CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 127Mobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingPsychometric Methodologies and TestingSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Noncompliant responding: Comparing exclusion criteria in MTurk personality research to improve data quality

Open access
Barends, Ard J., de Vries, Reinout E.·2019·Personality and Individual Differences
DOI 10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.015
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.015

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Online study participants typically provide comparable or superior data quality and research fidelity compared to undergraduate research pool respondents.

    “However, compared to undergraduate research pool respondents, online study participants typically provide comparable or superior data quality and research fidelity [e.g., 90].”

    From Not so terrifying after all? A set of failed replications of the mortality salience effects of Terror Management Theory (2023) · cites this paper as [90]

    The Discussion reports roughly 15% noncompliant responses in MTurk samples, versus 0.5% among students, contrary to the claimed comparable or superior data quality. The Introduction notes that laboratory findings can be replicated on MTurk, but does not establish comparable or superior research fidelity relative to undergraduate pools. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In crowd-sourced settings such as MTurk, respondents are often incentivized to respond as attentively, compliantly, and quickly as possible to both open higher-paying opportunities and prevent being rejected from future employment.

    “In crowd-sourced settings such as MTurk, respondents are often incentivized to respond as attentively, compliantly, and quickly as possible to both open higher-paying opportunities and prevent being rejected from future employment [90, 100].”

    From Not so terrifying after all? A set of failed replications of the mortality salience effects of Terror Management Theory (2023) · cites this paper as [90]

    The Introduction says MTurk workers worry that rejected work will go unpaid and lower their approval ratings, limiting access to better-paying tasks. It also reports greater attention to check questions, but warns that some workers answer other questions noncompliantly. It does not establish that workers are incentivized to respond quickly or to be attentive and compliant throughout a survey. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Diverse validity and attention checks, such as those included in the present studies, adequately protect data quality.

    “Although some recent concerns about MTurk quality have emerged, data support that diverse validity and attention checks, such as those included in the present studies, adequately protect data quality [90–92].”

    From Not so terrifying after all? A set of failed replications of the mortality salience effects of Terror Management Theory (2023) · cites this paper as [90]

    The Discussion reports that different checks detect different noncompliant responses and recommends combining approaches, supporting the value of diverse checks. But the Limitations section says detection is imperfect and that the study could not test whether exclusions improve external validity. It therefore does not establish that checks like those in the citing studies adequately protect their data quality. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Diedenhofen, B., & Musch, J. (2016). cocron: A web interfae and R package for the sta- tistical comparison of Cronbach's alpha coefficients. International Journal of Internet Science, 11(1), 51-60.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Barends, A. J., & de Vries, R. E.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Barends, Ard J.
ORCID
Barends, Ard J.
Venue
Personality and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-06
Volume
143
Pages
84-89
ISSN
0191-8869 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.015
OpenAlex
W2915179069
Cited by
124
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
14.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Personality and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
VU University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
Amazon Mechanical Turk, data quality, exclusion criteria, personality assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review