An online daily diary study of alcohol use using Amazon's mechanical turk

Drug and Alcohol Review

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 456-461

  Boynton, Marcella H ^a   Richman, Laura Smart ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Alcohol; Daily diary; Mechanical turk; MTurk

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; DRINKING BEHAVIOR; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; TRENDS; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; ALCOHOL DRINKING; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MEDICAL RECORDS; MIDDLE AGED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84904357405     PISSN: 09595236     EISSN: 14653362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/dar.12163     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Fitzgerald JL, Mulford HA. Self-report validity issues. J Stud Alc. 1987;48:207-211.
2. Stockwell T, Donath S, Cooper-Stanbury M, Chikritzhs T, Catalano P, Mateo C. Under-reporting of alcohol consumption in household surveys: a comparison of quantity-frequency, graduated-frequency and recent recall. Addiction 2004;99:1024-1033.
3. Armeli S, Todd M, Mohr CA. Daily process approach to individual differences in stress-related alcohol use. J Pers 2005;73:1657-1686.
4. Conner TS, Tennen H, Fleeson W, Barrett LF. Experience sampling methods: a modern idiographic approach to personality research. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2009;3:292-313.
5. Armeli S, Carney MA, Tennen H, Affleck G, O'Neil TP. Stress and alcohol use: a daily process examination of the stressor-vulnerability model. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000;78:979-994.
6. Mohr CD, Armeli S, Tennen H, Carney MA, Affleck G, Hromi A. Daily interpersonal experiences, context, and alcohol consumption: crying in your beer and toasting good times. J Pers Soc Psychol 2001;80:489-500.
7. Barrett LF, Barrett DJ. An introduction to computerized experience sampling in psychology. Soc Sci Comp Rev. 2001;19:175-185.
8. Sacco P, Smith CA, Harrington D, Svoboda DV, Resnick B. Feasibility and utility of experience sampling to assess alcohol consumption among older adults. J Appl Gerontol 2014. Epub ahead of print.
9. O'Hara RE, Boynton MH, Scott D, etal. Drinking to cope among African-American college students: an assessment of episode-specific motives. Psychol Addict Behav in press.
10. Azzam T, Jacobson MR. Finding a comparison group: is online crowdsourcing a viable option? Amer Jour Eval. 2013;34:372-384.
11. Amir O, Rand DG, Gal YK. Economic games on the internet: the effect of $1 stakes. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e31461.
12. Casler K, Bickel L, Hackett E. Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon's MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Comput Human Behav 2013;29:2156-2160.
13. Gardner RM, Brown DL, Boice R. Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk website to measure accuracy of body size estimation and body dissatisfaction. Body Image 2012;9:532-534.
14. Holden CJ, Dennie T, Hicks AD. Assessing the reliability of the M5-120 on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Comput Human Behav 2013;29:1749-1754.
15. Horton J, Rand D, Zeckhauser R. The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market. Exp Econ. 2011;14:399-425.
16. Rand DG. The promise of Mechanical Turk: how online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. J Theor Biol 2012;299:172-179.
17. Simons DJ, Chabris CF. Common (mis)beliefs about memory: a replication and comparison of telephone and mechanical turk survey methods. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e51876.
18. Summerville A, Chartier CR. Pseudo-dyadic 'interaction' on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods 2013;45:116-124.
19. Joinson A. Social desirability, anonymity, and internet-based questionnaires. Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput. 1999;31:433-438.
20. Gosling SD, Vazire S, Srivastava S, John OP. Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. Am Psychol 2004;59:93-104.
21. Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. Pol Anal. 2012;20:351-368.
22. Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgm Decis Mak. 2010;5:411-419.
23. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6:3-5.
24. Mason W, Suri S. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods 2012;44:1-23.
25. Qualtrics (2012). Qualtrics, Provo, Utah. Available at: http://www.qualtrics.com (accessed May 2014).
26. Ewing JA. Detecting alcoholism: the CAGE questionnaire. JAMA 1984;252:1905-1907.
27. O'Brien CP. The CAGE questionnaire for detection of alcoholism: a remarkably useful but simple tool. JAMA 2008;300:2054-2056.
28. Bush B, Shaw S, Cleary P, Delbanco TL, Aronson MD. Screening for alcohol abuse using the CAGE questionnaire. Am J Med 1987;82:231-235.
29. Girela E, Villanueva E, Hernandez-Cueto C, Luna JD. Comparison of the CAGE questionnaire versus some biochemical markers in the diagnosis of alcoholism. Alcohol Alcohol 1994;29:337-343.
30. Andresen EM, Byers K, Friary J, Kosloski K, Montgomery R. Performance of the 10-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale for caregiving research. SAGE Open Med. 2013;1:1-9.
31. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psych Meas. 1977;1:385-401.
32. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, NIAAA. NIAAA council approves definition of binge drinking. Washington, DC: Office of Research Translation and Communication, 2004. NIAAA Newsletter, 3, 3, Winter.
33. SAS Institute Inc. Base SAS® 9.3 procedures guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 2011.
34. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, NIAAA (2009). Apparent per capita alcohol consumption: National, state, and regional trends, 1977-2009. Available at: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Surveillance92/CONS09.pdf (accessed May 2014).