Addressing participant validity in a small internet health survey (the restore study): Protocol and recommendations for survey response validation

James Dewitt, Benjamin D Capistrant, Nidhi Kohli, B. R. Simon Rosser, Darryl Mitteldorf, Enyinnaya Merengwa, William G West

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: While deduplication and cross-validation protocols have been recommended for large Web-based studies, protocols for survey response validation of smaller studies have not been published. Objective: This paper reports the challenges of survey validation inherent in a small Web-based health survey research. Methods: The subject population was North American, gay and bisexual, prostate cancer survivors, who represent an under-researched, hidden, difficult-to-recruit, minority-within-a-minority population. In 2015-2016, advertising on a large Web-based cancer survivor support network, using email and social media, yielded 478 completed surveys. Results: Our manual deduplication and cross-validation protocol identified 289 survey submissions (289/478, 60.4%) as likely spam, most stemming from advertising on social media. The basic components of this deduplication and validation protocol are detailed. An unexpected challenge encountered was invalid survey responses evolving across the study period. This necessitated the static detection protocol be augmented with a dynamic one. Conclusions: Five recommendations for validation of Web-based samples, especially with smaller difficult-to-recruit populations, are detailed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere96
JournalJournal of medical Internet research
Volume20
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2018

Fingerprint

Health Surveys
Internet
Social Media
Survivors
Population
Validation Studies
Prostatic Neoplasms
Surveys and Questionnaires
Research
Neoplasms
Sexual Minorities

Keywords

  • Data accuracy
  • Data analysis
  • Design
  • Fraudulent data
  • Research
  • Research activities

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article

Cite this

Addressing participant validity in a small internet health survey (the restore study) : Protocol and recommendations for survey response validation. / Dewitt, James; Capistrant, Benjamin D; Kohli, Nidhi; Rosser, B. R. Simon; Mitteldorf, Darryl; Merengwa, Enyinnaya; West, William G.

In: Journal of medical Internet research, Vol. 20, No. 4, e96, 01.04.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d985dd49c149490ab97656f6a84b06c1,
title = "Addressing participant validity in a small internet health survey (the restore study): Protocol and recommendations for survey response validation",
abstract = "Background: While deduplication and cross-validation protocols have been recommended for large Web-based studies, protocols for survey response validation of smaller studies have not been published. Objective: This paper reports the challenges of survey validation inherent in a small Web-based health survey research. Methods: The subject population was North American, gay and bisexual, prostate cancer survivors, who represent an under-researched, hidden, difficult-to-recruit, minority-within-a-minority population. In 2015-2016, advertising on a large Web-based cancer survivor support network, using email and social media, yielded 478 completed surveys. Results: Our manual deduplication and cross-validation protocol identified 289 survey submissions (289/478, 60.4{\%}) as likely spam, most stemming from advertising on social media. The basic components of this deduplication and validation protocol are detailed. An unexpected challenge encountered was invalid survey responses evolving across the study period. This necessitated the static detection protocol be augmented with a dynamic one. Conclusions: Five recommendations for validation of Web-based samples, especially with smaller difficult-to-recruit populations, are detailed.",
keywords = "Data accuracy, Data analysis, Design, Fraudulent data, Research, Research activities",
author = "James Dewitt and Capistrant, {Benjamin D} and Nidhi Kohli and Rosser, {B. R. Simon} and Darryl Mitteldorf and Enyinnaya Merengwa and West, {William G}",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2196/resprot.7655",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
journal = "Journal of Medical Internet Research",
issn = "1439-4456",
publisher = "Journal of medical Internet Research",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Addressing participant validity in a small internet health survey (the restore study)

T2 - Protocol and recommendations for survey response validation

AU - Dewitt, James

AU - Capistrant, Benjamin D

AU - Kohli, Nidhi

AU - Rosser, B. R. Simon

AU - Mitteldorf, Darryl

AU - Merengwa, Enyinnaya

AU - West, William G

PY - 2018/4/1

Y1 - 2018/4/1

N2 - Background: While deduplication and cross-validation protocols have been recommended for large Web-based studies, protocols for survey response validation of smaller studies have not been published. Objective: This paper reports the challenges of survey validation inherent in a small Web-based health survey research. Methods: The subject population was North American, gay and bisexual, prostate cancer survivors, who represent an under-researched, hidden, difficult-to-recruit, minority-within-a-minority population. In 2015-2016, advertising on a large Web-based cancer survivor support network, using email and social media, yielded 478 completed surveys. Results: Our manual deduplication and cross-validation protocol identified 289 survey submissions (289/478, 60.4%) as likely spam, most stemming from advertising on social media. The basic components of this deduplication and validation protocol are detailed. An unexpected challenge encountered was invalid survey responses evolving across the study period. This necessitated the static detection protocol be augmented with a dynamic one. Conclusions: Five recommendations for validation of Web-based samples, especially with smaller difficult-to-recruit populations, are detailed.

AB - Background: While deduplication and cross-validation protocols have been recommended for large Web-based studies, protocols for survey response validation of smaller studies have not been published. Objective: This paper reports the challenges of survey validation inherent in a small Web-based health survey research. Methods: The subject population was North American, gay and bisexual, prostate cancer survivors, who represent an under-researched, hidden, difficult-to-recruit, minority-within-a-minority population. In 2015-2016, advertising on a large Web-based cancer survivor support network, using email and social media, yielded 478 completed surveys. Results: Our manual deduplication and cross-validation protocol identified 289 survey submissions (289/478, 60.4%) as likely spam, most stemming from advertising on social media. The basic components of this deduplication and validation protocol are detailed. An unexpected challenge encountered was invalid survey responses evolving across the study period. This necessitated the static detection protocol be augmented with a dynamic one. Conclusions: Five recommendations for validation of Web-based samples, especially with smaller difficult-to-recruit populations, are detailed.

KW - Data accuracy

KW - Data analysis

KW - Design

KW - Fraudulent data

KW - Research

KW - Research activities

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047778816&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047778816&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2196/resprot.7655

DO - 10.2196/resprot.7655

M3 - Article

C2 - 29691203

AN - SCOPUS:85047778816

VL - 20

JO - Journal of Medical Internet Research

JF - Journal of Medical Internet Research

SN - 1439-4456

IS - 4

M1 - e96

ER -