The Effect of the Flipped Classroom Model and the Argumentation-Based Learning Model on Students' Academic Achievement and Attitudes toward the Social Studies Course

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • Randomisation is asserted only by an "R" symbol in what the paper itself calls a symbolic representation of the Solomon design, while the Method text reports convenience sampling of the school and the four intact classes.
    • Convenience sampling was used to determine the school and classes. In accordance with the Solomon Four-Group design, four sixth-grade classes were assigned to the study groups.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The symbolic representation of the solomon four-group design is shown in Table 1." (p. 4) 2) "Table 1. Solomon four-group design. Group Assignment Pre-test Intervention Post-test ABLG R O1 X1 O2 CG1 R O3 O4 FCG R X2 O5 CG2 R O6" ... "Note. R = random assignment; O = measurement" (p. 4) 3) "The study group consisted of 111 sixth-grade students enrolled in a secondary school in the central district of Ağrı Province during the spring semester of the 2023-2024 academic year. Convenience sampling was used to determine the school and classes." (p. 5) 4) "In accordance with the Solomon Four-Group design, four sixth-grade classes were assigned to the study groups: 31 students in ABLG, 28 students in FCG, 26 students in CG1, and 26 students in CG2." (p. 5) 5) "Before the implementation, parent consent was obtained, and the groups were organized in a way that allowed the same instructional unit to be covered across all classes." (p. 5) 6) "This concise reporting was preferred to avoid excessive procedural detail and to keep the manuscript focused on the research design and finding" (p. 5) Detailed Analysis: Criterion C requires that the study be a randomised controlled trial in which the randomisation process is clearly described and properly implemented, with entire classes (or schools) as the unit of allocation. The sole basis for a randomisation claim is the letter "R" in the "Assignment" column of Table 1, glossed in the table note as "R = random assignment". Critically, the paper itself introduces that table as "the symbolic representation of the solomon four-group design" - that is, Table 1 is the canonical textbook schematic of the Solomon design, not a report of how allocation was actually carried out in this trial. The "R" therefore documents a design template rather than an implemented procedure. No section of the manuscript describes any randomisation mechanism: there is no random number generator, randomisation list, sequence generation, blocking, stratification, allocation concealment, or statement of who performed the allocation. The narrative text actively contradicts a random-allocation reading. The Study Group section states that "Convenience sampling was used to determine the school and classes", and the sentence describing allocation says four sixth-grade classes "were assigned to the study groups" - conspicuously without the word "randomly". Four intact classes in a single conveniently selected school were mapped onto the four Solomon cells, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that procedural detail was omitted ("This concise reporting was preferred to avoid excessive procedural detail"). Even if allocation of the four intact classes to the four cells had been random, four clusters is far too few for randomisation to balance confounders, and no baseline data at all exist for the two non-pre-tested arms (FCG, CG2) to check this. Following the standard's procedure, where the unit and process of randomisation are unclear, additional quotes must clarify the randomisation steps; here the additional quotes point to convenience sampling instead. The intervention is whole-class instruction rather than personal tutoring, so the tutoring exception does not apply. Criterion C is not met because the randomisation claim rests only on an "R" symbol in a generic Solomon design schematic, no allocation procedure is described anywhere, and the Method text reports convenience sampling of the school and the four intact classes.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • Outcomes were a unit-specific researcher-developed achievement test and a Likert attitude scale, not a widely recognised standardised exam.
