4.7 Article

Assessing Pictograph Recognition: A Comparison of Crowdsourcing and Traditional Survey Approaches

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH
Volume 17, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

JMIR PUBLICATIONS, INC
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4582

Keywords

crowdsourcing; patient discharge summaries; Amazon Mechanical Turk; pictograph recognition; cardiovascular

Funding

  1. NIH [R01 LM07222, 5G08LM11546]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Compared to traditional methods of participant recruitment, online crowdsourcing platforms provide a fast and low-cost alternative. Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) is a large and well-known crowdsourcing service. It has developed into the leading platform for crowdsourcing recruitment. Objective: To explore the application of online crowdsourcing for health informatics research, specifically the testing of medical pictographs. Methods: A set of pictographs created for cardiovascular hospital discharge instructions was tested for recognition. This set of illustrations (n=486) was first tested through an in-person survey in a hospital setting (n=150) and then using online MTurk participants (n=150). We analyzed these survey results to determine their comparability. Results: Both the demographics and the pictograph recognition rates of online participants were different from those of the in-person participants. In the multivariable linear regression model comparing the 2 groups, the MTurk group scored significantly higher than the hospital sample after adjusting for potential demographic characteristics (adjusted mean difference 0.18, 95% CI 0.08-0.28, P<.001). The adjusted mean ratings were 2.95 (95% CI 2.89-3.02) for the in-person hospital sample and 3.14 (95% CI 3.07-3.20) for the online MTurk sample on a 4-point Likert scale (1=totally incorrect, 4=totally correct). Conclusions: The findings suggest that crowdsourcing is a viable complement to traditional in-person surveys, but it cannot replace them.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available