[
Aranberri, N., G. Labaka, A. Díaz de Ilarraza, and K. Sarasola. 2017. “Ebaluatoia: Crowd Evaluation for English–Basque Machine Translation.” Language Resources and Evaluation 51(4): 1053–1084. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-016-9335-x.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Barreto, M., L. Frasure-Yokley, E. Vargas, and J. Wong. 2018. “Best Practices in Collecting Online Data with Asian, Black, Latino, and White Respondents: Evidence from the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 6(1): 171–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2017.1419433.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Behr, D., L. Kaczmirek, W. Bandilla, and M. Braun. 2012. “Asking Probing Questions in Web Surveys: Which Factors Have an Impact on the Quality of Responses?” Social Science Computer Review 30(4): 487–498. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439311435305.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Behr, D., K. Meitinger, M. Braun, and L. Kaczmirek. 2017. “Web Probing-Implementing Probing Techniques from Cognitive Interviewing in Web Surveys with the Goal to Assess the Validity of Survey Question.” Social Science Open Access Repository: 18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15465/gesis-sg_en_023
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Brown, A., G. López, and M. Hugo Lopez. 2016. Digital Divide Narrows for Latinos as More Spanish Speakers and Immigrants Go Online. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2016/07/20/digital-divide-narrows-for-latinos-as-more-spanish-speakers-and-immigrants-go-online/ (accessed July 2021).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Buchanan, E. and J. Scofield. 2018. “Methods to Detect Low Quality Data and Its Implication for Psychological Research.” Behavior Research Methods 50(6): 2586–2596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1035-6.29542063
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Callegaro, M., A. Villar, D.S. Yeager, and J.A. Krosnick. 2014. “A Critical Review of Studies Investigating the Quality of Data Obtained with Online Panels Based on Probability and Nonprobability Samples.” In Online Panel Research: A Data Quality Perspective, edited by M. Callegaro, R.P. Baker, J. Bethlehem, A.S. Göritz, J.A. Krosnick, and P.J. Lavrakas: 23–53. Sussex, UK: Wiley.10.1002/9781118763520.ch2
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chandler, J. and G. Paolacci. 2017. “Lie for a Dime: When Most Prescreening Responses are Honest but Most Study Participants are Impostors.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 8(5): 500–508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617698203.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chandler, J., C. Rosenzweig, A. Moss, J. Robinson, and L. Litman. 2019. “Online Panels in Social Science Research: Expanding Sampling Methods Beyond Mechanical Turk.” Behavior Research Methods 51(5): 2022–2038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01273-7.679769931512174
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Chmielewski, M., and S. Kucker. 2019. “An MTurk Crisis? Shifts in Data Quality and The Impact on Study Results.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 11(4): 464–473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
De Heer, W. and E. de Leeuw. 2002. “Trends in Household Survey Nonresponse: A Longitudinal and International Comparison.” In Survey Nonresponse, edited by R.M. Groves, D.A. Dillman, J.L. Eltinge, and R.J.A. Little: 41–54. New York: Wiley.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Edgar, J. 2013. “Self-Administered Cognitive Interviewing.” In 68th American Association for Public Opinion Research Conference, May 2013. Boston, MA. Available at: http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/AnnualMeetingProceedings/2013/Session_A-1-3-Edgar.pdf (accessed July 2021).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Edgar, J., J. Murphy, and M. Keating. 2016. “Comparing Traditional and Crowdsourcing Methods for Pretesting Survey Questions.” Sage Open 6(4): 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016671770.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Goerman, P., L. Fernandez, and R. Quiroz. 2018. “Translation of Country-Specific Programs and Survey Error: Measuring the Education Level of Immigrants.” Translation & Interpreting 10(2): 21–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016671770.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hanson, M. and L. Espinosa. 2016. “Culture, Ethnicity, and Linguistic Diversity: Implications for Early Childhood Special Education.” In Handbook of Early Childhood Special Education, edited by B. Reichow, Boyd, E. Barton, and S. Odom: 455–471. Springer, Cham.10.1007/978-3-319-28492-7_24
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hillygus, S., N. Jackson, and M. Young. 2014. “Professional respondents in nonprobability online panels.” In Online Panel Research: A Data Quality Perspective, edited by M. Callegaro, R.P. Baker, J. Bethlehem, A.S. Göritz, J.A. Krosnick, and P.J. Lavrakas: 219–237. Sussex, UK: Wiley.10.1002/9781118763520.ch10
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kennedy, C., N. Hatley, A. Lau, A. Mercer, S. Keeter, J. Ferno, and D. Asare-Marfo. 2020. Assessing the Risks to Online Polls from Bogus Respondents. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2020/02/PM_02.18.20_dataquality_FULL.REPORT.pdf (accessed July 2021).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kennedy, C., N. Hatley, A. Lau, A. Mercer, S. Keeter, J. Ferno, and D. Asare-Marfo. 2021, “Strategies for Detecting Insincere Respondents in Online Polling.” Public Opinion Quarterly 85(4): 1050–1075. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfab057.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kennedy, R., S. Clifford, T. Burleigh, P. Waggoner, R. Jewell, and N. Winter. 2020. “The Shape of and Solutions to the MTurk Quality Crisis.” Political Science Research and Methods 8(4): 614–629. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfab057
