Balancing data integrity concerns with ethical considerations in online research.
Balancing data integrity concerns with ethical considerations in online research.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/eat.23674
复制
发表时间：
2022-03
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Simone M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Simone M
Burnette等人（2021）描述了关于通过亚马逊的土耳其机器人（MTurk）收集的数据的完整性的关键问题，并相应地概述了在饮食失调研究中使用MTurk的建议。这篇文章和附属评论强调了使用MTurk时面临的新挑战（即欺诈性受访者），这些挑战可能在COVID-19大流行期间升级（Vogel，Kr格尔和Junne，2021）。通过MTurk收集的研究的完整性非常重要，因为如果不删除欺诈性回复，可能会显著影响研究结果（例如，抑制或逆转观察到的效果; Donegan & Gillian，2021），这反过来可能导致无效的预防或治疗计划。Burnette等人和所附评论共同提出了关于进行在线研究时面临的挑战的互补和独特的关注，同时认为这种方法仍然是数据收集的重要和强大的工具。首先，关于实施新方法来监测参与者的真实性，应该考虑几个伦理因素，正如四个评论中所强调的那样。事实上，Gleibs和Albayrak-Aydemir（2021）描述了关于参与者付款条件的明确和明确信息的重要性，这是与一些参与者的经济脆弱性有关的道德问题。另一个伦理考虑涉及研究和参与者之间的权力动态，这可能在在线研究环境中被放大。例如，De Young和Kamanis（2021）描述了在交叉验证检查中使用边缘化身份标记如何可能对数据的代表性产生负面影响，并无意中伤害研究参与者，特别是当道德衡量边缘化身份的方法在很大程度上仍然未知时。相关地，Donegan和Gillian（2021）和Moeck等人。（2021）建议，严格的注意力检查可能会排除我们打算抽样的人，因为一些临床人群（例如，饮食失调人群）会出现注意力缺失的临床特征。Moeck，Bridgland和Takarangi（2021）进一步表明，严格的注意力检查可能会导致自我选择偏见，其中过度认真的人被过度抽样。因此，科学家必须考虑数据完整性工具的潜在（尽管是无意的）不利后果。
Burnette et al.(2021) describe crucial concerns regarding the integrity of data collected through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and, accordingly, outline recommendations for the use of MTurk in eating disorders research. The article and affiliated commentaries highlight new challenges faced when using MTurk (ie, fraudulent respondents), which may have escalated during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (Vogel, Krϋger, & Junne, 2021). The integrity of research collected through MTurk is important to consider because fraudulent responses, if unremoved, can significantly impact research findings (eg, suppression or reversal of observed effects; Donegan & Gillian, 2021), which in turn may result in ineffective prevention or treatment programs. Together, Burnette et al. and the attached commentaries present complementary and distinct concerns regarding challenges faced when conducting online research, while maintaining that such methods remain an important and powerful tool for data collection.First, concerning the implementation of new methods to monitor participant authenticity, several ethical considerations should be considered, as highlighted in four of the commentaries. Indeed, Gleibs and Albayrak-Aydemir (2021) describe the importance of clear and explicit information regarding the conditions under which participant payments will not be made as an ethical concern related to the economic vulnerability of some participants. Another ethical consideration of pertains to the power dynamics between research and participant, which are likely magnified in online research settings. For example, De Young and Kamanis (2021) describe how the use of marginalized identity markers in cross-validation checks may negatively impact the representativeness of the data and inadvertently harm study participants, particularly when methods to ethically measure marginalized identities remain largely unknown. Relatedly, Donegan and Gillian (2021) and Moeck et al.(2021) advise that stringent attention checks may exclude those we intend to sample, as some clinical populations (eg, eating disorders populations) experience attention lapses as a clinical feature. Moeck, Bridgland and Takarangi (2021) further suggest that strict attention checks may lead to self-selection bias wherein overly conscientious people are oversampled. As such, scientists must consider the potential, albeit unintentional, adverse consequences of data integrity tools.
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Arditte, Kimberly A.;Cek, Demet;Timpano, Kiara R.
通讯作者：
Timpano, Kiara R.
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Donegan, Kelly R.;Gillan, Claire M.
通讯作者：
Gillan, Claire M.
DOI：
10.1002/eat.23614
发表时间：
2022-03
期刊：
The International journal of eating disorders
影响因子：
--
作者：
Burnette CB;Luzier JL;Bennett BL;Weisenmuller CM;Kerr P;Martin S;Keener J;Calderwood L
通讯作者：
Calderwood L