Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Nov;18(6):e12572.
doi: 10.1111/opn.12572. Epub 2023 Aug 26.

When snowball sampling leads to an avalanche of fraudulent participants in qualitative research

Justine S Sefcik  1 , Zachary Hathaway  1 , Rose Ann DiMaria-Ghalili  1
Affiliations

When snowball sampling leads to an avalanche of fraudulent participants in qualitative research

Justine S Sefcik et al. Int J Older People Nurs. 2023 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Fraudulent research participants create negative consequences for the rigour and soundness of research.

Aims: A case study is presented from a qualitative study where the research team believed several fraudulent participants fabricated information during an interview about being a caregiver for a person living with dementia and chronic wounds.

Materials & methods: Participants were recruited through a free online research registry. Individual semi-structured interviews were held virtually.

Results: The study was paused after the nurse scientist with qualitative methodology experience identified that participants were giving illogical and repetitive responses across interviews. The team developed a revised screening tool to help reduce fraudulent participants from enrolling in the study. None of the data collected were used for analysis.

Discussion: Information is provided on how the team dealt with the situation, lessons learned for future studies, and recommendations for gerontological nurse researchers.

Conclusion: Researchers should be aware that some participants are misrepresenting themselves for financial incentives and this can compromise the soundness of findings. Thorough screening tools are one way to identify and prevent fraud.

Keywords: fraud; interviews; recruitment; research participant registry.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None.

References

    1. Chandler J, Sisso I, & Shapiro D (2020). Participant carelessness and fraud: Consequences for clinical research and potential solutions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 129(1), 49. - PubMed
    1. Chandler JJ, & Paolacci G (2017). Lie for a dime: When most prescreening responses are honest but most study participants are impostors. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(5), 500–508.
    1. Devine EG, Pingitore AM, Margiotta KN, Hadaway NA, Reid K, Peebles K, & Hyun JW (2021). Frequency of concealment, fabrication and falsification of study data by deceptive subjects. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 21, 100713. 10.1016/j.conctc.2021.100713 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Devine EG, Waters ME, Putnam M, Surprise C, O’Malley K, Richambault C, Fishman RL, Knapp CM, Patterson EH, Sarid-Segal O, Streeter C, Colanari L, & Ciraulo DA (2013). Concealment and fabrication by experienced research subjects. Clinical Trials, 10(6), 935–948. 10.1177/1740774513492917 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Flicker S (2004). Ask me no secrets, I’ll tell you no lies”: What happens when a respondent’s story makes no sense. The Qualitative Report, 9(3), 528–537.