CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 190Mobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingEmployer Branding and e-HRMSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Convenient Solution: Using MTurk To Sample From Hard-To-Reach Populations

Smith, Nicholas A., Sabat, Isaac E., Martinez, Larry R., Weaver, Kayla, Xu, Shi·2015·Industrial and Organizational Psychology
DOI 10.1017/iop.2015.29
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We agree with Landers and Behrend's (2015) proposition that Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) may provide great opportunities for organizational research samples. However, some groups are characteristically difficult to recruit because they are stigmatized or socially disenfranchised (Birman, 2005; Miller, Forte, Wilson, & Greene, 2006; Sullivan & Cain, 2004; see Campbell, Adams, & Patterson, 2008, for a review). These groups may include individuals who have not previously been the focus of much organizational research, such as those of low socioeconomic status; individuals with disabilities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) individuals; or victims of workplace harassment. As Landers and Behrend (2015) point out, there is an overrepresentation of research using “Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic” participants. It is important to extend research beyond these samples to examine workplace phenomena that are specific to special populations. We contribute to this argument by noting the particular usefulness that MTurk can provide for sampling from hard-to-reach populations, which we characterize as groups that are in the numerical minority in terms of nationwide representation. To clarify, we focus our discussion on populations that are traditionally hard to reach in the context of contemporary organizational research within the United States.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/iop.2015.29

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Birman, 2005, The handbook of ethical research with ethnocultural populations and communities, 155
  2. Locke, 1995, Method of psychological assessment, self-disclosure, and experiential differences: A study of computer, questionnaire, and interview assessment formats, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 255
  3. Skitka, 2005, The social net: The social psychology of the Internet, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 190

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Smith, N. A., Sabat, I. E., Martinez, L. R., Weaver, K., & Xu, S.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • George Mason University (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, Nicholas A.
ORCID
Venue
Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2015-06
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
220-228
ISSN
  • 1754-9426 (ISSN-L)
  • 1754-9434
DOI
10.1017/iop.2015.29
OpenAlex
W2424520822
Cited by
190
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4
FWCI
14.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 57 d)
Locations
  • Industrial and Organizational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
Amazon Mechanical Turk, hard-to-reach populations, online recruitment, stigmatized groups, low socioeconomic status, people with disabilities, LGBT people, workplace harassment, underrepresented populations in research

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