Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33821454›Full record

Trial reportBehavior research methods2021

Can intelligent agents improve data quality in online questiosnnaires? A pilot study.

Arne Söderström, Adrian Shatte, Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Behavior research methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Arne SöderströmSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, 3220, Australia.
Adrian ShatteSchool of Science, Engineering, and Information Technology, Federation University, Berwick, Victoria, 3806, Australia.
Matthew Fuller-TyszkiewiczSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, 3220, Australia. matthewf@deakin.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We explored the utility of chatbots for improving data quality arising from collection via sonline surveys. Three-hundred Australian adults sampled via Prolific Academic were randomized across chatbot-supported or unassisted online questionnaire conditions. The questionnaire comprised validated measures, along with challenge items formulated to be confusing yet aligned with the validated targets. The chatbot condition provided optional assistance with item clarity via a virtual support agent. Chatbot use and user satisfaction were measured through session logs and user feedback. Data quality was operationalized as between-group differences in relationships among validated and challenge measures. Findings broadly supported chatbot utility for online surveys, showing that most participants with chatbot access utilized it, found it helpful, and demonstrated modestly improved data quality (vs. controls). Absence of confusion for one challenge item is believed to have contributed to an underestimated effect. Findings show that assistive chatbots can enhance data quality, will be utilized by many participants if available, and are perceived as beneficial by most users. Scope constraints for this pilot study are believed to have led to underestimated effects. Future testing with longer-form questionnaires incorporating expanded item difficulty may further understanding of chatbot utility for survey completion and data quality.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyAdultAustraliaHumansPilot ProjectsSurveys and Questionnairesautonomous conversational agentchatbotdata qualityonline survey researchquestionnaire item confusionresponse accuracy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.