CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 317Mobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingSurvey Methodology and NonresponseExpert finding and Q&A systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing the Similarity of Responses Received from Studies in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to Studies Conducted Online and with Direct Recruitment

Open access
Bartneck, Christoph, Duenser, Andreas, Moltchanova, Elena, Zawieska, Karolina·2015·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0121595PMC PMC4397064
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Computer and internet based questionnaires have become a standard tool in Human-Computer Interaction research and other related fields, such as psychology and sociology. Amazon's Mechanical Turk (AMT) service is a new method of recruiting participants and conducting certain types of experiments. This study compares whether participants recruited through AMT give different responses than participants recruited through an online forum or recruited directly on a university campus. Moreover, we compare whether a study conducted within AMT results in different responses compared to a study for which participants are recruited through AMT but which is conducted using an external online questionnaire service. The results of this study show that there is a statistical difference between results obtained from participants recruited through AMT compared to the results from the participant recruited on campus or through online forums. We do, however, argue that this difference is so small that it has no practical consequence. There was no significant difference between running the study within AMT compared to running it with an online questionnaire service. There was no significant difference between results obtained directly from within AMT compared to results obtained in the campus and online forum condition. This may suggest that AMT is a viable and economical option for recruiting participants and for conducting studies as setting up and running a study with AMT generally requires less effort and time compared to other frequently used methods. We discuss our findings as well as limitations of using AMT for empirical studies.

Overview

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0121595

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 49 references

2 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bartneck C, Obaid M, Zawieska K (2013) Agents with faces - what can we learn from lego minfigures. In: 1st International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. URL http://bartneck.de/publications/2013/agentsWithFaces/bartneckLEGOAgent.pdf.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 316

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bartneck, C., Duenser, A., Moltchanova, E., & Zawieska, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Canterbury (NZ)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
  • Łukasiewicz Research Network - Industrial Research Institute for Automation and Measurements (PL)
Corresponding author
Bartneck, Christoph
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2015-04-14
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
e0121595
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0121595
PMC
PMC4397064
OpenAlex
W2138247806
Cited by
317
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 7
FWCI
41.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UC Research Repository (University of Canterbury) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
Keywords
Amazon Mechanical Turk, participant recruitment, online surveys, response similarity, online forums, crowdsourcing
MeSH terms
Culture, Emotions, Employment, Facial Expression, Humans, Judgment, New Zealand, Personnel Selection, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Universities, Internet, Remuneration, Crowdsourcing

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