A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Careless responding in crowdsourced alcohol research: A systematic review and meta-analysis of practices and prevalence. | LitMetric

Crowdsourcing-the process of using the internet to outsource research participation to "workers"-has considerable benefits, enabling research to be conducted quickly, efficiently, and responsively, diversifying participant recruitment, and allowing access to hard-to-reach samples. One of the biggest threats to this method of online data collection however is the prevalence of careless responders who can significantly affect data quality. The aims of this preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis were: (a) to examine the prevalence of screening for careless responding in crowdsourced alcohol-related studies; (b) to examine the pooled prevalence of careless responding; and (c) to identify any potential moderators of careless responding across studies. Our review identified 96 eligible studies (∼126,130 participants), of which 51 utilized at least one measure of careless responding, 53.2%, 95% CI [42.7%-63.3%]; ∼75,334 participants. Of these, 48 reported the number of participants identified by careless responding method(s) and the pooled prevalence rate was ∼11.7%, 95% CI [7.6%-16.5%]. Studies using the MTurk platform identified more careless responders compared to other platforms, and the number of careless response items was positively associated with prevalence rates. The most common measure of careless responding was an attention check question, followed by implausible response times. We suggest that researchers plan for such attrition when crowdsourcing participants and provide practical recommendations for handling and reporting careless responding in alcohol research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pha0000546DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

careless responding
32
careless
11
responding crowdsourced
8
systematic review
8
review meta-analysis
8
prevalence careless
8
careless responders
8
pooled prevalence
8
measure careless
8
identified careless
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!