Loebenberg, Gemma; Oldham, Melissa; Brown, Jamie; Dinu, Larisa; Michie, Susan; Field, Matt; Greaves, Felix; Loebenberg, Gemma; Oldham, Melissa; Brown, Jamie; Dinu, Larisa; Michie, Susan; Field, Matt; Greaves, Felix; Garnett, Claire; - view fewer (2023) Bot or Not? Detecting and Managing Participant Deception When Conducting Digital Research Remotely: Case Study of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 25 , Article e46523. 10.2196/46523.

Preview

Text Loebenberg_PDF.pdf Download (687kB) | Preview

Abstract

Background: Evaluating digital interventions using remote methods enables the recruitment of large numbers of participants relatively conveniently and cheaply compared with in-person methods. However, conducting research remotely based on participant self-report with little verification is open to automated “bots” and participant deception. / Objective: This paper uses a case study of a remotely conducted trial of an alcohol reduction app to highlight and discuss (1) the issues with participant deception affecting remote research trials with financial compensation; and (2) the importance of rigorous data management to detect and address these issues. / Methods: We recruited participants on the internet from July 2020 to March 2022 for a randomized controlled trial (n=5602) evaluating the effectiveness of an alcohol reduction app, Drink Less. Follow-up occurred at 3 time points, with financial compensation offered (up to £36 [US $39.23]). Address authentication and telephone verification were used to detect 2 kinds of deception: “bots,” that is, automated responses generated in clusters; and manual participant deception, that is, participants providing false information. / Results: Of the 1142 participants who enrolled in the first 2 months of recruitment, 75.6% (n=863) of them were identified as bots during data screening. As a result, a CAPTCHA (Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart) was added, and after this, no more bots were identified. Manual participant deception occurred throughout the study. Of the 5956 participants (excluding bots) who enrolled in the study, 298 (5%) were identified as false participants. The extent of this decreased from 110 in November 2020, to a negligible level by February 2022 including a number of months with 0. The decline occurred after we added further screening questions such as attention checks, removed the prominence of financial compensation from social media advertising, and added an additional requirement to provide a mobile phone number for identity verification. / Conclusions: Data management protocols are necessary to detect automated bots and manual participant deception in remotely conducted trials. Bots and manual deception can be minimized by adding a CAPTCHA, attention checks, a requirement to provide a phone number for identity verification, and not prominently advertising financial compensation on social media. / Trial Registration: ISRCTN Number ISRCTN64052601; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN64052601

Download activity - last month

Export as XMLJSONCSV

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as XMLJSONCSV

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as XMLJSONCSV

Archive Staff Only

View Item