DOI: 10.5061/dryad.rd6v7
title: Data from: Data reliability in citizen science: learning curve and the effects of training method, volunteer background and experience on identification accuracy of insects visiting ivy flowers

description: Citizen science, the involvement of volunteers in collecting of scientific
 data, can be a useful research tool. However, data collected by volunteers
 are often of lower quality than those collected by professional
 scientists. We studied the accuracy with which the volunteers identified
 insects visiting ivy (Hedera) flowers in Sussex, England. In the first
 experiment, we examined the effects of training method, volunteer
 background and prior experience. Fifty-three participants were trained for
 the same duration using one of three different methods (pamphlet, pamphlet
 + slide show or pamphlet + direct training). Almost immediately following
 training, we tested the ability of the participants to identify live
 insects on ivy flowers to one of 10 taxonomic categories and recorded
 whether their identifications were correct or incorrect, without providing
 feedback. The results showed that the type of training method had a
 significant effect on identification accuracy (P = 0·008). Participants
 identified 79·1% of insects correctly after using a one-page colour
 pamphlet, 85·6% correctly after using the pamphlet and viewing a slide
 show and 94·3% correctly after using the pamphlet in combination with
 direct training in the field. As direct training cannot be delivered
 remotely, in the following year we conducted a second experiment, in which
 a different sample of 26 volunteers received the pamphlet plus slide show
 training repeatedly three times. Moreover, in this experiment,
 participants received c. 2 min of additional training material, either
 videos of insects or stills taken from the videos. Testing showed that
 identification accuracy increased from 88·6% to 91·3% to 97·5% across the
 three successive tests. We also found a borderline significant interaction
 between the type of additional material and the test number (P = 0·053),
 such that the video gave fewer errors than stills in the first two tests
 only. The most common errors made by volunteers were misidentifications of
 honeybees and social wasps with their hover fly mimics. We also tested six
 experts who achieved nearly perfect accuracy (99·8%), which shows what is
 possible in practice. Overall, our study shows that two or three sessions
 of remote training can be as good as one of direct training, even for
 relatively challenging taxonomic discriminations that include
 distinguishing models and mimics.
description: Ratnieks et al. Data
 reliability in citizen science (data sets)Two data sets analyzed
 in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively, from the paper of Ratnieks et al.,
 Data reliability in citizen science: learning curve and the effects of
 training method, volunteer background and experience on identification
 accuracy of insects visiting ivy flowers. Methods in Ecology and
 Evolution. Both data sets are in the form of Tab-delimited text files. The
 variables included are as follows: Experiment 1: (each row represents one
 test of one participant, where participants were tested only once)
 Training = training method (pamphlet only, pamphlet + slide show, pamphlet
 + direct training) Degree = study degree of participants, biology-related
 (B) or not (N) Experience = prior experience of participants (Y/N)
 Experiment 2: (each participant was tested three times) Participant =
 unique participant id TestNo = test number (first, second or third) AdMat
 = type of additional training material (video or stills) Both datasets:
 Other variables present the proportion of insects identified correctly by
 each participant on each test. HB - honey bees SOCW - social wasps HBMHOV
 - honey bee-mimicking hover flies WMHOV - wasp-mimicking hover flies
 OTHFLY - non-syrphid flies IVYBEE - ivy bees BB - bumble bees BF -
 butterflies MO - moths ALL - all insects combined