How screeners work

Why it exists

A researcher is not looking for anyone, but for specific people. TestingTime gives two real examples: feedback on a returns process needs people who ordered and returned shoes from a particular online shop in the past month, and a survey on a mobile family plan needs people living in a household of at least four.

The screener filters everyone else out before the study starts. It is not an exam: there is no correct answer, only a match with the conditions of that particular study. TestingTime says it is completely normal for your profile not to match every test.

How it works

On Respondent a screener is short, 2 to 20 questions. You click "Start Screener", answer, and the researcher reviews the responses and decides whom to invite. If selected, you schedule an interview or complete a task. For some projects, trusted partners ask you to complete a second screener on their own site.

On Prolific part of the screening is done by your profile. Researchers filter participants by the answers in the About You section: age, location, interests. Studies you do not match simply do not appear in your list. Studies without filters are open to everyone on a first-come, first-served basis.

TestingTime sends on average one or two emails a week introducing studies, depending on your location. Each includes a short questionnaire. If you match, are available and are selected, a separate invitation email follows.

Are screeners paid?

Usually not. Respondent says it directly: screeners are unpaid, and you are paid only after taking part in the study itself.

The exception is in-study screening on Prolific. Such studies are labelled "Includes in-study screening". If you are screened out on the first questions you are still paid: in the latest version a guaranteed £0.10 or $0.14, however long the screening takes. Prolific adds that being screened out does not affect your account in any way. You can opt out of these studies in the filters.

Why inventing answers backfires

The temptation to shape your answers is understandable, but the consequences are worse than a rejection. Respondent warns that exaggerating risks removal from the study or the platform. User Interviews says falsified profile or screener answers can get you flagged or suspended from future studies.

Your profile and screener are checked together. Respondent says a mismatch between them lowers your chances of selection, so your title, tools, industry and region must line up.

AI-written answers hurt too. User Interviews advises against using ChatGPT on screeners: researchers can usually tell generated text, and it raises suspicion. Prolific bans AI assistants unless the researcher explicitly asks for them.

Why rejections are not explained

TestingTime explains why it does not reveal whom the client was looking for. First, so nobody is tempted to pick the "right" answers when they do not apply. Second, study content is confidential and participants should take part without bias.

Even when you fit perfectly, the place may go to someone else: places are limited, and researchers often balance the group by gender, age or other traits. More on this in the article on why applications get rejected.

How to improve your odds

Advice the platforms themselves give participants.

• be specific: job title, tools you actually use, how often
• read must-have criteria carefully: region, company size, frequency of use
• complete your profile: on Respondent researchers search by title, industry, tools, languages and time zone
• list every language you can be interviewed in
• update your details when your job or city changes