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lenzner, T. and C. Neuert. 2017. “Pretesting Survey Questions Via Web Probing–Does it Produce Similar Results to Face-to-Face Cognitive Interviewing?” Survey Practice 10(4): 2768. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2017-0020.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Luiten, A., J. Hox, and E. de Leeuw. 2020. “Survey Nonresponse Trends and Fieldwork Effort in the 21st Century: Results of an International Study Across Countries and Surveys.” Journal of Official Statistics 36(3): 469–487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2020-0025.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Matthijsse, S., E. de Leeuw, and J. Hox. 2015. “Internet Panels, Professional Respondents, and Data Quality.” Methodology 11(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000094.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Meitinger, K. and D. Behr. 2016. “Comparing Cognitive Interviewing and Online Probing: Do They Find Similar Results?” Field Methods 28(4): 363–380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X15625866.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Meitinger, K., D. Behr, and M. Braun. 2019. “Using Apples and Oranges to Judge Quality?: Selection of Appropriate Cross-National Indicators of Response Quality in Open-Ended Questions.” Social Science Computer Review 39(3): 1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319859848.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Murphy, J., Edgar, J., and Keating, M. 2014. “Crowdsourcing in the Cognitive Interviewing Process.” In the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, May, 2014. Anaheim, CA. Available at: http://dc-aapor.org/2014%20conference%20slides/EdgarMurphyKeating.pdf (accessed January 2021).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Neuert, C., and T. Lenzner. 2019. “Effects of the Number of Open-Ended Probing Questions on Response Quality in Cognitive Online Pretests.” Social Science Computer Review 39(3): 456–468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319866397.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ortega-Santos, Iván. 2019. “Crowdsourcing for Hispanic Linguistics: Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a source of Spanish data.” Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 8(1): 187–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7557/1.8.1.4670.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Porter, C.O., R. Outlaw, J.P. Gale, and T.S. Cho. 2019. “The Use of Online Panel Data in Management Research: A Review and Recommendations”. Journal of Management 45(1): 319–344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318811569.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Prince, K.R., A.R. Litovsky, and D.G. Friedman-Wheeler. 2012. “Internet-Mediated Research: Beware of Bots.” The Behavior Therapist, 35(5): 85–88. Available at: https://services.abct.org/i4a/doclibrary/index.cfm?category_id=15
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rumbaut, R.G., and D.S. Massey. 2013. “Immigration & Language Diversity in the United States.” Daedalus 142(3): 141–154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00224.409200825018562
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Shepperd, J.A., G. Pogge, J.M. Hunleth, S. Ruiz, and E.A. Waters. 2021. “Guidelines for Conducting Virtual Cognitive Interviews During a Pandemic.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 23(3): 25173e. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/25173.795410933577464
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Simone, M. 2019a. “How to Battle the Bots Wrecking Your Online Study,” Behavioral Scientist. Available at: https://behavioralscientist.org/how-to-battle-the-bots-wrecking-your-online-study/. (accessed January 2021).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Simone, M. 2019b. “Bots started sabotaging my online research. I fought back,” STAT. Available at: https://www.statnews.com/2019/11/21/bots-started-sabotaging-my-online-research-i-fought-back/. (accessed January 2021).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Storozuk, A., M. Ashley, V. Delage, and E. Maloney. 2020. “Got Bots? Practical Recommendations to Protect Online Survey Data from Bot Attacks.” Quantitative Methods for Psychology 16(5): 472–481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.16.5.p472.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Team Y&R. 2020. Census Tracking Survey. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3886/E125761V3.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Trejo, Y.A.G., and A. Schoua-Glusberg. 2017. “Device and Internet Use among Spanish-Dominant Hispanics: Implications for Web Survey Design and Testing.” Survey Practice 10(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2017-0016.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
University of Maryland. 2014. “Institutional Review Board Investigator Handbook.” College Park, MD: University of Maryland. Available at: https://research.umd.edu/-sites/default/files/documents/irb-forms/Investigator%20Handbook%20FINAL%20112114.pdf (accessed July 2021).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Upadhyay, U.D., and H. Lipkovich. 2020. “Using Online Technologies to Improve Diversity and Inclusion in Cognitive Interviews with Young People.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 20(1): 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01024-9.729569032539726
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Willis, G.B. 2005. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412983655.10.4135/9781412983655
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Yarrish, C., L. Groshon, J. Mitchell, A. Appelbaum, S. Klock, T. Winternitz, and D. Friedman-Wheeler. 2019. “Finding the Signal in the Noise: Minimizing Responses from Bots and Inattentive Humans in Online Research.” The Behavior Therapist 42(7): 235–242. Available at: https://services.abct.org/i4a/doclibrary/index.cfm?category_id=22
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Yu, E., A. Fobia, J. Graber, J. Holzberg, R. Kaplan, B. Kopp, K. Kubzdela, B. Mockovak, R. Morrison, P. Scanlon. 2019. Experiences Using Online Testing to Support Survey-Methods Research and Pre-Testing in the Federal Government. Research and Methodology Directorate, Center for Behavioral Science Methods Research Report Series (Survey Methodology 2019-06). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Available at: http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2019/adrm/rsm2019-06.pdf (accessed January 2021).
]Search in Google Scholar