    • The academic achievement test developed by Tağrikulu et al. (2021) was used to assess students' learning in the sixth-grade "Production, Distribution, and Consumption" unit of the Social Studies curriculum.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "In this study, the attitude scale toward the social studies course developed by Çalışkan (2009) and the academic achievement test developed by Tağrikulu et al. (2021) were used as data collection tools." (p. 6) 2) "The academic achievement test developed by Tağrikulu et al. (2021) was used to assess students' learning in the sixth-grade "Production, Distribution, and Consumption" unit of the Social Studies curriculum." (p. 7) 3) "The test was considered appropriate for the participants because its items were aligned with the relevant curriculum outcomes and addressed the knowledge, comprehension, and application levels expected from sixth-grade students." (p. 7) 4) "Using a previously developed achievement test also strengthened the methodological appropriateness of the data collection process (Tağrikulu et al., 2021)." (p. 7) 5) "The attitude scale toward the social studies course developed by Çalışkan (2009) is a five-point Likert-type scale consisting of 33 items." (p. 6) 6) Reference: "Tağrikulu, P., Bekdemir, Ü., & Çobanoğlu, E. O. (2021). Üretim, dağıtım ve tüketim öğrenme alanına yönelik akademik başarı testi geliştirme: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması ... Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(3), 1984-2004." (p. 16) Detailed Analysis: Criterion E requires a standardised, widely recognised exam-based assessment rather than an instrument created for the study or narrowly tailored to the intervention content. The achievement outcome here is a unit-specific test built by Tağrikulu et al. (2021) for the single sixth-grade "Production, Distribution, and Consumption" learning domain. It is a positive point that the authors did not write the test themselves and that the instrument underwent a published validity and reliability study. However, it is not a national, state-wide, or otherwise widely recognised standardised examination. It is a researcher-developed topic-specific achievement test covering exactly the unit that was taught during the seven-week intervention, which is the precise alignment risk the criterion is designed to guard against. The second outcome, the Çalışkan (2009) attitude scale, is a 33-item Likert self-report instrument and is not an exam-based assessment at all. No national curriculum exam, standardised achievement battery, or centrally administered examination result is reported anywhere in the paper. Criterion E is not met because the achievement outcome was a researcher-developed unit-specific test rather than a widely recognised standardised exam, and the second outcome was a Likert attitude scale.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • Post-tests were administered at the end of an eight-week implementation, well short of one full academic term.
    • The implementation lasted eight weeks: the first week was used for orientation and preparation, and the following seven weeks were used for the instructional intervention.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The implementation lasted eight weeks, including a one-week orientation period and a seven-week intervention." (p. 1, Abstract) 2) "The study was conducted during the spring semester of the 2023-2024 academic year within the sixth-grade Social Studies unit titled "Production, Distribution, and Consumption." The implementation lasted eight weeks: the first week was used for orientation and preparation, and the following seven weeks were used for the instructional intervention." (p. 4) 3) "Before the intervention, the academic achievement test and the attitude scale toward the social studies course were administered to ABLG and CG1 in accordance with the Solomon Four-Group design. FCG and CG2 did not receive the pre-test. At the end of the implementation, all four groups were administered the post-tests." (p. 4) 4) "The implementation process of the research was limited to 8 weeks in total" (p. 7, Limitations) 5) "Future studies may strengthen these findings by using larger samples, longer implementation periods, and additional qualitative data to explain how students experience these instructional models." (p. 14) Detailed Analysis: Criterion T requires that the primary outcome be measured at least one full academic term (roughly 3-4 months) after the intervention begins. Short interventions are acceptable, but the tracking window from intervention start to measurement must span at least a term. Here the intervention start and the outcome measurement are both inside a single eight-week window: one orientation week plus seven intervention weeks, with post-tests administered "at the end of the implementation". Eight weeks is approximately two months, clearly less than one academic term. The authors themselves list the eight-week span as a limitation and recommend longer implementation periods in future work. No delayed or retention post-test is reported; measurement stops when instruction stops. Criterion T is not met because outcomes were measured at the end of an eight-week implementation, which is shorter than one full academic term from intervention start.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • Control group size, instructional condition, and CG1 baseline scores with equivalence tests are documented, although no demographic detail is reported.
