↓ Skip to main content

Is the Web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from Web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
494 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
482 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Is the Web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from Web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, July 2012
DOI 10.3758/s13423-012-0296-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Germine, Ken Nakayama, Bradley C. Duchaine, Christopher F. Chabris, Garga Chatterjee, Jeremy B. Wilmer

Abstract

With the increasing sophistication and ubiquity of the Internet, behavioral research is on the cusp of a revolution that will do for population sampling what the computer did for stimulus control and measurement. It remains a common assumption, however, that data from self-selected Web samples must involve a trade-off between participant numbers and data quality. Concerns about data quality are heightened for performance-based cognitive and perceptual measures, particularly those that are timed or that involve complex stimuli. In experiments run with uncompensated, anonymous participants whose motivation for participation is unknown, reduced conscientiousness or lack of focus could produce results that would be difficult to interpret due to decreased overall performance, increased variability of performance, or increased measurement noise. Here, we addressed the question of data quality across a range of cognitive and perceptual tests. For three key performance metrics-mean performance, performance variance, and internal reliability-the results from self-selected Web samples did not differ systematically from those obtained from traditionally recruited and/or lab-tested samples. These findings demonstrate that collecting data from uncompensated, anonymous, unsupervised, self-selected participants need not reduce data quality, even for demanding cognitive and perceptual experiments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 482 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 12 2%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 459 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 108 22%
Researcher 69 14%
Student > Master 51 11%
Student > Bachelor 41 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 6%
Other 86 18%
Unknown 100 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 190 39%
Neuroscience 30 6%
Computer Science 25 5%
Social Sciences 21 4%
Linguistics 14 3%
Other 73 15%
Unknown 129 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,374,555
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#6
of 6 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,770
of 179,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 179,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.