Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA

With the proliferation of online data collection in human-subjects research, concerns have been raised over the presence of inattentive survey participants and non-human respondents (bots). We compared the quality of the data collected through five commonly used platforms. Data quality was indicated...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one Vol. 18; no. 3; p. e0279720
Main Authors: Douglas, Benjamin D, Ewell, Patrick J, Brauer, Markus
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States Public Library of Science 14-03-2023
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:With the proliferation of online data collection in human-subjects research, concerns have been raised over the presence of inattentive survey participants and non-human respondents (bots). We compared the quality of the data collected through five commonly used platforms. Data quality was indicated by the percentage of participants who meaningfully respond to the researcher's question (high quality) versus those who only contribute noise (low quality). We found that compared to MTurk, Qualtrics, or an undergraduate student sample (i.e., SONA), participants on Prolific and CloudResearch were more likely to pass various attention checks, provide meaningful answers, follow instructions, remember previously presented information, have a unique IP address and geolocation, and work slowly enough to be able to read all the items. We divided the samples into high- and low-quality respondents and computed the cost we paid per high-quality respondent. Prolific ($1.90) and CloudResearch ($2.00) were cheaper than MTurk ($4.36) and Qualtrics ($8.17). SONA cost $0.00, yet took the longest to collect the data.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0279720