Food for thought: Commentary on Burnette et al. (2021) “Concerns and recommendations for using Amazon MTurk for eating disorder research”

Burnette et al. aimed to validate two eating disorder symptom measures among transgender adults recruited from Mechanical Turk (MTurk). After identifying several data quality issues, Burnette et al. abandoned this aim and instead documented the issues they faced (e.g., demographic misrepresentation,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The International journal of eating disorders 2022-02, Vol.55 (2), p.282-284
Main Authors: Moeck, Ella K., Bridgland, Victoria M. E., Takarangi, Melanie K. T.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Attention
Crowdsourcing - methods
Crowdsourcing - standards
data quality
Eating disorders
Feeding and Eating Disorders - diagnosis
Humans
Mechanical Turk
online recruitment platform
online research
open science
survey research
Surveys and Questionnaires
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Burnette et al. aimed to validate two eating disorder symptom measures among transgender adults recruited from Mechanical Turk (MTurk). After identifying several data quality issues, Burnette et al. abandoned this aim and instead documented the issues they faced (e.g., demographic misrepresentation, repeat submissions, inconsistent responses across similar questions, failed attention checks). Consequently, Burnette et al. raised concerns about the use of MTurk for psychological research, particularly in an eating disorder context. However, we believe these claims are overstated because they arise from a single study not designed to test MTurk data quality. Further, despite claiming to go “above and beyond” current recommendations, Burnette et al. missed key screening procedures. In particular, they missed procedures known to prevent participants who use commercial data centers (i.e., server farms) to hide their true IP address and complete multiple surveys for financial gain. In this commentary, we outline key screening procedures that allow researchers to obtain quality MTurk data. We also highlight the importance of balancing efforts to increase data quality with efforts to maintain sample diversity. With appropriate screening procedures, which should be preregistered, MTurk remains a viable participant source that requires further validation in an eating disorder context.
ISSN:0276-3478
1098-108X
DOI:10.1002/eat.23671