    • The control groups received instruction based on the Ministry of National Education curriculum; however, they are consistently referred to as CG1 and CG2 in the manuscript.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "two control groups receiving Ministry of National Education curriculum-based instruction, Control Group 1 (CG1) and Control Group 2 (CG2), each consisting of 26 students." (p. 1, Abstract) 2) "The control groups received instruction based on the Ministry of National Education curriculum; however, they are consistently referred to as CG1 and CG2 in the manuscript." (p. 4) 3) "The control groups continued instruction based on the Ministry of National Education curriculum. Throughout the intervention, all groups studied the same Social Studies content. ... CG1 and CG2 received curriculum-based instruction through the regular classroom procedures." (p. 5) 4) "The study group consisted of 111 sixth-grade students enrolled in a secondary school in the central district of Ağrı Province during the spring semester of the 2023-2024 academic year. ... 26 students in CG1, and 26 students in CG2." (p. 5) 5) "Table 3. Independent-samples t-test findings for the pre-test attitude scores of ABLG and CG1 ... CG1 26 109,0385 11,8776" (p. 9) 6) "Table 9. Independent-samples t-test findings for the pre-test academic achievement scores of ABLG and CG1 ... CG1 26 48,0769 17,2160" (p. 11) 7) "there was no statistically significant difference between ABLG and CG1 in pre-test academic achievement scores (t(55) = -0.003, p = .998). The effect size was negligible (Cohen's d = 0.00), showing that the groups were equivalent before the intervention." (p. 11) 8) "Coordination was established with the course teacher to ensure that all groups covered the same instructional unit during the same period. This helped maintain consistency across the experimental and control conditions." (p. 5) Detailed Analysis: Criterion D requires the control group to be well documented: size, conditions received, and baseline characteristics sufficient to judge comparability. The paper does document the essentials. Both control groups are named and sized (26 students each), their condition is stated explicitly and repeatedly (Ministry of National Education curriculum-based instruction delivered through regular classroom procedures, covering the same unit and the same content over the same period as the experimental groups), and the study confirms no additional programme was given to them. Baseline data are reported for CG1 on both outcomes (attitude M = 109.04, SD = 11.88; achievement M = 48.08, SD = 17.22), together with formal baseline equivalence tests against ABLG showing no significant pre-test differences. The documentation is thin in two respects. First, no demographic breakdown of the control groups is given at all: no gender, socio-economic, prior-attainment or language information beyond "sixth-grade students in a secondary school in Ağrı". Second, CG2 has no baseline measurement by design (the Solomon four-group structure withholds the pre-test), so its comparability to FCG cannot be verified empirically; the paper simply assumes it, stating that students "had access to similar educational opportunities". On balance, the standard's failure condition is the absence of any adequate descriptive quote about the control group, and that condition is not met here: group size, the exact instructional condition, confirmation of no special treatment, and baseline scores with equivalence testing for CG1 are all quotable from the paper. Criterion D is met because the control groups' size, instructional condition, and (for CG1) baseline performance with equivalence testing are explicitly documented, despite the absence of demographic detail.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • All four arms were classes within one conveniently selected school, so no school-level randomisation occurred.
    • This research is limited to the 2023-2024 academic year and a secondary school in the central district of Ağrı province.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The study group consisted of 111 sixth-grade students enrolled in a secondary school in the central district of Ağrı Province during the spring semester of the 2023-2024 academic year. Convenience sampling was used to determine the school and classes." (p. 5) 2) "In accordance with the Solomon Four-Group design, four sixth-grade classes were assigned to the study groups: 31 students in ABLG, 28 students in FCG, 26 students in CG1, and 26 students in CG2." (p. 5) 3) "Data were collected during social studies lessons conducted in four sixth-grade classes." (p. 5) 4) "This research is limited to the 2023-2024 academic year and a secondary school in the central district of Ağrı province." (p. 7, Limitations) Detailed Analysis: Criterion S requires randomisation among schools, or among the institutions/sites implementing the intervention. This study took place entirely within one secondary school in the central district of Ağrı Province, and the four study arms were four sixth-grade classes inside that single school. The school itself was selected by convenience sampling, not randomly, and there is only one school in the study, so school-level allocation is arithmetically impossible. The Limitations section explicitly confirms the single-site scope. Because all conditions are taught in the same building by arrangement with the same course teacher, the design also carries a substantial contamination risk between arms, which is precisely the risk school-level randomisation is intended to remove. The authors acknowledge this only as an assumption, stating that students "did not interact with one another during the implementation phase". Criterion S is not met because the entire trial was run in a single conveniently selected school, with classes rather than schools as the units of allocation.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • The same two authors designed, implemented, collected, analysed and interpreted the study, with no external evaluator or third-party oversight reported.
