Inattentive Responding in MTurk and Other Online Samples

By A. Fleischer, Alan Mead, Jialin Huang. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2015

153 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A Tale of Two Sample Sources: Do Results from Online Panel Data and Conventional Data Converge? (2018, background): “Fleischer et al. (2015) suggested that features of some online panel sources, such as MTurk’s respondent quality ratings function, may render OPD less prone to IER than traditional samples if used properly.”
Systems Perspective of Amazon Mechanical Turk for Organizational Research: Review and Recommendations (2017, background): “…attention through including checks (to be described later) (Meade and Craig, 2012), monitoring the time taken to complete the study, shortening the length of the survey to decrease the risk of fatigue (Fleischer et al., 2015), and having clear instructions and items (Alonso and Mizzaro, 2012).”
The quality of data collected online: An investigation of careless responding in a crowdsourced sample (2020, background): “online studies, and the possible influence of distractions in an uncontrolled setting, data collected online may suffer from bad quality stemming from carelessness or different forms of deceptive behavior (Cheung et al., 2017; Fleischer et al., 2015).”
Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A Comment (2017, background): “Fleischer, Mead, and Huang (2015) found that in their tests using MTurkers almost 42% of the respondents were not paying attention based on a series of data-validity questions embedded by the researchers.”