Weāre opening up the next round of voting for new screeners!
As you may know, we provide more than 150 screeners free of charge on Prolific. We also know that some of you
Vote for the screeners you want to see
Hereās how the voting rounds work:
1. Suggest a screener by replying to the thread below.
Make sure you include the following:
A description of the audience you want to screen for. Be as specific as possible
Example: People who have flown on a plane before
Describe how you would phrase the question for your desired audience. Please include answer options.
Example: Have you ever travelled by plane? Answer options: [1] Never [2]1-10 times [3] >10 times
How often, if ever, should participants responses be updated? This is useful for traits which may change over time, such as whether someone has had a particular experience in the past [amount of time]. For example - Have you travelled by plane in the past year? would be updated yearly.
Post your suggestions here in the thread by Friday, 13 May.
If you see a suggestion you like, be sure to like it by clicking on the heart in each post. This helps us to shortlist.
2. Shortlisting and voting
Weāll come up with a shortlist of four suggestions for new screeners and post a poll in the thread. Watch this space, and be sure to jump back in and vote.
Polling will open the week commencing 16 May, and be open for seven (7) days, so be sure to get your vote in early!
3. Winners
Winners will be announced shortly after the poll closes, and will shortly thereafter be added to the Prolific platform.
As always: please check through the list of screeners to be sure what youāre suggesting isnāt already an existing screener option!
People from the United States who are eligible to serve on juries. Part of juror eligibility is whether people have current felony charges pending or past felony convictions. I would like to ask the following questions (updated yearly):
Do you have any pending felony charges? (Yes or No)
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? (Yes or No) [If yes, go to question 3]
Have your civil rights been restored such that you are allowed to serve on a jury? (Yes or No)
Race/ethnicity of Prolific userās romantic partners
Question: Please indicate your romantic partnerās ethnicity (i.e. peoplesā ethnicity describes their feeling of belonging and attachment to a distinct group of a larger population that shares their ancestry, colour, language or religion) [question phrasing should be similar to the question asking participants to indicate their own ethnicity]
Answer choices: [answer choices should be the same answer choices presented to participants to select their own race/ethnicity] African; Black/African American; Caribbean; East Asian; Latino/Hispanic; Middle Eastern; Mixed; Native American or Alaskan Native; South Asian; White/Caucasian; Other (please feel free to let us know your ethnicity via email); White / Sephardic Jew; Black/British; White Mexican; Romani/Traveller; South East Asian
This would be a one-time question (no need to update yearly, monthly, etc.).
Whether or not participants engage in self-harm (also known as non-suicidal self-injury)?
Example question:
āSelf-harm is when someone deliberately hurts themselves, without wanting to die (i.e. NOT as part of a suicide attempt). Would you consider yourself someone who has engaged in self-harm?
Yes
Noā
Iām rather surprised Prolific doesnāt have a screener related to work experience already.
Audience: People with work experience.
Q: How many years of full-time work experience do you have?
Answer options:
[1] None
[2] Less than 1 year
[3] 1-2 years
[4] 3-5 years
[5] 6-10 years
[6] More than 10 years
I like the question, but would suggest using āuniversityā rather than ācollegeā. Outside of the US, the term ācollegeā has a meaning different from what is meant here.
Some general comments (happy to come back with specific questions):
One category Iād like see more of (and Iād like to hear othersā thoughts on the specifics of this) would be social attitudes questions. At the moment there is one on climate change and one on abortion. But for anyone doing social research, there are plenty of others, both on the economic/fiscal axis and the social liberal/conservative axis.
With demographics, it would be very helpful to have UK and US versions where the wordings and answer options match the census in the country in question. This obviously doesnāt matter for some things, but for properly representing ethnic and religious groups (disproportionately minority groups in each case) it would be very helpful. The are a few complications for this (eg minor differences in wordings between UK nations, and the US having a separate question for Hispanic origin, but nothing insurmountable).
With questions about voting history, the current format is not ideal. Political researchers will typically ask respondents to think back to the election (or referendum) and whether or not they voted, and then ask which party/candidate/option if applicable. If you simply provide a ballot-like list with a ādidnāt voteā option, people instinctively gravitate towards the party they support, without properly thinking about whether or not they actually voted. When I split tested this in the UK, the one-step format increased reported turnout by 10 points (which per the literature, is almost certainly the less accurate result).
Many apologies for the delay! Our screeners panel hasnāt been able to devote time on this until recently as thereās been a bit going on in the back end (more on that soonā¦). Poll will be up shortly, Iāll also respond to a few of these ideas specifically too!
Thanks for this one @Sue_Sherman! We wouldnāt need to take this to a vote as thereās actually an existing screener on pet ownership in play already:
Do you currently own any of the following as a pet?
Dog
Cat
Fish
Bird
Rabbit
Reptile
Other small mammal (e.g. hamster)
Other
If you were after multiple animals, you could use this existing screener and then ask the questions on multiples within your survey.
This could work @BENJAMIN_WILKOWSKI if we were to broaden it out along the lines of our existing screener on highest education level completed. Something like this:
āWhich of these is the highest level of education your parents have completed?ā
Thanks for this and for the earlier version@Julie_Eichstaedt. While this would work as a question in a survey, our panel felt it too specific to use as a pre-screening question. Thereās potentially something in DIY / home improvements though - I donāt believe we have very much in that general area, so worth starting broad in that area rather than very narrow.
@alimba - thanks for this. This is interesting as thereās a couple of layers in this question. First youād want to define āfull-time work experienceā - is this in a number of hours worked per week, in a type of working contract (e.g. someone employed on a full time contract)? Would an apprenticeship or internship taken during university count?
Youād also want to consider the fit around other screeners. Thereās currently a āWork week in hoursā screener in play, so you could potentially use this to filter for full time and reword instead for the length of time people have worked, as this sounds like what is at the heart of your question. Would that work for you?
People from the United States who are eligible to serve on juries. Part of juror eligibility is whether people have current felony charges pending or past felony convictions.
Thanks for these @Tracy_Fass. Of these, the panel felt the question on whether or not someone had been convicted of a crime would work strongest as a screener, as we do not ask questions though would need to be worded in a less US-specific way - perhaps āHave you been convicted of a crime?ā with a scale type answer based on severity of the charges.
There is also an additional screening question on jury service which could be adapted to address whether people are both eligible for jury service and has done, so Iāve suggested this change be made.
Highest level of education completed by either of your parents?
Convicted of a crime?
0voters
Poll will be open for seven days from today, so get your votes in fast!
Following the earlier review weāve had to park the options for a couple of screeners, including the self-harm one, on request of our legal team (sounds dramatic when I say it that way, eh?), so that may appear at a later date or round of voting.
Asking about the severity of the crime would be great. That combined with asking whether someoneās civil rights have been restored will allow people to screen for jury eligibility and voter eligibility.
Are all three of these screeners being added to Prolific? It seems like there is interest in all three, but I donāt see all of them available as screeners. Thanks!
