Comparing Social Media and Traditional Recruitment Methods ...€¦ · Recruiting Social Media...
Transcript of Comparing Social Media and Traditional Recruitment Methods ...€¦ · Recruiting Social Media...
Comparing Social Media and Traditional Recruitment Methods: Which is Most Effective?
Jennifer Anderson, Jocelyn Newsome, and Kerry Levin, WestatApril Oh, NCI
American Association of Public Opinion Research, Hollywood, FL May 16, 2015
2
Social Media is Everywhere
Method
3
• Compare traditional and social media methods of recruitment of adult women for a focus group research project
• Measure cost and effectiveness of recruiting across the two methods
Purpose of Recruitment Study
• Recruited for eight focus groups about health with women ages 20-50
– 2 groups with physically inactive African-American women;
– 2 groups with physically inactive Latina women;
– 2 groups with physically inactive white women; and,
– 2 groups with women (mix of race/ethnicity) who are physically active.
• $30 for 100-minute evening focus group
• No food offered
*The research project was approved by both NCI’s and Westat’s Institutional Review Board.
5
NCI Focus Group Research Project
• Flyers, Newspaper Ads, Craigslist Ads
6
Traditional Recruiting
• Facebook Ads, Google Ads, LinkedIn Ads, Blogs/Forums
7
Social Media Recruiting
● Historically effective
● Inexpensive
● Subject to “professional respondents”
● Unable to easily target who sees the ad
8
● Ability to easily target respondents
● Ability to quickly adapt recruiting strategies
● New approach so there is little research
Traditional
Recruiting
Social Media
Recruiting
9
Recruitment Study Design
Respondents saw ad
Respondents called or emailed
Respondents screened over
telephone
Respondents selected
Respondents scheduled
Focus Group
• Two-month recruitment
• Utilized two equally experienced recruiters who shared responsibility
• Tracked time and money spent for each method separately
Recruitment Process
Effectiveness of Recruiting
– Responses to ad
– Screening rate
– Eligibility rate
– Selection rate
– Show rate
Cost
– Labor hours
– Advertisements
– Cost per eligible
– Cost per show
Measures
10
Results
12
Recruitment Effectiveness
668 responses
315 screened
235 eligible
66 invited
25 showed
408 responses
238 screened
170 eligible
24 invited
16 showed
Social MediaTraditional
Traditional
Recruiting
Social Media
Recruiting
Responses
to ad408 people 668 people
More people responded to
social media ads
Screening
Rate58.3% 47.2%
Significantly higher screening
rate for traditional adsp <.05
Eligibility
Rate71.4% 74.6% No significant difference
p <.05
Selection
Rate14.1% 28.1% No significant difference
p <.05
Show Rate 66.7% 37.9% No significant differencep <.05
13
Recruiting Effectiveness
Recruitment Sources
61.0%
39.0%
Percentage of Focus Group Participants by Source
Social media(n=25)
Traditional(n=16)
53.7%
2.4%4.9%
Percentage of Focus Group Participants by Source
Facebook (n=22)
LinkedIn (n=0)
Google (n=1)
Blogs/Forums (n=2)
15
Recruitment Sources
16
Cost in Labor Hours
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Traditional Recruiting Social Media Recruiting
Recruiter
Management ofRecruitment
236
hours
350
hours
$471.00
$4,907.56
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Traditional Social Media
17
Cost of Ads
Traditional170 eligible
$163
Social Media235 eligible
$192
Cost per Eligible(including both labor & ads)
18
Traditional16 shows
$1,729
Social Media25 shows
$1,806
Cost per Participant
19
Traditional
• More success at contacting respondents to screen for eligibility
• Lower advertising and labor costs
• Lower cost per eligible
• Comparable cost per participant
Social Media
• More responses, leading to ultimate higher participation
• Higher advertising and labor costs
• Higher cost per eligible
• Comparable cost per participant
Summary of Results
20
Discussion
21
• Challenging recruit(specific demographics and physical activity levels, low incentive)
• Conducting screening by phone may have reduced screening rate for individuals responding to social media ads
22
Things to Consider
• Experiment with less challenging recruit(less specific recruitment criteria, better incentive)
• Experiment with online screener to perhaps increase screening rate for social media
• Experiment with other social media platforms
– Mturk, Twitter, TrymyUI, Instagram, “next new thing”
23
Next Steps
Antoun, C., Zhang, C., Conrad, F., Schober., M. (2013). Comparisons of Online Recruitment Strategies: Cragislist, Google Ads and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.
Chu, J. L., & Snider, C. E. (2013). Use of a social networking web site for recruiting Canadian youth for medical research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52(6), 792-
794.
Frandsen, M., Walters, J., & Ferguson, S. G. (2013). Exploring the Viability of Using online Social Media Advertising as a recruitment Method for Smoking Cessation
Clinical trials. nicotine & tobacco research, ntt157.
Graham, A. L., Fang, Y., Moreno, J. L., Streiff, S. L., Villegas, J., Muñoz, R. F., ... & Vallone, D. M. (2012). Online advertising to reach and recruit Latino smokers to
an internet cessation program: impact and costs. Journal of medical Internet research, 14(4).
Head, B. F., Dean, E. F., Keating, M. D., Swicegood, J.E., Powell, R., & Sage, A. J. (2012, October). Recruiting virtual world users for cognitive interviews: A
comparison of Facebook and Craigslist.com advertisements. Presented at 2012 Annual Southern Association for Public Opinion Research Conference,
Raleigh, NC.
Hill, C.A., Dean, E., Murphy, J. (2014). Social Media, Sociality, and Survey Research. John Wiley & Sons.
Kapp, J. M., Peters, C., & Oliver, D. P. (2013). Research recruitment using Facebook advertising: big potential, big challenges. Journal of Cancer Education, 28(1),
134-137.
Murphy, J., Keating, M., Edgar, J. (2013, November). Crowdsourcing in the Cognitive Interview Process. Presented at 2013 Federal Committee on Statistical
Methodology Research Conference, Washington, DC.
Fenner, Y., Garland, S. M., Moore, E. E., Jayasinghe, Y., Fletcher, A., Tabrizi, S. N., & Wark, J. D. (2012). Web-based recruiting for health research using a social
networking site: an exploratory study. Journal of medical Internet research, 14(1), e20.
Ramo, D. E., Hall, S. M., & Prochaska, J. J. (2010). Reaching young adult smokers through the internet: comparison of three recruitment mechanisms. Nicotine &
Tobacco Research, ntq086.
Quach, S., Pereira, J. A., Russell, M. L., Wormsbecker, A. E., Ramsay, H., Crowe, L., & Kwong, J. (2013). The good, bad, and ugly of online recruitment of parents
for health-related focus groups: lessons learned. Journal of medical Internet research, 15(11).
25
References