Discussion: View Thread

Dear colleagues,

  I am looking for "common practices" regarding participant compensation for Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) studies. Specifically, our IRB currently has a policy disallowing raffles of any kind for study participants (although it is not blocked by State law in Oregon). However, to the best of my knowledge, many ESM researchers rely on token individual payment plus per-survey raffle entries to maximize participation.  As you can imagine, paying participants sufficiently to complete twice-daily surveys for two weeks without a raffle gets prohibitively expensive in a hurry, and we have several faculty members planning to launch ESM studies.

In reconsidering the current policy, they IRB has suggested that we look at what other scholars/schools commonly do in regard to participant inducements. Specifically, I'm looking for:

1.       Evidence that raffles are commonly used and do not introduce risk to participants (e.g., your past papers or approved IRB protocols);

2.       Creative and effective alternatives, should the policy remain in place.

Thanks in advance,

  Keith

Keith Leavitt, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Oregon State University College of Business

338 Bexell Hall, Corvallis, Oregon, 97331-2603

PHONE: (541) 737-8631

CELL: (206) 245-5798

Keith.leavitt@oregonstate.edu

Hi Keith

I don't have much good quality evidence and just some personal experience.  But I think these things seem to be effective in recruiting and retaining ESM participants:

1.  Very informed consent:  Make it really clear and honest what the study will involve in terms of time and effort.  Encourage them to think carefully about whether or not they feel they can make the commitment and make it clear it's absolutely fine if they feel they can't participate and that it's better you and they know now rather than start the study and then drop out.  Also, and this has pros and cons, you can ask people to consult their schedule to make sure there's nothing unusual or extra demanding for them coming up during the two week ESM period which might make it hard for them to complete every entry.

2.  Keep in supportive contact:  Ask participants every few days how it's going, if they're having any problems, if so, how you can help, and keep thanking them.

3.  Donation to charity of their choice:  Rather than a raffle, this can be more meaningful.  You can give participants an open choice or present them with some options.

4.  Personal feedback:  Sometimes participants like having the option of having their own tailored feedback so they can see their scores relative to others in the study.

Don't know if any of that will work for you of course!

Cheers

Rob

Dear colleagues,

  I am looking for "common practices" regarding participant compensation for Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) studies. Specifically, our IRB currently has a policy disallowing raffles of any kind for study participants (although it is not blocked by State law in Oregon). However, to the best of my knowledge, many ESM researchers rely on token individual payment plus per-survey raffle entries to maximize participation.  As you can imagine, paying participants sufficiently to complete twice-daily surveys for two weeks without a raffle gets prohibitively expensive in a hurry, and we have several faculty members planning to launch ESM studies.

In reconsidering the current policy, they IRB has suggested that we look at what other scholars/schools commonly do in regard to participant inducements. Specifically, I'm looking for:

1.       Evidence that raffles are commonly used and do not introduce risk to participants (e.g., your past papers or approved IRB protocols);

2.       Creative and effective alternatives, should the policy remain in place.

Thanks in advance,

  Keith

Keith Leavitt, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Oregon State University College of Business

338 Bexell Hall, Corvallis, Oregon, 97331-2603

PHONE: (541) 737-8631

CELL: (206) 245-5798

Keith.leavitt@oregonstate.edu

Hi Keith,

A couple of colleagues and myself are currently putting together a study using ESM as well. A useful reference might be Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw (2005), Affect and creativity at work, ASQ (see p. 376). They obtained daily measures over an extended period. What stands out to me is in addition to long and short term incentives they employed other tactics such as periodic reminders and follow-up phone communications if participants missed a certain number of entries. They ended up with about a 75% daily response rate. Hope this helps and good luck.

Best Regards,

David

-- 

David Peterson, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Warwick Business School

University of Warwick

Coventry CV4 7AL

United Kingdom

Dear colleagues,

  I am looking for "common practices" regarding participant compensation for Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) studies. Specifically, our IRB currently has a policy disallowing raffles of any kind for study participants (although it is not blocked by State law in Oregon). However, to the best of my knowledge, many ESM researchers rely on token individual payment plus per-survey raffle entries to maximize participation.  As you can imagine, paying participants sufficiently to complete twice-daily surveys for two weeks without a raffle gets prohibitively expensive in a hurry, and we have several faculty members planning to launch ESM studies.

In reconsidering the current policy, they IRB has suggested that we look at what other scholars/schools commonly do in regard to participant inducements. Specifically, I'm looking for:

1.       Evidence that raffles are commonly used and do not introduce risk to participants (e.g., your past papers or approved IRB protocols);

2.       Creative and effective alternatives, should the policy remain in place.

Thanks in advance,

  Keith

Keith Leavitt, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Oregon State University College of Business

338 Bexell Hall, Corvallis, Oregon, 97331-2603

PHONE: (541) 737-8631

CELL: (206) 245-5798

Keith.leavitt@oregonstate.edu

Keith,

I served on Indiana University's IRB Committee for three years. Providing the IRB Committee with evidence that the chosen methodology (including compensation system) will result in valuable scientific information and does not put participants at unnecessary risk has produced positive results (i.e., proposal approvals) in many cases. The following article offers such arguments regarding the specific use of Experience Sampling Methodology:

·       Uy, M. A., Foo, M. D., & Aguinis, H. 2010. Using experience sampling methodology to advance entrepreneurship theory and research. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 31-54. [available at http://mypage.iu.edu/~haguinis/pubs.html]

I hope this helps!

All the best,

--Herman.

Dear colleagues,

  I am looking for "common practices" regarding participant compensation for Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) studies. Specifically, our IRB currently has a policy disallowing raffles of any kind for study participants (although it is not blocked by State law in Oregon). However, to the best of my knowledge, many ESM researchers rely on token individual payment plus per-survey raffle entries to maximize participation.  As you can imagine, paying participants sufficiently to complete twice-daily surveys for two weeks without a raffle gets prohibitively expensive in a hurry, and we have several faculty members planning to launch ESM studies.

In reconsidering the current policy, they IRB has suggested that we look at what other scholars/schools commonly do in regard to participant inducements. Specifically, I'm looking for:

1.       Evidence that raffles are commonly used and do not introduce risk to participants (e.g., your past papers or approved IRB protocols);

2.       Creative and effective alternatives, should the policy remain in place.

Thanks in advance,

  Keith

Keith Leavitt, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Oregon State University College of Business

338 Bexell Hall, Corvallis, Oregon, 97331-2603

PHONE: (541) 737-8631

CELL: (206) 245-5798

Keith.leavitt@oregonstate.edu