Article title: Clinical applications of the VIA Inventory of Strengths with Individuals with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities
Authors: Ariel E. Schwartz, Andrea Caoili, Joan B. Beasley, Jessica M. Kramer and Luther G. Kalb
Journal: The Journal of Positive Psychology
Bibliometrics: Volume 18, Number 3, pages 439–448
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2022.2036797
Since publication, we have identified that our study involved a small group of individuals who misrepresented their eligibility as individuals with intellectual disability to participate in the study and receive incentives multiple times. We have since removed those individuals and are providing an updated participants table and updated sample size (n=31, rather than n=36) for individuals with intellectual disability. We have also closely examined the qualitative data and identified that removal of these participants does not change conclusions. However, one quote in the manuscript came from an individual who fraudulently participated: “learned about [my]self while thinking about [my] answers. Learned [I] am creative” (I32).
We note that researchers conducting online surveys have long struggled with individuals misrepresenting themselves to gain access to incentives (for a discussion, see for example, Teitcher et al., Citation2015). However, less has been published about this type of activity in “face-to-face” data collection such as videoconference-based focus groups and interviews, as the ability to identify someone by voice and image may deter ineligible participants from attempting participation. However, in the age of COVID-19, there has been an increasing awareness of the many socioeconomic reasons (e.g., internet capacity, presence of family members, etc.) individuals may decline to use video while participating in videoconference data collection. We thus, did not require use of camera, which made it easier for individuals to repeatedly participate in our interviews. In the future, our team will take several actions to check participant integrity and prevent repeat-participation:
When possible, recruit through organizations with direct access to eligible participant populations.
For each eligibility criterion have multiple forms of verification that may be difficult for someone who does not meet the criterion to consistently respond to (e.g., for the criterion of having an intellectual disability, ask individuals to provide their diagnosis, age through which they received school-based services, and to name agencies through which they continue to receive services).
Have participants confirm eligibility criteria at the beginning of each interview, checking responses against those input on the screening form.
Require individuals to turn on their camera for the beginning of the interview to greet the interviewer.
When there are multiple interviewers, require a project manager to review this initial greeting for all participants.
We know that misrepresentation in research to gain access to incentives will remain a challenge, especially when researchers aim to geographically broaden their sample or to research individuals who may not be connected to services for various participant populations. We share this experience to encourage and open further dialogue on this issue with regards to interviews and focus groups, where methods have not yet been developed to easily detect misrepresentation in highly motivated individuals (i.e., those willing to take the time to complete data collection and even do research on expected responses to screening and interview questions).
The corrected can be found below:
Table 2. Participants with disabilities who completed worksheets about the VIA Survey (n=31)
In addition, the final sentence of the section “Participants” on p. 441 has been corrected to “At the time of writing, 31 individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities had participated in the interviews ()”. Also, the quote ‘learned about [my]self while thinking about [my] answers. Learned [I] am creative’ (I32) has been removed from the article on p. 442.
This article is available both online and in print. The online version has been corrected.
Reference
- Teitcher, J. E., Bockting, W. O., Bauermeister, J. A., Hoefer, C. J., Miner, M. H., & Klitzman, R. L. (2015). Detecting, preventing, and responding to “fraudsters” in internet research: Ethics and tradeoffs. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 43(1), 116–133.