The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Open accessAbstract
Data quality is one of the major concerns of using crowdsourcing websites such as Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to recruit participants for online behavioral studies. We compared two methods for ensuring data quality on MTurk: attention check questions (ACQs) and restricting participation to MTurk workers with high reputation (above 95% approval ratings). In Experiment 1, we found that high-reputation workers rarely failed ACQs and provided higher-quality data than did low-reputation workers; ACQs improved data quality only for low-reputation workers, and only in some cases. Experiment 2 corroborated these findings and also showed that more productive high-reputation workers produce the highest-quality data. We concluded that sampling high-reputation workers can ensure high-quality data without having to resort to using ACQs, which may lead to selection bias if participants who fail ACQs are excluded post-hoc.
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Data obtained from MTurk has been demonstrated to be valid and reliable when appropriate selection criteria and attention checks are used (Casler, Bickel, & Hackett, 2013; Peer, Vosgerau, & Acquisti, 2014), as was the case in this study.”
From The development and evaluation of a brief form of the Normative Male Alexithymia Scale (NMAS-BF). (2019) · cites this paper as Peer, Vosgerau, & Acquisti, 2014
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Most of the sites we reviewed have supervision and reputation mechanisms designed to measure the quality of submitted work, and to allow researchers to invite workers with high reputation (similar to MTurk's”
From Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research (2017) · cites this paper as Peer et al., 2014
In the citing paper
“Amazon Mechanical Turk is an online sample recruiting platform that, although not nationally representative, yields high data quality through the use of attention checks 44 and worker reputation scores 45 .”
From Understanding, explaining, and utilizing medical artificial intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [45]
In the citing paper
“Following prior research, we selected participants with an approval rating above 95% on Amazon Mechanical Turk 45 .”
From Understanding, explaining, and utilizing medical artificial intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [45]
In the citing paper
“which showed that ACQs have low diagnostic ability when data quality is already high.”
From Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research (2017) · cites this paper as Peer et al., (2014)
In the citing paper
“they are reliable and validated scales, and b) they have been previously used with success to measure data quality on MTurk (Peer et al., 2014).”
From Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research (2017) · cites this paper as Peer et al., 2014
In the citing paper
“they are reliable and validated scales, and b) they have been previously used with success to measure data quality on MTurk (Peer et al., 2014).”
From Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research (2017) · cites this paper as Peer et al., 2014
In the citing paper
“Using two attention-check questions (Peer et al., 2014), we checked whether participants read and paid attention to our instructions.”
From Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research (2017) · cites this paper as Peer et al., 2014
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
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393980 · Cited by 9,996
A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00046-1 · Cited by 8,307
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 · Cited by 3,767
Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009 · Cited by 3,493
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167201272002 · Cited by 3,041
The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 · Cited by 2,913
Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1753 · Cited by 2,242
Rosenberg, M. (2011) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t01038-000 · Cited by 1,226
Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis.
Greenwald, A. G. (1975) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0076157 · Cited by 1,022 · cited 3×
“Note that—as in Experiment 1—this conclusion relies on interpreting a null effect as meaningful, which is possible when samples are adequately powered (Greenwald, 1975).”
BackgroundInfluentialChandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7 · Cited by 950
Seriousness checks are useful to improve data validity in online research
Aust, F., Diedenhofen, B., Ullrich, S., & Musch, J. (2012) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0265-2 · Cited by 596
Measuring Social Desirability: Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
Fischer, D. G., & Fick, C. (1993) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164493053002011 · Cited by 580
Are your participants gaming the system?
Downs, J. S., Holbrook, M. B., Sheng, S., & Cranor, L. F. (2010) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1753326.1753688 · Cited by 422
A K-Sample Significance Test for Independent Alpha Coefficients
Hakstian, A. R., & Whalen, T. E. (1976) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291840 · Cited by 274
Jordan, C. H. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1155 · Cited by 81
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006 · Cited by 2,957
Self-citationInside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a Participant Pool
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721414531598 · Cited by 2,136
TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences
Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Abberbock, T. (2016) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z · Cited by 2,122
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z · Cited by 1,739
Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research
Peer, E., Rothschild, D., Gordon, A., Evernden, Z., & Damer, E. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3 · Cited by 1,718
Metadata
- Authors
- Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A.
- Affiliations
- Tilburg University (NL)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- Behavior Research Methods
- Published
- 2013-12-20
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1023-1031
- ISSN
- 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
- 1554-3528
- OpenAlex
- W2105753174
- Cited by
- 1,618
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 68 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 128 · 2023: 167 · 2022: 175 · 2021: 212 · 2020: 210 · 2019: 147 · 2018: 119 · 2017: 132 · 2016: 91 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 79.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
- Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Archivio istituzionale della Ricerca - Bocconi (submittedVersion)
- KiltHub Repository
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- data quality, Amazon Mechanical Turk, worker reputation, crowdsourcing, selection bias, labor productivity, participant recruitment
- MeSH terms
- Data Collection, Humans, Research Design, Patient Selection, Internet, Behavioral Research, 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
