Retention of participants recruited to a multi-year longitudinal study via Prolific

71 citations

Abstract

There is limited data on the retention of participants on online crowdsourcing platforms. This presents a summary of retention within a study on vaccination attitudes with two time points separated by approximately 12 months on Prolific. Of the 331 participants who completed the initial survey in 2018, 262 remained active on the platform in 2019. Of these, 254 (76.74% of total baseline sample; 96.95% of active users) completed the follow-up survey, with a majority completing within 24 hours of the start of follow-up. Older participants and women were more likely to be retained. Overall, Prolific shows similar retention characteristics to conventional cohort studies with substantially reduced researcher burden.

71
Citations
Research
Paper Only
Relevant for

Study specs

Year
2019
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.