The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does Self-Selection Affect Samples’ Representativeness in Online Surveys? An Investigation in Online Video Game Research
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
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.
Citations
Cites
Motivations for Play in Online Games
Yee, N. (2006) · CyberPsychology & Behavior · doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772 · Cited by 2,939
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.2.93 · Cited by 2,932 · cited 1×
“Some studies suggest that the quality of the data provided by Internet-based surveys is at least as good as in those collected by traditional paper-and-pencil methods on self-selected samples [6-8].”
BackgroundMethods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires
Edwards, P. J., Roberts, I., Clarke, M. J., DiGuiseppi, C., Wentz, R., Kwan, I., Cooper, R., Felix, L. M., & Pratap, S. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000008.pub4 · Cited by 1,379
Bethlehem, J. (2010) · International Statistical Review · doi:10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00112.x · Cited by 1,315 · cited 5×
“It is difficult to estimate the impact of any selection bias because information on non-participants is usually not available, and comparisons between the included and the excluded samples are not feasible [12].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialUsing the Internet for Surveys and Health Research
Eysenbach, G., & Wyatt, J. (2002) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13 · Cited by 790
Collecting behavioural data using the world wide web: considerations for researchers
Rhodes, S. D., Bowie, D. A., & Hergenrather, K. C. (2002) · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.57.1.68 · Cited by 504
Internet Versus Mailed Questionnaires: A Randomized Comparison
Ritter, P., Lorig, K., Laurent, D., & Matthews, K. (2004) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.6.3.e29 · Cited by 427 · cited 1×
“Some studies suggest that the quality of the data provided by Internet-based surveys is at least as good as in those collected by traditional paper-and-pencil methods on self-selected samples [6-8].”
BackgroundWeb-Based Recruiting for Health Research Using a Social Networking Site: An Exploratory Study
Fenner, Y., Garland, S. M., Moore, E. E., Jayasinghe, Y., Fletcher, A., Tabrizi, S. N., Gunasekaran, B., & Wark, J. D. (2012) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1978 · Cited by 406
Ramo, D. E., & Prochaska, J. J. (2012) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1878 · Cited by 404
Billieux, J., der Linden, M. V., Achab, S., Khazaal, Y., Paraskevopoulos, L., ZULLINO, D. F., & Thorens, G. (2012) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.021 · Cited by 374
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–201 of 201
Blue Poppy study: frequency of PTSD in the West Australian Police Force
Talbot, D., Drummond, P. D., & Lee, C. W. (2026) · Australian Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00050067.2026.2693491
Metadata
- 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
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2014-07-07
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e164
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4115258
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
