Sample Defense Question Rubric

This fictional doctoral persistence case demonstrates methodological coaching. It is synthetic evidence, not a client result or validation of the service. Simulation parameters are design targets; every table below uses achieved fitted results.

Twelve rehearsal prompts

For each response score 0 (unsupported), 1 (partly justified), or 2 (methodologically defensible with limitations). This coaching rubric has not been psychometrically validated.

1. What is the primary estimand?
2. Why is MLR appropriate for these indicators?
3. When would WLSMV change your specification?
4. Why does sample size alone not establish power?
5. Which effects need simulation based power planning?
6. What makes the missingness mechanism plausible?
7. Why can observed data not prove MAR?
8. Which auxiliary variables belong in the model?
9. What MNAR sensitivity analysis would you consider?
10. How do scaled and robust indices differ?
11. What local residual patterns deserve investigation?
12. Which causal conclusions are outside your design?

Model matched rehearsal anchor

This case has 340 observations and achieved SRMR 0.028. Use the fitted debrief to support answers, not memorized thresholds. Record the candidate’s wording, evidence cited, uncertainty acknowledged, and one next action for each response.