Cited by 48Mobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingSurvey Methodology and NonresponsePsychometric Methodologies and Testing

An examination of the equivalency of self-report measures obtained from crowdsourced versus undergraduate student samples

Open access
Briones, Elizabeth M., Benham, Grant·2017·Behavior Research Methods

Abstract

Increasingly, researchers have begun to explore the potential of the Internet to reach beyond the traditional undergraduate sample. In the present study, we sought to compare the data obtained from a conventional undergraduate college-student sample to data collected via two online survey recruitment platforms. In order to examine whether the data sampled from the three populations were equivalent, we conducted a test of equivalency using inferential confidence intervals-an approach that differs from the more traditional null hypothesis significance testing. The results showed that the data obtained via the two online recruitment platforms, the Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing site and the virtual environment of Second Life, were statistically equivalent to the data obtained from the college sample, on the basis of means of standardized measures of psychological stress and sleep quality. Additionally, correlations between the sleep and stress measures were not statistically different between the groups. These results, along with practical considerations for the use of these recruitment platforms, are discussed, and recommendations for other researchers who may be considering the use of these platforms are provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13428-016-0710-8

Cites

88 of 88 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

1 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Briones, E. M., & Benham, G.
Affiliations
The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (US)
Corresponding author
Benham, Grant
Venue
Behavior Research Methods
Published
2016-02-23
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
320-334
ISSN
  • 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-3528
OpenAlex
W2284113891
Cited by
48
References
89
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
19.32
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarWorks @ UTRGV (The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Center for Online Learning, Teaching and Technology at the University of Texas - Pan American
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
crowdsourcing, online recruitment, Amazon Mechanical Turk, Second Life, self-report measures, psychological stress, sleep quality, online survey tools, undergraduate students
MeSH terms
Sleep Hygiene, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological, Students, User-Computer Interface, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Patient Selection, Internet, Self Report, 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