JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Although there are a number of advantages for using the Internet to recruit and enroll participants into online research studies, these advantages hinge on data validity. In response to this concern, researchers have provided recommendations for how best to screen for fraudulent survey entries and to handle potentially invalid responses. Yet, much of this work focuses on an individualistic perspective regarding screening (i.e., verification that individual met inclusion criteria) and validation of individual-level data from a single participant, with focus on the uniqueness of when online research studies seek to enroll dyads or couples that involve the collection of data from two participants who share a relationship with one another. While many of the same data validation and screening recommendations for online studies with individual participants can be used with dyads, there are unique differences and challenges that need to be considered.

Objective:

This paper describes the methods used to verify and validate couples’ relationships and data from an online research study, as well as the associated lessons learned for application toward future online studies involving the screening and enrollment of couples with dyadic data collection.

Methods:

We conducted a descriptive evaluation of the procedures and associated benchmarks (i.e., decision rules) used to verify couples’ relationships and validate whether data uniquely came from each partner of the couple. Data come from a large convenience sample of same-sex male couples in the U.S. who were recruited through social media venues for a web-based, mixed method HIV prevention research study.

Results:

Among the 3,815 individuals who initiated eligibility screening, 1,536 paired individuals (i.e., data from both partners of a dyad) were assessed for relationship verification; all passed this benchmark. For data validation, 450 paired individuals (225 dyads) were identified as fraudulent and failed this benchmark, resulting in a total sample size of 1,086 paired participants representing 543 same-sex male couples who were enrolled. The lessons learned from the procedures used to screen couples for this online research study have led us to identify and describe four areas for potential improvement: 1) new and/or replace certain relationship verification items, 2) consideration of resources needed relative to using a manual or electronic approach for screening, 3) how best to link and identify both partners of the couple, and 4) handling ‘bots’.

Conclusions:

The screening items and associated rules used to verify and validate couples’ relationships and data worked, yet required extensive resources to implement. New or updating some items to verify a couples’ relationship may be beneficial for future studies. The procedures used to link and identify whether both partners were coupled also worked, yet call into question whether new approaches are possible to help increase linkage, suggesting the need for further inquiry.