    • Yavuz Selim SEÇGİN: Conceptualization, literature review, research design, implementation process, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of findings.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The article has been generated from the master thesis of the first author, who was supervised by the second author." (p. 15, Acknowledgement) 2) "Yavuz Selim SEÇGİN: Conceptualization, literature review, research design, implementation process, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of findings." (p. 15, Author Contribution Statement) 3) "Suat POLAT: Supervision, methodological guidance, critical review, academic editing, validation of the research process, writing - review and editing." (p. 15) 4) "The researcher and the course teacher monitored the implementation process to ensure that the planned instructional procedures were followed in each group." (p. 5) 5) "Coordination was established with the course teacher to ensure that all groups covered the same instructional unit during the same period." (p. 5) Detailed Analysis: Criterion I requires that the evaluation be carried out independently of the people who designed and delivered the intervention, or at minimum that documented third-party oversight of data collection and analysis exists. The Author Contribution Statement is explicit and leaves no ambiguity: the first author personally carried out the research design, the implementation process, the data collection, the data analysis, and the interpretation of findings. The second author supervised the same work as the thesis supervisor. The same first author also monitored fidelity of implementation in each group alongside the course teacher. There is no external evaluator, no independent data collection agency, no blinded test administrator, and no statement of any third-party oversight anywhere in the manuscript. Every stage of the trial from design through interpretation sits with the two authors, one of whom supervised the other. Criterion I is not met because the first author designed, implemented, collected, analysed, and interpreted the study under the second author's supervision, with no independent or third-party evaluation reported.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • The complete study window was eight weeks, roughly a fifth of an academic year, and criterion T was not met.
    • The implementation process of the research was limited to 8 weeks in total
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The implementation lasted eight weeks, including a one-week orientation period and a seven-week intervention." (p. 1, Abstract) 2) "The implementation lasted eight weeks: the first week was used for orientation and preparation, and the following seven weeks were used for the instructional intervention." (p. 4) 3) "At the end of the implementation, all four groups were administered the post-tests." (p. 4) 4) "The implementation process of the research was limited to 8 weeks in total" (p. 7, Limitations) 5) "Future studies should examine these models with different grade levels, learning areas, and longer intervention periods." (p. 14) Detailed Analysis: Criterion Y requires outcomes to be measured at least 75% of one academic year (roughly 7 or more months) after the intervention begins. The whole study, from the orientation week through the final post-test, occupied eight weeks within a single spring semester. That is roughly 20% of an academic year, far below the 75% threshold. There is no delayed follow-up measurement. The prerequisite rule also applies: criterion T (Term Duration) is not met, and criterion Y cannot be met when T is not met. Criterion Y is not met because the entire tracking interval was eight weeks, far short of 75% of an academic year, and criterion T was already not met.
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • All arms covered the same unit in the same lessons over the same period, and the flipped group's extra out-of-class video time is integral to the model being tested against business-as-usual instruction.
    • Throughout the intervention, all groups studied the same Social Studies content. ... CG1 and CG2 received curriculum-based instruction through the regular classroom procedures.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Throughout the intervention, all groups studied the same Social Studies content. ABLG completed collaborative argumentation activities in which students generated claims, supported them with evidence, and discussed alternative viewpoints. FCG studied lesson videos before class and used classroom time for discussion, practice, and application-based activities. CG1 and CG2 received curriculum-based instruction through the regular classroom procedures." (p. 5) 2) "During the orientation week, students in ABLG were informed about the structure of argumentation-based learning activities, while students in FCG were introduced to the digital tools and procedures used for accessing lesson videos and participating in online support activities." (p. 5) 3) "Coordination was established with the course teacher to ensure that all groups covered the same instructional unit during the same period. This helped maintain consistency across the experimental and control conditions." (p. 5) 4) "The Flipped Classroom Model reorganizes the conventional sequence of instruction by transferring basic content delivery to the out-of-class environment and using classroom time for discussion, practice, and interactive learning activities" (pp. 1-2) 5) "The purpose of this study is to examine and compare the