Participant validation

Validation means checking whether a person really is what the screener suggests — and whether they can meaningfully contribute in the planned format.

Three levels

First the formal level: do the key criteria hold up when probed? Then the substantive level: do concrete experiences match the stated behaviour? And finally the communicative level: can the person elaborate — or do they stay monosyllabic?

Why the phone matters

A phone call gives access, in a few minutes, to information no form provides: tone, hesitation, spontaneous examples, real opinions. It's not an interrogation, it's a conversation — but a very attentive one.

Validation step by step

At Insight Fox, validation is not a single checkpoint but a sequence. Each step checks something different:

• Project-specific screener: it translates the target group into verifiable behaviour and experience questions – with open answers that can be picked up later.
• Manual review: a person reads every response. Contradictions, suspiciously smooth answer patterns or statements that don't fit together surface here.
• Personal phone call: key criteria are asked again in different wording; concrete examples are requested; motivation and articulacy for the specific method are assessed.
• Professional plausibility for B2B: where appropriate, we cross-check role and company against publicly available professional sources.
• Confirmation: appointment, process and logistics are firmly confirmed; reminders follow.

What actually happens on the phone

The conversation is friendly and open but follows a clear logic. Typical elements:

• Rephrased repetition: a screener answer is asked differently, e.g. ‘When did you last do that?’ instead of ‘How often do you do that?’.
• Concreteness: ‘Tell me about the last situation.’ Real experience comes with details – places, times, frustrations.
• Context questions: who was involved, what alternatives existed, what tipped the balance?
• Method fit: can the person talk about this topic for 60 or 90 minutes? Are they ready for camera, screen sharing or a group setting?
• Study experience: when was the last participation, on what topic? Frequent participation is not an automatic exclusion, but it is assessed openly.

What the call explicitly is not: preparation. We don't say which answers are expected, and we don't reveal study content that could influence the result.

Warning signs

• Answers that hit every target category ‘exactly’ but contain no details
• Hesitation or changing the subject when asked for specifics
• Research or marketing vocabulary instead of their own words
• Differences between screener and conversation on hard criteria (age, location, role, usage)
• Strong interest in the incentive but little interest in the topic

A single signal is not a verdict. What matters is the overall picture – and, when in doubt, the honest decision not to invite.

Illustrative example: B2C

Illustrative example (not a client case): we are looking for parents who bought a pram in the last six months. On the phone we ask which model it was, where it was bought, which alternatives were considered and what decided it. Not remembering the model or retailer is not, on its own, a reason to reject someone – people forget such details. We then ask about other indicators, such as when and why the purchase was made, everyday use or a receipt, and document which study-relevant criteria remain unresolved. Only if the actual criterion – a purchase in the last six months with personal involvement in the decision – cannot be adequately verified do we not confirm participation.

Illustrative example: B2B

Illustrative example (not a client case): we are looking for people involved in selecting accounting software. One candidate holds the title ‘Head of Finance’. In conversation it turns out that IT made the selection entirely and he was only informed. Another person with a less impressive title compared vendors, organised demos and wrote the decision paper. She is the more relevant participant for the study. Where appropriate, we additionally check the role against public professional sources.

Checklist: how to check your partner's validation

• Does a person read every screener response?
• Is there a personal conversation – and what exactly is checked in it?
• How are contradictory answers handled?
• How are B2B roles checked for plausibility?
• Are participants briefed on content? (The right answer is: no.)
• How early do you learn when profiles are hard to validate?