How many reports can both reviewers code?
Priya plans a research master’s study of public engineering incident reports.
The question
Priya wants to compare three report groups with equal counts. The same criteria apply to each group. Both reviewers must code every selected report independently. Time for resolving disagreements is already reserved outside the coding hours.
| Amount | |
|---|---|
| Planned unique reports | 300 |
| Groups with equal planned counts | 3 |
| Coding minutes per report for each reviewer | 20 |
| Reviewer A coding hours | 100 |
| Reviewer B coding hours | 100 |
The two reviewer budgets are separate.
“Explain the unit of study and resize the plan while preserving the required comparison.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: What counts as one eligible report?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Define one unique eligible report and use the same rule in all groups
The strong move. This keeps eligibility consistent and preserves two independent reviews per report.
Count a report twice when both reviewers code it
Tempting, but it misses something. That confuses independent coding assignments with the number of unique records.
Choose a different inclusion rule for the smallest group
Tempting, but it misses something. A different rule could change what the group represents and weaken the comparison.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would count one unique public engineering incident report that meets the same scope and date criteria in each group. I would select equal numbers and send each selected report to both reviewers.”
Why it works: An explicit unit and a common rule make the group comparison and workload interpretable.
Step 2: Does the first plan fit?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Plan for 100 hours per reviewer and 100 reports per group
The strong move. Both individual budgets fit exactly and each report gets two reviews.
Split 300 reports between the reviewers for 50 hours each
Tempting, but it misses something. Then each report would get only one independent review.
Treat 200 person-hours as 200 hours for each reviewer
Tempting, but it misses something. The 200 hours combine two people’s separate effort. Each person needs 100.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The first plan uses 100 reports per group. Each reviewer needs 100 hours for 300 reports at 20 minutes each. That is 200 coding person-hours in total.”
Why it works: The same report creates one coding task for each reviewer. The plan uses both complete coding budgets.
Step 3: How much can both reviewers cover?
Reviewer B can now spend only 60 hours coding. Reviewer A still has 100 hours. Both reviewers must still code every selected report.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Set a cap of 180 reports and check how many qualify
The strong move. Both reviewers can code that many records independently.
Pool 160 hours and select 240 reports
Tempting, but it misses something. Each reviewer would need 80 hours. B only has 60.
Let A code the remaining reports alone
Tempting, but it misses something. That would change the required review method for some reports.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Reviewer B can code 180 reports in 60 hours. That sets a maximum of 180 paired reports, or 60 per group, before I check how many reports qualify.”
Why it works: The reviewer with less time sets the maximum number of complete pairs.
Step 4: What balanced plan is feasible now?
One group has only 35 eligible reports. The other groups have at least 60 each. The proposal still requires equal counts and the same inclusion rule.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Keep the same inclusion rule and use 35 reports per group
The strong move. All selected reports are eligible and the comparison stays balanced.
Use 60 in each larger group and 35 in the smallest under the same plan
Tempting, but it misses something. That is feasible to code. It changes the equal-count design and needs a revised analysis plan.
Expand the eligibility rule for the smaller group alone
Tempting, but it misses something. That preserves the count by changing what qualifies in that group.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would use 35 eligible reports per group, for 105 in total. That takes 35 coding hours per reviewer. I would report the lower sample size and how I selected reports in the other groups.”
Why it works: The smallest eligible group sets the limit for the equal-count comparison.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Use 105 unique reports and keep the two independent reviews.
- Because
- The smallest group supplies 35 eligible reports. Both reviewers can code all 105.
- What would change it
- A different group design would require an explicit change to the comparison and analysis plan.
Common traps
- Count unique reports separately from coding assignments.
- Use each reviewer’s own capacity before combining the effort.
Check your answer
- I defined one eligible record.
- I checked both individual budgets.
- I recalculated the paired capacity.
- I kept the group comparison feasible.
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026