For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
38
views
Article has an altmetric score of 209
62
references
 Top references
cited by
0
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      131
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Did people really drink bleach to prevent COVID-19? A guide for protecting survey data against problematic respondents

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Survey respondents who are non-attentive, respond randomly, or misrepresent who they are can impact the outcomes of surveys. Prior findings reported by the CDC have suggested that people engaged in highly dangerous cleaning practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, including ingesting household cleaners such as bleach. In our attempts to replicate the CDC’s results, we found that 100% of reported ingestion of household cleaners are made by problematic respondents. Once inattentive, acquiescent, and careless respondents are removed from the sample, we find no evidence that people ingested cleaning products to prevent a COVID-19 infection. These findings have important implications for public health and medical survey research, as well as for best practices for avoiding problematic respondents in all survey research conducted online.

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          An Analysis of Data Quality: Professional Panels, Student Subject Pools, and Amazon's Mechanical Turk

          Kim Sheehan, Jeremy Kees, Christopher Berry … (2017)
          Article 0 comments Cited 251 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
          Article has an altmetric score of 16
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk

            Jesse Chandler, Cheskie Rosenzweig, Aaron Moss … (2019)
            Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) is widely used by behavioral scientists to recruit research participants. MTurk offers advantages over traditional student subject pools, but it also has important limitations. In particular, the MTurk population is small and potentially overused, and some groups of interest to behavioral scientists are underrepresented and difficult to recruit. Here we examined whether online research panels can avoid these limitations. Specifically, we compared sample composition, data quality (measured by effect sizes, internal reliability, and attention checks), and the non-naivete of participants recruited from MTurk and Prime Panels—an aggregate of online research panels. Prime Panels participants were more diverse in age, family composition, religiosity, education, and political attitudes. Prime Panels participants also reported less exposure to classic protocols and produced larger effect sizes, but only after screening out several participants who failed a screening task. We conclude that online research panels offer a unique opportunity for research, yet one with some important trade-offs. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.3758/s13428-019-01273-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Article 0 comments Cited 166 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Article has an altmetric score of 33
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Detecting, preventing, and responding to "fraudsters" in internet research: ethics and tradeoffs.

              Jennifer E F Teitcher, Walter Bockting, Jose A. Bauermeister … (2015)
              Internet-based health research is increasing, and often offers financial incentives but fraudulent behavior by participants can result. Specifically, eligible or ineligible individuals may enter the study multiple times and receive undeserved financial compensation. We review past experiences and approaches to this problem and propose several new strategies. Researchers can detect and prevent Internet research fraud in four broad ways: (1) through the questionnaire/instrument (e.g., including certain questions in survey; and software for administering survey); (2) through participants' non-questionnaire data and seeking external validation (e.g., checking data for same email addresses, usernames, passwords, and/or fake addresses or phone numbers; (3) through computer information, (e.g., IP addresses and cookies), and 4) through study design (e.g., avoid lump sum compensation and interviewing participants). These approaches each have pros and cons, and raise ethical, legal, and logistical questions, given that ethical tensions can emerge between preserving the integrity of research vs. protecting the privacy and confidentiality of study respondents. While past discussions concerning the ethics of online research have tended to focus on the participants' ability to trust the researchers, needs now arise to examine researchers' abilities to trust the participants. This analysis has several critical implications for future practice, policy, and research.
              Article 0 comments Cited 158 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Article has an altmetric score of 51
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Leib Litman: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Zohn Rosen: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draft
                Rachel Hartman:
                ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9714-3224
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Cheskie Rosenzweig: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draft
                Sarah L. Weinberger-Litman: Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draft
                Aaron J. Moss: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draft
                Jonathan Robinson: Role: Project administrationRole: Resources
                Xin Shen: Role: Editor
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS One
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PLoS One
                Journal ID (publisher-id): plos
                Title: PLOS ONE
                Publisher: Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1932-6203
                Publication date (Electronic): 5 July 2023
                Publication date Collection: 2023
                Publication date PMC-release: 5 July 2023
                Volume: 18
                Issue: 7
                Electronic Location Identifier: e0287837
                Affiliations
                [1 ] CloudResearch, New York, New York, United States of America
                [2 ] Department of Psychology, Lander College, New York, New York, United States of America
                [3 ] Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America
                [4 ] Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America
                [5 ] Department of Clinical Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America
                [6 ] Department of Psychology, Marymount Manhattan College, New York, New York, United States of America
                [7 ] Department of Computer Science, Lander College, New York, New York, United States of America
                Shanghai Ocean University, CHINA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9714-3224
                Article
                Publisher ID: PONE-D-22-20912
                DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287837
                PMC ID: 10321604
                PubMed ID: 37406017
                SO-VID: a788664e-c4ec-4183-a9d1-10ecd0e61cf7
                Copyright © © 2023 Litman et al
                License:

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                Date received : 5 August 2022
                Date accepted : 29 May 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 2, Pages: 17
                Funding
                The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Subject: Research Article
                Subject: Research and Analysis Methods
                Subject: Research Design
                Subject: Survey Research
                Subject: Surveys
                Subject: Medicine and Health Sciences
                Subject: Medical Conditions
                Subject: Infectious Diseases
                Subject: Viral Diseases
                Subject: Covid 19
                Subject: Biology and Life Sciences
                Subject: Physiology
                Subject: Physiological Processes
                Subject: Ingestion
                Subject: Medicine and Health Sciences
                Subject: Epidemiology
                Subject: Pandemics
                Subject: Medicine and Health Sciences
                Subject: Public and Occupational Health
                Subject: Research and Analysis Methods
                Subject: Research Design
                Subject: Survey Research
                Subject: Physical Sciences
                Subject: Physics
                Subject: States of Matter
                Subject: Fluids
                Subject: Vapors
                Subject: Biology and Life Sciences
                Subject: Toxicology
                Subject: Toxic Agents
                Subject: Toxins
                Subject: Medicine and Health Sciences
                Subject: Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
                Subject: Toxicology
                Subject: Toxic Agents
                Subject: Toxins
                Custom metadata
                Data Availability All data files are available on OSF at https://osf.io/fzx9v/?view_only=90d2039f61384f9b9dd99b72ca547c9a.
                Outbreaks COVID-19

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Uncategorized
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content131

                See all similar

                Most referenced authors397

                See all reference authors