Measuring the Prevalence of Problematic Respondent Behaviors among MTurk, Campus, and Community Participants
The reliance on small samples and underpowered studies may undermine the replicability of scientific findings. Large sample sizes may be necessary to achieve adequate statistical power. Crowdsourcing sites such as Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) have been regarded as an economical means for ac...
Saved in:
Published in | PloS one Vol. 11; no. 6; p. e0157732 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Public Library of Science
28.06.2016
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | The reliance on small samples and underpowered studies may undermine the replicability of scientific findings. Large sample sizes may be necessary to achieve adequate statistical power. Crowdsourcing sites such as Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) have been regarded as an economical means for achieving larger samples. Because MTurk participants may engage in behaviors which adversely affect data quality, much recent research has focused on assessing the quality of data obtained from MTurk samples. However, participants from traditional campus- and community-based samples may also engage in behaviors which adversely affect the quality of the data that they provide. We compare an MTurk, campus, and community sample to measure how frequently participants report engaging in problematic respondent behaviors. We report evidence that suggests that participants from all samples engage in problematic respondent behaviors with comparable rates. Because statistical power is influenced by factors beyond sample size, including data integrity, methodological controls must be refined to better identify and diminish the frequency of participant engagement in problematic respondent behaviors. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Conceived and designed the experiments: EAN JTC SC. Performed the experiments: EAN. Analyzed the data: EAN. Wrote the paper: EAN SC GJN JTC. |
ISSN: | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
DOI: | 10.1371/journal.pone.0157732 |