A multisample demonstration of using the prolific platform for repeated assessment and psychometric substance use research.

Abstract

The data from the first sample of participants (i.e., the Prolific daily diary study) have not been presented previously. Data from select measures from the other two samples (i.e., data from Prolific participants from two assessments approximately 2 weeks apart; cross-sectional data from undergraduates) have been published in one previous manuscript (see for more information: https://osf.io/bcavr/). However, all analyses presented are original and the scope of the current manuscript is distinct from any prior research. Data presented in the manuscript and data analytic syntax are available on the Open Science Framework website: https://osf.io/x37ej/

The associations between autistic traits and disordered eating/drive for muscularity are independent of anxiety and depression in females but not males

“…As we had not achieved the target sample size for males, we collected data from a further n = 558 males from the participant recruitment website Prolific ( www.prolific.co ). Prolific was chosen because recent studies suggest the platform produces better quality data than other participant recruitment panels [ 52 , 53 ]. However, as it is known that there can still be some low-quality responses when using crowdsourcing platforms [ 54 ], we included two additional items, randomly placed within the questionnaires, to act as attention checks.…”

Psychometric validation of a brief self-report measure of misophonia symptoms and functional impairment: The duke-vanderbilt misophonia screening questionnaire

“…The current study comprises a secondary data analysis of two large survey studies that included the DVMSQ as a part of longer survey batteries assessing multiple types of decreased sound tolerance (i.e., hyperacusis, misophonia, and phonophobia) as well as their clinical and demographic correlates in adults. The primary sample analyzed in this investigation is a large online general-population sample of adults in the United States (n = 1403) recruited from the Prolific crowdsourcing platform (Palan and Schitter, 2018;Stanton et al, 2022). Additionally, in order to assess the psychometric properties of the DVMSQ in autistic adults, we examined data from a sample of independent autistic adults (n = 936) from the Simons Foundation Powering Autism Research for Knowledge (SPARK) cohort (Feliciano et al, 2018).…”

“…A sample of general population adults was recruited from the Prolific crowdsourcing platform (Palan and Schitter, 2018;Stanton et al, 2022) in the fall of 2021. Eligibility criteria included age 18 or older, living in the United States, speaking English fluently, having answered Prolific demographic questions about autism status and current mental health conditions (any non-missing response to both questions was sufficient for inclusion), not endorsing a diagnosis of dementia or mild cognitive impairment, having completed at least 50 previous Prolific tasks, and a 95% or higher approval rate on Prolific.…”

Colleagues' norms regarding work-related messages: their differential effects among remote and onsite workers

“…Landers and Behrend (2015) indicated concerns associated with similar platforms (e.g., MTurk) but mentioned that these platforms were "neither better nor worse than other more common convenient samples" (p.21), and that "if we intend to create theory broadly applicable across organizational contexts, MTurk and similar samples may prove superior to those collected from single convenient organizations" (p.18). Stanton et al (2022) also compared data obtained from Prolific participants vs undergraduates recruited through more traditional convenience sampling to demonstrate Prolific's utility for conducting research. Internal consistency estimates for measures from the Prolific data matched or exceeded those from the undergraduate student's data.…”