Recruiting software engineers on prolific

30 citations

Abstract

Recruiting participants for software engineering research has been a primary concern of the human factors community. This is particularly true for quantitative investigations that require a minimum sample size not to be statistically underpowered. Traditional data collection techniques, such as mailing lists, are highly doubtful due to self-selection biases. The introduction of crowdsourcing platforms allows researchers to select informants with the exact requirements foreseen by the study design, gather data in a concise time frame, compensate their work with fair hourly pay, and most importantly, have a high degree of control over the entire data collection process. This experience report discusses our experience conducting sample studies using Prolific, an academic crowdsourcing platform. Topics discussed are the type of studies, selection processes, and power computation.

30
Citations
Research
Paper Only
Relevant for

Study specs

Authors
D Russo
Year
2022
Human Data Platform
Prolific

Peer Review & Critical Discussion

3 threads

Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort

DSJDr. Sarah J.
Verified PhD Candidate
12 replies

The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.

2 hours ago

Non-naive Participants Issue

MCM. Chen (OpenAI)
Data Scientist
8 replies

I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.

5 hours ago

RLHF Applicability to This Study Design

PRWProf. R. Williams
Verified Researcher
15 replies

The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.

1 day ago

Verify your expertise to join discussion

Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.