ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing construct reliability through open-ended survey response analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Online surveys often include quantitative attention checks, but inattentive participants might also be identified using their qualitative responses. We used the software Turnitin™ to assess the originality of open-ended responses in four mixed-method surveys that included validated multi-item rating scales (i.e., constructs). Across surveys, 18-35% of participants (n = 3,771) were identified as having copied responses from online sources. We assessed indicator reliability and internal consistency reliability and found that both were lower for participants identified as using copied text versus those who wrote more original responses. Those who provided more original responses also provided more consistent responses to the validated scales, suggesting that these participants were more attentive. We conclude that this process can be used to screen open-ended responses from online surveys. We encourage future research to replicate this screening process using similar tools, investigate strategies to reduce copying behaviour, and explore the motivation of participants to search for information online, including what sources they find compelling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.