effects of the flipped classroom model and the argumentation-based learning model on sixth-grade students' academic achievement and attitudes toward the Social Studies course." (p. 3) 6) "It was assumed that students in both the experimental and control groups participated under comparable conditions, had access to similar educational opportunities, and did not interact with one another during the implementation phase." (p. 7) Detailed Analysis: Applying the criterion B decision tree. Step 1, are extra time or budget present? Partly. The ABLG arm required no additional resources at all: the argumentation activities were conducted inside the same Social Studies lessons, covering the same unit over the same seven weeks as the control classes, so instructional time and materials were equivalent. The FCG arm, however, added out-of-class engagement: students watched lesson videos before class and took part in "online support activities", plus an orientation to the digital tools. That out-of-class video study is additional learning time and additional digital material that CG2 did not receive. Step 2, are those extra resources the thing being tested? Yes. The paper defines the Flipped Classroom Model itself as "transferring basic content delivery to the out-of-class environment and using classroom time for discussion, practice, and interactive learning activities". The pre-class video component is not a separable add-on bolted onto a curriculum; it is the constitutive mechanism of the model under evaluation, and the stated purpose of the study is to examine the effect of that model against curriculum-based instruction. Removing the out-of-class videos would leave nothing recognisable as a flipped classroom to test. Under the standard's integral-resource rule and the worked examples, the control may therefore remain at the business-as-usual Ministry of National Education curriculum level by design. In-class time is explicitly held constant across all four arms: the same unit, the same period, the same course teacher coordination. No extra budget, staffing, tutoring hours, or teacher professional development was given to either experimental group beyond the intervention itself. It should nevertheless be recorded that the study never measured or reported how much out-of-class time FCG students actually spent on the videos, so the size of the FCG time differential is undocumented, and the equivalence of educational opportunity across groups is asserted as an assumption rather than demonstrated. Criterion B is met because in-class time and content were held constant across all arms and the only additional resource, the flipped group's pre-class video and online support activity, is integral to the flipped classroom model that the study set out to test against business-as-usual instruction.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • Internet searching found no independent replication of this single-school Solomon four-group study, which was published only in May 2026.
    • however, direct comparisons of these models in the same social studies unit and grade level are still needed (Jang & Kim, 2020).
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Although both models have been examined in different educational contexts, comparative evidence regarding their effects on sixth-grade students' academic achievement and attitudes toward the social studies course remains limited." (p. 2) 2) "however, direct comparisons of these models in the same social studies unit and grade level are still needed (Jang & Kim, 2020)." (p. 2) 3) "This provides a more focused contribution to the literature on innovative teaching practices in social studies education, where flipped learning and argumentation-based learning have generally been investigated in separate research lines (Söğüt & Polat, 2020)." (p. 3) 4) "The article has been generated from the master thesis of the first author, who was supervised by the second author." (p. 15) Detailed Analysis: Criterion R requires that this specific study have been independently replicated by a different research team in a different context, published in a peer-reviewed journal. The paper was published on 21 May 2026 and reports a single-school master's thesis study; no replication of it is mentioned, and none could plausibly exist yet given the publication date. The authors instead frame their own work as filling a gap, noting that direct comparisons of these two models in the same unit and grade level "are still needed". Internet verification was carried out across Google Scholar style web search, DergiPark, ERIC and general web sources for any study replicating this Solomon four-group comparison of argumentation-based learning against flipped classroom instruction in sixth-grade social studies. No replication study was found, and no paper citing this article was located. Related work identified (for example Al & Gökçe, 2025; İşçi & Yazıcı, 2023; Dursunlar, 2018; Söğüt & Polat, 2020) consists of separate investigations of flipped learning or argumentation in other units, grade levels and designs, not replications of this trial. One of those, Söğüt & Polat (2020), shares the second author and so would not qualify as independent in any case. No verbatim quotes from a replication study can be provided because no such study exists. Criterion R is not met because no independent replication of this study was found in any available source.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • Only one unit of Social Studies was assessed, with no other core subjects measured, and criterion E was not met.
