Cited by 201Survey Methodology and NonresponseSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing

Does Self-Selection Affect Samples’ Representativeness in Online Surveys? An Investigation in Online Video Game Research

Open access
Khazaal, Yasser, van Singer, Mathias, Chatton, Anne, Achab, Sophia, Zullino, Daniele, Rothen, Stephane, Khan, Riaz, Billieux, Joel +1 more·2014·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The number of medical studies performed through online surveys has increased dramatically in recent years. Despite their numerous advantages (eg, sample size, facilitated access to individuals presenting stigmatizing issues), selection bias may exist in online surveys. However, evidence on the representativeness of self-selected samples in online studies is patchy. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to explore the representativeness of a self-selected sample of online gamers using online players' virtual characters (avatars). METHODS: All avatars belonged to individuals playing World of Warcraft (WoW), currently the most widely used online game. Avatars' characteristics were defined using various games' scores, reported on the WoW's official website, and two self-selected samples from previous studies were compared with a randomly selected sample of avatars. RESULTS: We used scores linked to 1240 avatars (762 from the self-selected samples and 478 from the random sample). The two self-selected samples of avatars had higher scores on most of the assessed variables (except for guild membership and exploration). Furthermore, some guilds were overrepresented in the self-selected samples. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that more proficient players or players more involved in the game may be more likely to participate in online surveys. Caution is needed in the interpretation of studies based on online surveys that used a self-selection recruitment procedure. Epidemiological evidence on the reduced representativeness of sample of online surveys is warranted.

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 · 10.2196/jmir.2759

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • Self-selection was a key factor in the participant selection process due to the increased likelihood for participants to demonstrate interest, willingness, and expertise.

    “Self-selection was a key factor in the participant selection process due to the increased likelihood for participants to demonstrate (a) a noticeable interest in the topic, (b) willingness to contribute to the goals of the study, and (c) a higher likelihood of expertise/understanding of the topic (Khazaal et al. 2014).”

    From “It’s Not Just About Competition – It’s Ceremony”: Introducing the Embedded Indigeneity Framework for Understanding Identity, Mission, and Practice in TCU and NASNTI Athletics (2026) · cites this paper as Khazaal et al. 2014

    The Discussion (Principal Findings; page not provided) links self-selection among World of Warcraft players to interest in the study and willingness to participate. The Abstract (Conclusions; page not provided) suggests that more proficient players may be more likely to participate. The claim extends these qualified findings to participants generally and treats game proficiency as expertise or understanding of the study topic, which the paper does not establish. (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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khazaal, Y., van Singer, M., Chatton, A., Achab, S., Zullino, D., Rothen, S., Khan, R., Billieux, J., & Thorens, G.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Khazaal, Yasser
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2014-07-07
Volume
16
Issue
7
Pages
e164
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2081232991
Cited by
201
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 3
FWCI
53.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion)
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Keywords
self-selection bias, sample representativeness, online surveys, online game players, avatars, World of Warcraft, selection bias, random sampling, guild membership, online games
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Computer Simulation, Data Collection, Humans, Male, Video Games, Internet

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