Re: [Air-L] Question about reimbursing participants doing electronic surveys?
Hi, I'm curious about the practice of only compensating participants who complete a survey. Don't most IRBs require that participants have the option of refusing to answer any questions they want, without jeopardizing their compensation? I think if you do this, you should be sure that no questions are mandatory (meaning the participant can't move forward unless something is in the field). We typically include a question towards the end of the survey, asking participants for their email address if they'd like to be entered in a raffle, but with a note saying their address won't be paired with their data. And seconding Fred's note about Amazon gift certificates (which can be emailed) as being much easier than other options such as itunes. N
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Nicole Ellison <nellison@msu.edu> wrote:
I'm curious about the practice of only compensating participants who complete a survey. Don't most IRBs require that participants have the option of refusing to answer any questions they want, without jeopardizing their compensation?
I don't think that's the case. I'm not speaking for my shop but in my personal experience working with a few hundred institutions this is not an issue because not giving someone a post-survey compensation is different from penalizing them. The practical issue that tends to arise much more frequently is defining what "complete" means for a given survey since that is often the trigger for compensation. How many questions can respondents skip before we consider their survey to be "not complete?" Does responding to the last question indicate that the survey is complete no matter how many questions were skipped? Do we have any options or flexibility with our current software and resources? (Incidentally, one of the benefits of using compensation that has relatively low value - remember that the idea is to establish trust and reciprocity and not to reward participants - is that you can be lax about these decisions.) The real catch for many IRBs seems to be the nature of the compensation. They don't want the incentive to be out of proportion with the survey so that people feel compelled to participate just to receive or have a chance at receiving the compensation. As researchers, we should share that concern as those participants may give us poor (or no) data. Kevin
It depends what software you use. We have used LimeSurvey (open source) and we were able to build in mandatory questions. If they are not answered, participants cannot move onto the next screen but they can exit the survey at any time if they don't wish to continue. If they choose the latter, they will not be directed to the screen that offers the opportunity to enter the draw or to do the follow up interview. My view (and that accepted by my REB) is that it is an anonymous survey that is not asking deeply personal questions. Incomplete surveys are not useful to me. The few demographic questions are, however, optional, as they enrich the data but are not essential. Rhiannon
On Aug 17, 2010, at 8:02 PM, Nicole Ellison wrote:
I'm curious about the practice of only compensating participants who complete a survey. Don't most IRBs require that participants have the option of refusing to answer any questions they want, without jeopardizing their compensation? I think if you do this, you should be sure that no questions are mandatory (meaning the participant can't move forward unless something is in the field).
At UNC, the IRB asks you to specify a protocol for pro-rating compensation. Generally, percentage completion of the interview corresponds to percentage of the disbursement. I have a feeling, though, this type of scheme is applied most commonly in controlled trials or panels. As for completeness - Nicole is right. The IRB will not allow requirement of completion, nor do we as researchers want responses to questions the respondent can't reasonably answer. I think that by operating with small incentives, we're reasonably insured against "completion fraud." If you're doing a fixed payment (e.g. 2 dollars per person) your maximum loss per individual is low, and if you do a raffle style incentive the same mechanics apply. The low risk doesn't seem to be worth figuring out pro-rating, etc. Of course, the equation changes when you're paying a few hundred dollars to trial participants. I should note the place where I am seeing ethical boundaries being tested (with regards to compensation) is Mechanical Turk. On the Turk, you are allowed to rescind payment if a task is not completed properly. If a respondent only answers one question, is it ethical to pull back a payment? Fred -- Fred Stutzman Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow School of Information and Library Science, UNC-Chapel Hill fred@fredstutzman.com | (919) 260-8508 | http://fredstutzman.com/
participants (4)
-
Fred Stutzman -
Kevin Guidry -
Nicole Ellison -
Rhiannon Bury