ArticleThe International journal of eating disorders2022
Eating disorder related research using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk): Friend or foe?: Commentary on Burnette et al. (2021).
Article in The International journal of eating disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safeguarding Online Research in Eating Disorders Against Fraud: Increasing Risks and Practical Recommendations.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- From Bad to Worse: Safety Behaviors Exacerbate Eating Disorder Fears.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The role of stress in the association among food insecurity, eating disorder pathology, and binge eating-related appetitive traits.Eating behaviors · 2023Article
- Exploring differences in disordered eating and related appetitive traits among women based on childhood and current food security status.Eating behaviors · 2023Article
- Methodological Challenges in Web-Based Qualitative Research With Medically Underserved Populations.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Balancing data integrity concerns with ethical considerations in online research.The International journal of eating disorders · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Burnette et al. reported a study that they sought to undertake to validate common eating disorder questionnaires in sexual and gender minorities. The researchers took advantage of the online recruitment platform Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Contrary to their expectations, the study proved not feasible due to invalid answering. Thus, Burnette et al. raise concerns against the trustworthiness of crowd-sourced data that may be undermined by financial interests and other kinds of motivations. Our commentary highlights the potential of the COVID-19 pandemic to inflate especially those intentions, which are monetary. Against the background of the COVID-19 pandemic, a further problem seems to be that the anonymity of online crowd sourcing platforms might tempt participants to provide inconsistent answers, possibly reflecting tendencies of reactance. The reported pattern of paradoxical responses in Burnette et al.'s work does not reflect malingering; rather we believe that the study might have served some participants as an outlet for negative emotions. We discuss mechanisms of quality control and highlight the lack of interpersonal interaction associated with online data collections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35014056What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.