Dropout in a Longitudinal Survey of Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers With Low Back Pain: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surveys of internet panels such as Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) are common in health research. Nonresponse in longitudinal studies can limit inferences about change over time. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) describe the patterns of survey responses and nonresponse among MTurk members with back pain, (2) identify factors associated with survey response over time, (3) assess the impact of nonresponse on sample characteristics, and (4) assess how well inverse probability weighting can account for differences in sample composition. METHODS: We surveyed adult MTurk workers who identified as having back pain. We report participation trends over 3 survey waves and use stepwise logistic regression to identify factors related to survey participation in successive waves. RESULTS: A total of 1678 adults participated in wave 1. Of those, 983 (59%) participated in wave 2 and 703 (42%) in wave 3. Participants who did not drop out took less time to complete previous surveys (30 min vs 35 min in wave 1, P<.001; 24 min vs 26 min in wave 2, P=.02) and reported having fewer health conditions (5.88 vs 6.6, P<.001). In multivariate models predicting responding at wave 2, lower odds of participation were associated with more time to complete the baseline survey (odds ratio [OR] 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99), being Hispanic (compared with non-Hispanic, OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.96), having a bachelor's degree as their terminal degree (compared with all other levels of education, OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.73), having more pain interference and intensity (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.89), and having more health conditions. In contrast, older respondents (older than 45 years age compared with 18-24 years age) were more likely to respond to the wave 2 survey (OR 2.63 and 3.79, respectively) and those whose marital status was divorced (OR 1.81) and separated (OR 1.77) were also more likely to respond to the wave 2 survey. Weighted analysis showed slight differences in sample demographics and conditions and larger differences in pain assessments, particularly for those who responded to wave 2. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal studies on MTurk have large, differential dropouts between waves. This study provided information about the individuals more likely to drop out over time, which can help researchers prepare for future surveys.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".