Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42875661›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

Engagement begins at recruitment: Comparing videoconference verification to passive online screening for participant retention and study engagement.

Andrea L Howard, Johanna Peetz

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andrea L HowardDepartment of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. andrea.howard@carleton.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9843-9577
Johanna PeetzDepartment of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5547-0315

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers who conduct studies online increasingly struggle with fraudulent respondents, programmable bots, inattention or carelessness, and ineligible impostors. This study tested whether participants in a longitudinal intervention study who were recruited using videoconference eligibility verification-meeting participants one by one on Zoom to verify their identities-were more engaged in the study tasks and showed better longitudinal retention. Using existing data from a sample of Canadian young adult women (N = 1257), we compared participants who were screened via videoconference to participants who were passively screened (i.e., possessed valid e-mail addresses) and participants who were pre-screened members of a commercial participant platform (Prolific.com) on seven measures of retention and six measures of engagement with study tasks. Results showed that videoconference-verified participants had better rates of study initiation and retention, with over 90% completing all study waves. However, we found no meaningful differences between recruitment streams as a function of time to survey completion, engagement with the study's intervention activities, or honest responding. Videoconference eligibility verification may be a practical tool for recruiting participants likely to remain enrolled in longitudinal research and limit attrition.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionVideoconferencingAdultFemaleHumansInternetLongitudinal StudiesYoung AdultBotsEngagementOnline researchProlificRetentionScreening

Identifiers

PMID42875661

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.