Comparing Amazon's Mechanical Turk Platform to Conventional Data Collection Methods in the Health and Medical Research Literature

将亚马逊的 Mechanical Turk 平台与健康和医学研究文献中的传统数据收集方法进行比较

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The goal of this article is to conduct an assessment of the peer-reviewed primary literature with study objectives to analyze Amazon.com 's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) as a research tool in a health services research and medical context. METHODS: Searches of Google Scholar and PubMed databases were conducted in February 2017. We screened article titles and abstracts to identify relevant articles that compare data from MTurk samples in a health and medical context to another sample, expert opinion, or other gold standard. Full-text manuscript reviews were conducted for the 35 articles that met the study criteria. RESULTS: The vast majority of the studies supported the use of MTurk for a variety of academic purposes. DISCUSSION: The literature overwhelmingly concludes that MTurk is an efficient, reliable, cost-effective tool for generating sample responses that are largely comparable to those collected via more conventional means. Caveats include survey responses may not be generalizable to the US population.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。