    • The research is limited to the "Production, Distribution and Consumption" learning area of the Social Studies course.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The research is limited to the "Production, Distribution and Consumption" learning area of the Social Studies course." (p. 7, Limitations) 2) "The academic achievement test developed by Tağrikulu et al. (2021) was used to assess students' learning in the sixth-grade "Production, Distribution, and Consumption" unit of the Social Studies curriculum." (p. 7) 3) "This section presents the findings obtained from the attitude scale toward the social studies course and the academic achievement test." (p. 8) 4) "The study was limited to 6th grade students only." (p. 7, Limitations) Detailed Analysis: Criterion A requires that all main subjects taught at that educational level be assessed with standardised exam-based assessments, so that gains in the intervention subject are not bought at the cost of other subjects. The outcomes here cover a single learning domain inside a single subject: achievement on the "Production, Distribution, and Consumption" unit of sixth-grade Social Studies, plus attitudes toward that same course. Sixth graders in the Turkish curriculum also study Turkish, mathematics, science, and a foreign language, none of which were measured. No rationale for a specialised narrow scope is offered; this is general lower-secondary education, not vocational or upper-secondary specialisation, so the exception does not apply. In addition, the prerequisite rule applies: criterion E was not met, and criterion A cannot be met when E is not met. Criterion A is not met because only one unit of one subject was assessed, no other core subjects were measured, and criterion E was already not met.
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • Measurement ended with post-tests at the close of the eight-week implementation, and no follow-up publication tracking this cohort toward graduation could be found.
    • At the end of the implementation, all four groups were administered the post-tests.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "At the end of the implementation, all four groups were administered the post-tests." (p. 4) 2) "The implementation process of the research was limited to 8 weeks in total" (p. 7, Limitations) 3) "The study was limited to 6th grade students only." (p. 7, Limitations) 4) "Future studies may strengthen these findings by using larger samples, longer implementation periods, and additional qualitative data to explain how students experience these instructional models." (p. 14) Detailed Analysis: Criterion G requires that participants be tracked through to graduation from their educational stage. Measurement in this study ended with the post-test at the close of the eight-week implementation. The participants were sixth graders, three years short of the end of Turkish lower-secondary education, and nothing in the paper suggests any intention to follow them further. No retention test, no later-grade outcome, no administrative follow-up, and no planned follow-up publication is mentioned; the authors instead direct longer-horizon work to "future studies". Internet verification was carried out for subsequent publications by the same authors that might report tracking of this 2023-2024 Ağrı cohort. Searches covering Yavuz Selim Seçgin and Suat Polat on DergiPark, ERIC, ResearchGate and general web sources returned no follow-up paper reporting later-grade or graduation outcomes for these students. No verbatim quotes from a follow-up publication can be provided because no such publication was found. The prerequisite rule also applies: criterion Y was not met, so criterion G cannot be met. Criterion G is not met because measurement stopped at the end of an eight-week implementation with sixth-grade students, no follow-up publication tracking the cohort could be found, and criterion Y was already not met.
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • No pre-registration, registry identifier, or protocol is reported or independently locatable; only an institutional ethics committee approval is documented.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Name of the board that carries out ethical assessment: Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University Research Ethics Committee." (p. 15) 2) "The date and number of the ethical assessment decision: 25.01.2024-E-95531838-050.99-92536-19" (p. 15) 3) "The article has been generated from the master thesis of the first author, who was supervised by the second author." (p. 15) 4) "Received: 09 August 2025 Accepted: 15 May 2026 Published: 21 May 2026" (p. 1) Detailed Analysis: Criterion P requires a full study protocol - hypotheses, methods, and planned analyses - registered on a public registry before data collection began, with a verifiable link or identifier and a date preceding data collection. The paper contains no pre-registration statement of any kind. There is no registry name, no trial identifier, no registration date, no protocol paper, and no statistical analysis plan cited. Because the paper names no registry, there was no registration entry to verify; searches of registry-oriented sources (OSF Registries, AsPredicted, ClinicalTrials.gov) and general web search for a protocol linked to these authors or this trial returned nothing. The only prospective documentation reported is an institutional research ethics committee decision dated 25 January 2024, obtained before the spring 2024 implementation. Ethics committee approval is a necessary research governance step but is not a public pre-registration of hypotheses and planned analyses, and it does nothing to constrain selective analysis or reporting. This matters here because the analysis strategy is loosely specified: the reported comparisons are a series of independent-samples t-tests rather than a pre-specified primary outcome and analysis model, and no correction for multiple comparisons across the twelve reported tests is described. Criterion P is not met because the paper reports no pre-registration on any registry and none could be located independently; only an institutional ethics committee approval is documented.