Rating the Valence of Media Content about Electronic Cigarettes Using Crowdsourcing: Testing Rater Instructions and Estimating the Optimal Number of Raters.

Stella Juhyun Lee, Jiaying Liu, Laura A Gibson, Robert C Hornik
Author Information
  1. Stella Juhyun Lee: TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University. ORCID
  2. Jiaying Liu: Department of Communication Studies, University of Georgia.
  3. Laura A Gibson: Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine.
  4. Robert C Hornik: Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania.

Abstract

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a controversial public health topic due to their increasing popularity among youth and the uncertainty about their risks and benefits. Researchers have started to assess the valence of media content about e-cigarette use, mostly using expert coding. The current study aims to offer a methodological framework and guideline when using crowdsourcing to rate the valence of e-cigarette media content. Specifically, we present (1) an experiment to determine rating instructions that would result in reliable valence ratings and (2) an analysis to identify the optimal number of raters needed to replicate these ratings. Specifically, we compared ratings produced by crowdsourced raters instructed to rate from several different perspectives (e.g., objective vs. subjective) and determined the instructions that led to reliable ratings. We then used bootstrapping methods and a set of criteria to identify the minimum number of raters needed to replicate these ratings. Results suggested that when rating e-cigarette valence, instructing raters to rate from their own subjective perspective produced reliable results, and nine raters were deemed the optimal number of raters. We expect these findings to inform future content analyses of e-cigarette valence. The study procedures can be applied to crowdsourced content analyses of other health-related media content to determine appropriate rating instructions and the number of raters.

References

  1. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 Sep 19;21(10):1299-1309 [PMID: 29718475]
  2. J Health Commun. 2014;19(5):545-60 [PMID: 24117370]
  3. Prev Med. 2017 Sep;102:93-99 [PMID: 28694063]
  4. Tob Control. 2017 Mar;26(2):226-229 [PMID: 26956467]
  5. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Nov;49(5):686-693 [PMID: 26163170]
  6. Biometrics. 1989 Mar;45(1):269-87 [PMID: 2655731]
  7. Pediatrics. 2016 May;137(5): [PMID: 27244815]
  8. Tob Control. 2014 Jul;23 Suppl 3:iii17-25 [PMID: 24935893]
  9. J Insect Sci. 2003;3:34 [PMID: 15841249]
  10. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Aug 25;17(8):e208 [PMID: 26307512]
  11. Qual Quant. 2017;51(6):2623-2646 [PMID: 29070915]
  12. Tob Control. 2003 Sep;12 Suppl 2:ii75-81 [PMID: 12878777]
  13. Tob Control. 2018 Jan;27(1):18-25 [PMID: 28970328]
  14. Tob Control. 2014 Jul;23 Suppl 3:iii31-6 [PMID: 24935896]
  15. Health Commun. 2019 Mar;34(3):298-305 [PMID: 29236549]
  16. J Health Commun. 2019;24(10):761-769 [PMID: 31543057]
  17. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Nov 16;67(45):1276-1277 [PMID: 30439875]
  18. Commun Methods Meas. 2017 Jul 3;11(3):191-209 [PMID: 29118893]
  19. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011 Jan;6(1):3-5 [PMID: 26162106]
  20. Behav Res Methods. 2014 Mar;46(1):112-30 [PMID: 23835650]
  21. Tob Regul Sci. 2015 Apr;1(1):94-102 [PMID: 26229974]

Grants

  1. P50 CA179546/NCI NIH HHS
  2. R25 CA057711/NCI NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Communications Media
Crowdsourcing
Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
Humans
Tobacco Products
Vaping

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0ratersvalencecontentratingse-cigarettenumbermediarateratinginstructionsreliableElectronicusingstudySpecificallydetermineidentifyoptimalneededreplicateproducedcrowdsourcedsubjectiveanalysescigarettese-cigarettescontroversialpublichealthtopicdueincreasingpopularityamongyouthuncertaintyrisksbenefitsResearchersstartedassessusemostlyexpertcodingcurrentaimsoffermethodologicalframeworkguidelinecrowdsourcingpresent1experimentresult2analysiscomparedinstructedseveraldifferentperspectivesegobjectivevsdeterminedledusedbootstrappingmethodssetcriteriaminimumResultssuggestedinstructingperspectiveresultsninedeemedexpectfindingsinformfutureprocedurescanappliedhealth-relatedappropriateRatingValenceMediaContentCigarettesUsingCrowdsourcing:TestingRaterInstructionsEstimatingOptimalNumberRaters

Similar Articles

Cited By