ArticleJournal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation2026
Online, Crowdsourced Sampling (OCS) Platforms for Large-Scale Data Collection in Voice Disorders Research: Prices, Pitfalls, and Perks.
Article in Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation, 2026. 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
Abstract
objectiveOnline, crowdsourced sampling (OCS) platforms such as Amazon's Mechanical Turk and CloudResearch Connect enable faster, cheaper, and larger-scale data collection than in-person sampling methods. However, OCS platforms are often criticized due to data quality concerns. This study examines a battery of screening tools to determine which best predicts data quality and to quantify the influence of low-quality data on the statistical properties of the samples. Finally, we issue recommendations to researchers interested in OCS-based clinical voice research that may reduce costly missteps when fielding their first OCS studies.
methodsTo evaluate the suitability of OCS for clinical voice research, survey-based measures of vocal function, vocal fatigue, personality, communicative quality of life, and other factors were collected on Qualtrics from (1) a convenience sample of undergraduate students (n = 47), (2) Mechanical Turk users (n = 495), and (3) Connect users (n = 99) over 6 months. Low-quality responses were eliminated using six screening tools in four nested stages. Logistic regression was used to identify variables that strongly predicted data quality. Finally, patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) responses were compared between the high- and low-quality groups.
resultsDepending on the stage, data quality screenings flagged between 5.00% (n = 32) and 13.6% (n = 87) of responses as low-quality. Hispanic/Latino ethnicity and long response times most strongly predicted low-quality responses, which uniformly exhibited more severe ratings of health- and voice-related disability than did high-quality responses.
conclusionsContent-based screenings, particularly analysis of responses to open-ended questions, meaningfully augmented automated screenings. Low-quality respondents systematically over-reported health- and voice-related disability, a severity bias with plausible economic and behavioral explanations. The emergence of AI-generated responses represents an evolving and distinct challenge that content-based screening may be increasingly insufficient to address. We provide recommendations for collecting high-quality data on OCS platforms to minimize barriers to entry for future clinical voice research.
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.