Çiftlerden veri toplanması konusunda bir seçenek: Prolific

Çift verilerinin analiz yöntemlerinin gelişmesi, özellikle romantik ilişki dinamiklerinin araştırıldığı çalışmaların yapılabilmesi ve buna bağlı olarak çift terapisi alanında etkili müdahalelerin geliştirilmesi açısından büyük önem taşımaktadır. İstatistiksel yöntemlerin gelişmesine karşın, çiftlerden veri toplamak, başta erkek partnerleri çalışmaya katılmaya ikna etmek olmak üzere bazı güçlükleri barındırmaktadır. Bu güçlüklerin bir kısmının üstesinden gelmek adına kitle kaynak şirketleri bir seçenek oluşturmaktadır. Bu makalenin amacı, ülkemizde çiftlerle çalışan araştırmacılara, Prolific kitle kaynak şirketini tanıtmaktır. Bu makalede öncelikle, farklı kitle kaynak şirketleri arasından Prolific'i seçmemizin nedenleri belirtilmiştir. Ardından, Prolific şirketi aracılığıyla nasıl çift verisi toplanabileceği adım adım ve ekran görüntüleri ile birlikte açıklanmış; ayrıca, veri kalitesinin artırılması için ön eleme, veri toplama ve veri temizliği aşamalarında dikkat edilmesi ve kontrol edilmesi gereken hususlar ile alınması gereken önlemler sunulmuştur. Prolific kitle kaynak şirketi aracılığıyla çiftlerden veri toplanmasının getiri ve götürülerinin de tartışıldığı makalemizin, çift verisi toplamayı amaçlayan klinisyenler ve araştırmacılar için metodolojik bir kaynak olabileceği düşünülmektedir.

An option to collect data from dyads: Prolific

Improvements in dyadic data analysis methods are important for conducting studies that investigate romantic relationship dynamics and hence for developing effective interventions in the field of couple therapy. Despite these improvements in statistical methods, collecting data from dyads inherits some difficulties such as convincing male partners to participate in research. Crowdsourcing companies provide an option to overcome some of these difficulties. The aim of this article is to introduce one of the crowdsourcing companies, namely Prolific, to researchers in Turkey who are working on dyads. In this article, we first mention why we selected Prolific among several crowdsourcing companies. After explaining the reasons, collecting dyadic data via Prolific is explained step by step with screenshots. Additionally, important aspects to consider and check during prescreening, data collection and data cleaning for increasing data quality are also presented. We believe that this article, in which we discussed both advantages and disadvantages of collecting dyadic data via Prolific crowdsourcing company, would serve as a methodological resource for clinicians and researchers who aim to collect dyadic data.

PDF

___

Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A. ve Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. New York: Aronson.
Eid, M. E. ve Diener, E. E. (2006). Handbook of Multimethod Measurement in Psychology. American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/11383-000
Feitosa, J., Joseph, D. L. ve Newman, D. A. (2015). Crowdsourcing and personality measurement equivalence: A warning about countries whose primary language is not English. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 47-52.
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S. ve John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93-104.
Gul, R.B. ve Ali, P.A. (2010). Clinical trials: The challenge of recruitment and retention of participants. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19,227-133.
Johnson, L.N. & Miller, R.B. (2014). Introduction: The importance of validity, relationship, and change in marriage and family therapy research. In R.B. Miller & L.N. Johnson (Eds), Advanced Methods in Family Therapy Research. A Focus on Validity and Change (pp 2-11). NY: Routledge.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic Data Analysis. New York: Guildford.
Mitchell, J., Lee, J. Y. ve Stephenson, R. (2016). How best to obtain valid, verifiable data online from male couples? Lessons learned from an eHealth HIV prevention intervention for HIV-negative male couples. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 2, e152.
Olson, M.M. ve Miller, R.B. (2014). Recruitment and Retention of Couples. In R.B. Miller & L.N. Johnson (Eds), Advanced Methods in Family Therapy Research. A Focus on Validity and Change (pp 79-93). NY: Routledge.
Palan, S. ve Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific. ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22-27.
Paolacci, G. ve Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184-188.
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S. ve Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153-163.
Reiter, M. D. (2017). Family Therapy: An Introduction to Process, Practice and Theory. NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315110899
Satir, V. (1964). Conjoint Family Therapy: A Guide to Theory and Practice. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
Zhou, H. ve Fishbach, A. (2016). The pitfall of experimenting on the web: How unattended selective attrition leads to surprising (yet false) research conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 493-504.