular, Felson and Staff (2006) gathered data from the National Education Longitudinal Study that was performed in several waves between 1988 and 2000. First, the academic performance of 24,599 students in eighth grade was collected. The same students were surveyed four more times – in the tenth and twelfth grades as well as 2 and 8 years after graduation.
Felson and Staff (2006) use this data partially as they are only interested in the surveys performed during school years (1988-1992). The eligibility criteria required students to have official transcripts and complete all survey segments. As a result, the final sample size was 10,439 student participants (Felson & Staff, 2006). The sampling technique was random – the initial survey chose participants from over 1,000 schools from different locations across the United States (Felson & Staff, 2006). Random sampling is the process of choosing each population member, and the chances for selection are equal and randomly generated.
The authors mention several limitations that decreased their sample from the original 24 thousand to only 10 thousand. First, they state that administrative reasons and budget problems prevented them from accessing all student transcripts (Felson & Staff, 2006). Second, some students did not reach twelfth grade – one of the sample populations examined in the article. Therefore, the researchers lost this portion of the initial sample as well. Finally, it was vital for scholars that such parts of the survey as parental attachment and school attachment were completed. If the collected surveys did not fill these segments, they were excluded. The lack of answers to survey questions also became a limitation that decreased the sample size.
Despite the abovementioned issue, the sample in the present study can be considered generalizable for the student population in the country. The number of participants is still relatively large, including over 10 thousand people that met all eligibility criteria. Moreover, the scholars conducted additional analyses, including some previously omitted participant data, and confirmed that the study results would not change significantly (Felson & Staff, 2006).
The randomization of student selection and the large pool of public and private schools across the US greatly increase data validity and make the study generalizable. An issue may occur if one uses the article’s conclusions for other countries. The paper considers only American students and their socioeconomic and other country-related factors should be acknowledged when researching this information.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the article “Explaining the Academic Performance‐Delinquency Relationship” uses a large, well-defined, and reliable sample for the investigation. The authors utilize randomized sampling and present transparent eligibility criteria for their research. As a result, the number of participants is still high enough to extrapolate the results to the whole population. Some factors limit the generalizability, such as the location of other analyses. Overall, the research comprehensively describes the sampling technique and presents a large final sample.
Reference
Felson, R. B., & Staff, J. (2006). Explaining the academic performance‐delinquency relationship. Criminology, 44(2), 299-320. Web.