PreprintCited by 42Mobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingSurvey Methodology and NonresponseEthics in Clinical Research

Retention of participants recruited to a multi-year longitudinal study via Prolific

Open access
Kothe, Emily Jane, Ling, Mathew·2019

Abstract

Despite increasing use of the crowdsourcing platform Prolific in psychological research, there is limited data on the retention of participants in longitudinal studies using this recruitment channel. We present a summary of retention within a study on vaccination attitudes with three time points conducted via Prolific. Of the 331 participants who completed the initial survey in 2018, 254 (76.74% of total Time 1 sample; 96.95% of active users) completed the Time 2 survey approximately 12 months later, and 205 (61.93% of total Time 1 sample) completed the Time 3 survey at 19 months. At both Time 2 and Time 3 the majority of participants completed the follow-up survey within 24 hours of survey launch. Older participants were more likely to be retained. However, retention was not related to gender, educational attainment, health related belief or behaviour, speed of survey completion, or time to recruitment at Time 1. Overall, Prolific shows similar retention characteristics to conventional cohort studies with substantially reduced researcher burden.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31234/osf.io/5yv2u

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kothe, E. J., & Ling, M.
Affiliations
Deakin University (AU)
Published
2019-09-06
OpenAlex
W3165512166
Cited by
42
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
participant retention, Prolific, crowdsourcing platforms, online recruitment, longitudinal study, vaccine attitudes

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