[Air-L] Question about reimbursing participants doing electronic surveys?

[Fred Stutzman]

On Aug 17, 2010, at 8:02 PM, Nicole Ellison wrote:

> I'm curious about the practice of only compensating participants who complete a survey. Don't most IRBs require that participants have the option of refusing to answer any questions they want, without jeopardizing their compensation? I think if you do this, you should be sure that no questions are mandatory (meaning the participant can't move forward unless something is in the field).

At UNC, the IRB asks you to specify a protocol for pro-rating compensation.  Generally, percentage completion of the interview corresponds to percentage of the disbursement.  I have a feeling, though, this type of scheme is applied most commonly in controlled trials or panels.

As for completeness - Nicole is right.  The IRB will not allow requirement of completion, nor do we as researchers want responses to questions the respondent can't reasonably answer.  I think that by operating with small incentives, we're reasonably insured against "completion fraud."  If you're doing a fixed payment (e.g. 2 dollars per person) your maximum loss per individual is low, and if you do a raffle style incentive the same mechanics apply.  The low risk doesn't seem to be worth figuring out pro-rating, etc.  Of course, the equation changes when you're paying a few hundred dollars to trial participants.

I should note the place where I am seeing ethical boundaries being tested (with regards to compensation) is Mechanical Turk.  On the Turk, you are allowed to rescind payment if a task is not completed properly.  If a respondent only answers one question, is it ethical to pull back a payment?

Fred



--
Fred Stutzman 
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow 
School of Information and Library Science, UNC-Chapel Hill 
fred at fredstutzman.com | (919) 260-8508 | http://fredstutzman.com/