4.4 Article

Moving experimental psychology online: How to obtain high quality data when we can't see our participants

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE
卷 134, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2023.104472

关键词

Web-based experiments; Online recruitment; Data quality; Online research; Remote testing; Cognitive psychology; Crowdsourcing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper discusses the rapid growth of online data collection in the behavioral sciences and the potential issues that can affect the quality of data in online experiments. The author provides checklists to help researchers improve the data quality and emphasizes three key aspects of experimental design. The author argues that ensuring high data quality for online experiments requires significant effort prior to data collection to maintain the credibility of the evidence base.
The past 10 years have seen rapid growth of online (web-based) data collection across the behavioural sciences. Despite the many important contributions of such studies, some researchers have concerns about the reduction in experimental control when research moves outside of laboratory conditions. This paper provides an accessible overview of the issues that can adversely affect data quality in online experiments, with particular focus on cognitive studies of memory and language. I provide checklists for researchers setting up such experiments to help improve data quality. These recommendations focus on three key aspects of experimental design: the technology choices made by researchers and participants, participant recruitment methods, and the performance of participants during experiments. I argue that ensuring high data quality for online experiments requires significant effort prior to data collection to maintain the credibility of our rapidly expanding evidence base. With such safeguards in place, online experiments will continue to provide important, paradigm-changing opportunities across the behavioural sciences.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据