Karoline Mortensen1, Taylor L Hughes2. 1. Department of Health Sector Management and Policy School of Business Administration , University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA. Kmortensen@bus.miami.edu. 2. Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
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.
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.
Keywords:
Alternate data sources; Amazon Mechanical Turk; Health and medical research; MTurk
Authors: Mary K Powers; Aaron Boonjindasup; Michael Pinsky; Philip Dorsey; Michael Maddox; Li-Ming Su; Matthew Gettman; Chandru P Sundaram; Erik P Castle; Jason Y Lee; Benjamin R Lee Journal: J Endourol Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Lee W White; Timothy M Kowalewski; Rodney Lee Dockter; Bryan Comstock; Blake Hannaford; Thomas S Lendvay Journal: J Endourol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Winnie Shao; Wentao Guan; Melissa A Clark; Tao Liu; Claudia Santelices; Dharma E Cortés; Roland C Merchant Journal: Digit Cult Educ Date: 2015-04-15
Authors: Christopher J Brady; Andrea C Villanti; Jennifer L Pearson; Thomas R Kirchner; Omesh P Gupta; Chirag P Shah Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Thompson Zhuang; Joost T P Kortlever; Lauren M Shapiro; Laurence Baker; Alex H S Harris; Robin N Kamal Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2020-07-25 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Shelby Mader; Connor Houghton; Robert Wenger; Marc A Probst; David A Schoenfeld; Peter K Lindenauer; Kathleen M Mazor Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Lauren R Pacek; Olga Rass; Maggie M Sweitzer; Jason A Oliver; F Joseph McClernon Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2019-07-15 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Tenzin Tsungmey; Jane Paik Kim; Laura B Dunn; Katie Ryan; Kyle Lane-McKinley; Laura Weiss Roberts Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 4.791