Addressing fraudulent responses in online surveys: Insights from a web‐based participatory mapping study

IF 4.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Malcolm S. Johnson, Vanessa M. Adams, Jason Byrne
{"title":"Addressing fraudulent responses in online surveys: Insights from a web‐based participatory mapping study","authors":"Malcolm S. Johnson, Vanessa M. Adams, Jason Byrne","doi":"10.1002/pan3.10557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Web‐based studies of human dimensions are increasing across environmental and socio‐ecological disciplines. However, the prevalence of fraud threatens research quality. Increased fraud rates should be expected as surveys move progressively more online, motivated by expanding reach, cost savings and/or in response to COVID‐19. Web‐based research must better account for fraud to maintain confidence in findings. Practical diagnostic tools and data quality protocols are required to detect fraud and ensure results quality. Drawing on our experience using an online participatory mapping case study, we discuss methods to detect potentially fraudulent responses—and identify some limitations. We begin by reviewing the current state of knowledge on fraudulent responses or ‘fraudsters’ and its relative absence in environmental and socio‐ecological disciplines. We then describe our research approach, the indicators and variables we used to detect and assess fraud and our decision‐making process to eliminate suspicious responses without jeopardizing research integrity. We found that despite several preventative measures, many fraudulent respondents could provide survey responses and effectively mimicked legitimate respondents at first glance. By assuming each response to be ‘potentially fraudulent’, we determined that the complete screening of each respondent, while time‐consuming, can limit the prevalence of fraud. We also determined that the most common data consistency checks (e.g. duration, trap questions and straight‐liner checks) are unlikely to guarantee valid respondents. If not acknowledged and addressed, fraud has the potential to undermine data integrity, discredit research findings and limit the utility of results for policy. This study contributes to environmental and socio‐ecological research by reviewing existing fraudster literature and using our experience with fraud to provide recommendations for researchers to address this problem. We encourage researchers implementing online qualitative research methods to thoroughly assess and report fraud, when possible, to ensure widespread knowledge of this growing threat. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.","PeriodicalId":52850,"journal":{"name":"People and Nature","volume":"2 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"People and Nature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10557","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Web‐based studies of human dimensions are increasing across environmental and socio‐ecological disciplines. However, the prevalence of fraud threatens research quality. Increased fraud rates should be expected as surveys move progressively more online, motivated by expanding reach, cost savings and/or in response to COVID‐19. Web‐based research must better account for fraud to maintain confidence in findings. Practical diagnostic tools and data quality protocols are required to detect fraud and ensure results quality. Drawing on our experience using an online participatory mapping case study, we discuss methods to detect potentially fraudulent responses—and identify some limitations. We begin by reviewing the current state of knowledge on fraudulent responses or ‘fraudsters’ and its relative absence in environmental and socio‐ecological disciplines. We then describe our research approach, the indicators and variables we used to detect and assess fraud and our decision‐making process to eliminate suspicious responses without jeopardizing research integrity. We found that despite several preventative measures, many fraudulent respondents could provide survey responses and effectively mimicked legitimate respondents at first glance. By assuming each response to be ‘potentially fraudulent’, we determined that the complete screening of each respondent, while time‐consuming, can limit the prevalence of fraud. We also determined that the most common data consistency checks (e.g. duration, trap questions and straight‐liner checks) are unlikely to guarantee valid respondents. If not acknowledged and addressed, fraud has the potential to undermine data integrity, discredit research findings and limit the utility of results for policy. This study contributes to environmental and socio‐ecological research by reviewing existing fraudster literature and using our experience with fraud to provide recommendations for researchers to address this problem. We encourage researchers implementing online qualitative research methods to thoroughly assess and report fraud, when possible, to ensure widespread knowledge of this growing threat. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
解决在线调查中的欺诈反应:来自基于网络的参与式地图研究的见解
基于网络的人类维度研究在环境和社会生态学科中越来越多。然而,欺诈的盛行威胁着研究质量。由于扩大覆盖范围、节省成本和/或应对COVID - 19,随着调查逐渐转向在线,预计欺诈率会上升。基于网络的研究必须更好地解释欺诈,以保持对研究结果的信心。需要实用的诊断工具和数据质量协议来检测欺诈并确保结果质量。根据我们使用在线参与式地图案例研究的经验,我们讨论了检测潜在欺诈响应的方法,并确定了一些限制。我们首先回顾欺诈性反应或“欺诈者”的知识现状及其在环境和社会生态学科中的相对缺失。然后,我们描述了我们的研究方法,我们用来检测和评估欺诈的指标和变量,以及我们在不损害研究完整性的情况下消除可疑反应的决策过程。我们发现,尽管采取了一些预防措施,许多欺诈性的受访者可以提供调查回复,并在第一眼就有效地模仿合法的受访者。通过假设每个回复都是“潜在的欺诈”,我们确定对每个回复进行全面筛选,虽然耗时,但可以限制欺诈的盛行。我们还确定,最常见的数据一致性检查(例如持续时间、陷阱问题和直线检查)不太可能保证有效的受访者。如果不加以承认和解决,欺诈有可能破坏数据的完整性,使研究结果失去信誉,并限制结果对政策的效用。本研究通过回顾现有的欺诈者文献,并利用我们在欺诈方面的经验为研究人员提供解决这一问题的建议,为环境和社会生态研究做出了贡献。我们鼓励实施在线定性研究方法的研究人员在可能的情况下彻底评估和报告欺诈,以确保广泛了解这一日益增长的威胁。在《华尔街日报》博客上阅读免费的《简明语言摘要》。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
People and Nature
People and Nature Multiple-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
103
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信