MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981030378 · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2019.100284

How one small text change in a study document can impact recruitment rates and follow-up completions

2019· article· en· W2981030378 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternet Interventions · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanada Research ChairsOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsEconometricsComputer scienceStatisticsPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The validity and reliability of longitudinal research is highly dependent on the recruitment and retention of representative samples. Various strategies have been developed and tested for improving recruitment and follow-up rates into health-behavioural research, but few have examined the role of linguistic choices and study document readability on participation rates. This study examined the impact of one small text change, assigning an inappropriate or grade-8 reading level password for intervention access, on participation rates and attrition in an online alcohol intervention trial. METHODS: Participants were recruited into an online alcohol intervention study using Amazon's Mechanical Turk via a multi-step recruitment process which required participants to log into a study portal using a pre-assigned password. Passwords were qualitatively coded as grade-8 and/or inappropriate for use within a professional setting. Separate logistic regressions examined which demographic, clinical characteristics, and password categorizations were most strongly associated with recruitment rates and follow-up completions. RESULTS: = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, these findings suggest that some linguistic choices may play an important role in recruitment, while others, such as readability, may have longer-term effects on follow-up rates and attrition. Possible explanations for the findings, as well as, sample selection biases during recruitment and follow-up are discussed. Limitations of the study are stated and recommendations for researchers are provided. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02977026. Registered 27 Nov 2016.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.603
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.079 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it