Assessment of Fraud Deterrence and Detection Procedures Used in a Web-Based Survey Study With Adult Black Cisgender Women: Description of Lessons Learned and Recommendations.

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Amber I Sophus, Jason W Mitchell
{"title":"Assessment of Fraud Deterrence and Detection Procedures Used in a Web-Based Survey Study With Adult Black Cisgender Women: Description of Lessons Learned and Recommendations.","authors":"Amber I Sophus, Jason W Mitchell","doi":"10.2196/59955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Online research studies enable engagement with more Black cisgender women in health-related research. However, fraudulent data collection responses in online studies raise important concerns about data integrity, particularly when incentives are involved.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to assess the strengths and limitations of fraud deterrence and detection procedures implemented in an incentivized, cross-sectional, online study about HIV prevention and sexual health with Black cisgender women living in Texas.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data for this study came from a cross-sectional web-based survey that examined factors associated with potential pre-exposure prophylaxis use among a convenience sample of adult Black cisgender women from 3 metropolitan areas in Texas. Each eligibility screener and associated survey entry was evaluated using 4 fraud deterrence features and 7 fraud detection benchmarks with corresponding decision rules.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 5862 respondents provided consent and initiated the eligibility screener, of whom 2150 (36.68%) were ineligible for not meeting the inclusion criteria, and 131 (2.23%) completed less than 80% of the survey and were removed from further consideration. Other entries were removed for not passing level 1 fraud deterrent safeguards: duplicate entries with the same IP address (388/5862, 6.62%), same telephone number (69/5862, 1.18%), same email address (114/5862, 1.94%), and same telephone number and email address (17/5862, 0.29%). Of the remaining 2993 entries, 1652 entries were removed for not passing the first 2 items of the level 2 fraud detection benchmarks: screeners and surveys with latitude and longitude coordinates outside of the United States (347/2993, 11.59%) and survey completion time of less than 10 minutes (1305/2993, 43.6%). Of the remaining 1341 entries, 130 (9.69%) passed all 5 of the remaining level 2 data validation benchmarks, and 763 (56.89%) entries were removed due to passing less than 3. An additional 33.4% (423/1341) entries were removed after passing 4 of the 5 remaining validation benchmarks, being contacted to verify survey information, and not providing legitimate contact information or being unable to confirm personal information. The final enrolled sample in this online study consisted of 155 respondents who provided consent, were deemed eligible, and passed fraud deterrence features and fraud detection benchmarks. In this paper, we discuss the lessons learned and provide recommendations for leveraging available features in survey software programs to help deter bots and enhance fraud detection procedures beyond relying on survey software options.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Effectively identifying fraudulent responses in online surveys is an ongoing challenge. The data validation approach used in this study establishes a robust protocol for identifying genuine participants, thereby contributing to the removal of false data from study findings. By sharing experiences and implementing thorough fraud deterrence and detection protocols, researchers can maintain data validity and contribute to best practices in web-based research.</p>","PeriodicalId":14841,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Formative Research","volume":"9 ","pages":"e59955"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11947628/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Formative Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/59955","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Online research studies enable engagement with more Black cisgender women in health-related research. However, fraudulent data collection responses in online studies raise important concerns about data integrity, particularly when incentives are involved.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the strengths and limitations of fraud deterrence and detection procedures implemented in an incentivized, cross-sectional, online study about HIV prevention and sexual health with Black cisgender women living in Texas.

Methods: Data for this study came from a cross-sectional web-based survey that examined factors associated with potential pre-exposure prophylaxis use among a convenience sample of adult Black cisgender women from 3 metropolitan areas in Texas. Each eligibility screener and associated survey entry was evaluated using 4 fraud deterrence features and 7 fraud detection benchmarks with corresponding decision rules.

Results: A total of 5862 respondents provided consent and initiated the eligibility screener, of whom 2150 (36.68%) were ineligible for not meeting the inclusion criteria, and 131 (2.23%) completed less than 80% of the survey and were removed from further consideration. Other entries were removed for not passing level 1 fraud deterrent safeguards: duplicate entries with the same IP address (388/5862, 6.62%), same telephone number (69/5862, 1.18%), same email address (114/5862, 1.94%), and same telephone number and email address (17/5862, 0.29%). Of the remaining 2993 entries, 1652 entries were removed for not passing the first 2 items of the level 2 fraud detection benchmarks: screeners and surveys with latitude and longitude coordinates outside of the United States (347/2993, 11.59%) and survey completion time of less than 10 minutes (1305/2993, 43.6%). Of the remaining 1341 entries, 130 (9.69%) passed all 5 of the remaining level 2 data validation benchmarks, and 763 (56.89%) entries were removed due to passing less than 3. An additional 33.4% (423/1341) entries were removed after passing 4 of the 5 remaining validation benchmarks, being contacted to verify survey information, and not providing legitimate contact information or being unable to confirm personal information. The final enrolled sample in this online study consisted of 155 respondents who provided consent, were deemed eligible, and passed fraud deterrence features and fraud detection benchmarks. In this paper, we discuss the lessons learned and provide recommendations for leveraging available features in survey software programs to help deter bots and enhance fraud detection procedures beyond relying on survey software options.

Conclusions: Effectively identifying fraudulent responses in online surveys is an ongoing challenge. The data validation approach used in this study establishes a robust protocol for identifying genuine participants, thereby contributing to the removal of false data from study findings. By sharing experiences and implementing thorough fraud deterrence and detection protocols, researchers can maintain data validity and contribute to best practices in web-based research.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JMIR Formative Research
JMIR Formative Research Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
579
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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