Retention of participants recruited to a multi-year longitudinal study via Prolific
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 target sample size was 212 participants, conservatively estimating an attrition rate of 25% at the 3-month follow-up.
“The target sample size was therefore 212 participants, conservatively estimating an attrition rate of 25% at the 3-month follow-up (Kothe & Ling, 2019).”
From A single session online training reduces intolerance of uncertainty and improves mental health in emerging adults. (2025) · cites this paper as Kothe & Ling, 2019
Cites
Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments
Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004 · Cited by 3,450 · see citing works
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z · Cited by 1,739 · see citing works
Conducting Clinical Research Using Crowdsourced Convenience Samples
Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093623 · Cited by 1,072 · see citing works
The average laboratory samples a population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers
Stewart, N., Ungemach, C., Harris, A. J. L., Bartels, D. M., Newell, B. R., Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2015) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005611 · Cited by 304 · see citing works
A convenient solution: Using MTurk to sample from hard-to-reach populations
Smith, N. A., Sabat, I. E., Martinez, L. R., Weaver, K., & Xu, S. (2015) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1017/iop.2015.29 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Daniels, S., Hasan, Y., & Schweizer, S. (2025) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291725102419 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kothe, E. J., & Ling, M.
- Affiliations
- Deakin University (AU)
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- 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
- green
- doi.org
- 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