Video Screening: A Multi-Purpose Tool for Quality Research (Better Qual Screening Part 2)
Hi! Quick note: This is part two of our 'better screening' processes. In part one, we collaborated with Fieldwork to discuss how a moderator's perspective transforms the recruiting intent and qualifying considerations. Now we're exploring how The Social Question's video screening process takes quality one step further.
What is "Video Screening"?
Simply put - it's a video conference call where we confirm the study's qualifications, using a document called a screener for our guide. (I always find it funny that the word screener isn't generally a dictionary recognized word! And when it is found there's not a marketing research use case.)
Historically, screeners have manifested in a few ways:
During an intercept survey (someone with a clipboard asking onsite questions) - there may be some visual qualifiers before they approach you, or may ask you a few questions before the whole questionnaire.
For a long time, telephone screening was common, where call center employees would dial panelists and follow a scripted survey before determining if someone could be invited to a research session.
When the internet took off, these pivoted to online surveys - still "scripted" but it's very different to ask questions how they will be heard vs. read and self-guided. Sometimes the participant will know instantly if they qualify, other times it takes some review and potentially a phone call follow up.
Survey screeners have been done as online survey methods for decades now and are the typical method used universally. They work excellently in many cases, but when the research topic is complex, or the qualifying process is complicated, sometimes they do more damage than good. Not every scenario fits into a neat set of questions, or some research teams treat these screeners like mini surveys and can be 20-minutes long with no compensation (we do not condone this practice!).
The Social Media Difference
Since all our recruiting comes from social media, we don't have an integrated survey platform that works well with social media link sharing. This forced us to come up with a methodology that would work based on the platform and user behavior, not falling back on an industry standard just because or the "easy" way. Instead, The Social Question takes your social media entertainment mindset as our focus - meaning, you're unlikely to leave your scrolling session to take an unexpected 10-min survey for the chance of a paid opportunity. That's unrealistic and we'd have a high abandonment rate and terrible cost-per-click ratio.
Instead - we split our screening into two parts:
A sign-up form with very high-level criteria including contact information
Those who pass the early specifications are emailed an invite to self-schedule a video meeting
We strive as often as possible to keep these video calls to 15 minutes or less. We want to be respectful of your time while ensuring we have the right people being invited to the research opportunity. We avoid making promises on each call, as we're just the "people finders" (as Sarah Kotva of Fieldwork aptly described recruiters), not the decision makers, to ensure that we're managing everyone's expectations. Joining the call doesn’t guarantee you’ll be selected, yet it also allows you to confirm that we’re a real research company with a legitimate opportunity so it’s always a mutually beneficial meeting.
These video calls were also a happy accident, being that Kayte Hamilton wears hearing aids and depends on the triple-tech: video for reading lips and body language, access to live captions, and the meeting chat for some question types to keep the conversation flowing quickly.
Why Video Screening Works for Social Media Recruiting:
1. Technical Qualification with Context
You may be surprised how often screeners ask people's comfort level with technology, access to wifi, and the type of equipment they own. With video screening - we can bypass many of these questions because we can see it in action. They have to be able to self-schedule, add the invite to their calendar, show up on time, be on camera, navigate the meeting room, etc. This inherent tech check is lightyears more effective than 5 yes/no questions. It's essentially a built-in tech check:
Can they successfully join a video call?
How comfortable are they with the technology?
Do they have a suitable environment for participation?
Will they need additional support to participate fully?
What is the quality of their wifi?
Did they join from bed? YES - this happens!
This prevents disruptions later when the full research team is involved. We can also make notes on someone's internet speed, lighting, workspace, etc. and have discussions in real time about any potential orange or red flags that need to be addressed.
2. Communication Style Assessment
The way someone communicates during screening directly predicts how they'll communicate during research:
Are they naturally expressive or do they need significant prompting?
Do they provide concrete examples or speak in generalities?
Can they articulate reasoning behind preferences and behaviors?
How do they respond when asked to elaborate?
Do they over-elaborate - funny enough sometimes we have people who talk too much or who interrupt.
Bottom line - if the qualitative research is conversation-based, then you need a conversational screening style. How someone types their articulation and explanations is rarely the same as how they talk about it. So for focus groups or IDIs, this video screening is especially useful. If you're running an online board or set of online tasks - you may not need the video component if all of their responses will be provided in text format.
3. Early Rapport Building
Most humans are natural people pleasers and don't like disappointing others by not following through with things they've signed up for. These video meetings add a layer of commitment and a more personable touch which helps establish trust and authenticity for the rest of the fieldwork. The screening conversation establishes the relationship foundation:
Participants become comfortable sharing with a real person before the formal research begins
They develop clearer expectations about the research process
They feel valued as individuals rather than data points
Trust is established, leading to more authentic sharing later
We always ask at the end of the call if they have any questions for us. So often screening is a one-way discussion, and this prompts two-way dialogue. Can we answer every question? No, but we can explain why we can't answer or give a close-enough response. We want to encourage mutual understanding - their time is valuable.
"Anything Else?": A Double-Edged Sword
One of my favorite screening questions is simply: "Is there anything else you think we should know about you regarding this topic?" or similar "Is there anything else you'd like to share about this topic?"
This open-ended question often reveals crucial information that would never emerge from structured screening:
Sometimes it reveals disqualifying information participants didn't realize was relevant
Other times it uncovers unique experiences that make them exceptionally valuable
It demonstrates their ability to self-reflect and volunteer relevant information
It shows how they communicate when not responding to direct questions
The responses to this question can help or hurt a participant's chances depending on the study needs, but the insight it provides is invaluable either way.
The Case for Conversational Screening
While survey-based screening is efficient, conversational video screening offers benefits that directly impact research quality:
Reveals articulation ability - Critical for insight generation but impossible to measure in a survey
Assesses genuine engagement with the topic beyond technical qualification
Identifies red flags in communication style or participation readiness
Builds rapport that carries into the research process
Provides flexibility to explore unexpected but relevant participant characteristics
The initial investment in conversational screening pays dividends in research quality, with fewer no-shows, more engaged participants, and richer insights.
Disability as a Research Strength
My transition from moderating to recruitment wasn't just a career change—it was necessitated by progressive hearing loss. While this presented challenges, it also offered unexpected benefits:
It heightened my attention to non-verbal communication cues
It made me more attentive to how participants express themselves
It increased my empathy for different communication styles and needs
It drives my passion for ensuring research is accessible and inclusive
This experience reinforced that what might seem like limitations can actually enhance our ability to connect authentically with research participants.
The Recruitment Difference-Maker
The most insightful research moderator can only work with the participants they're given. By approaching recruitment with a moderator's mindset and through conversational screening, we transform participant selection from a filtering mechanism to a strategic research advantage.
When recruiters understand what moderators truly need—not just participants who qualify on paper, but people who can articulate their experiences, engage authentically, and contribute meaningfully—the entire research process benefits.
And when we design research engagement from the invite all the way through the compensation, we develop more respectful research methodologies that will have a lasting impression for the industry. This is especially important as there have been ongoing concerns about research quality and data integrity - in both qualitative and quantitative methods.
While no two screeners are identical, there are certainly glaringly obvious overlaps to this type of survey. Video screening isn’t the only solution to humanizing the process, yet it definitely helps establish a higher quality research relationship. We wouldn't have research data without people, and so we need to remember the human parts of the relationship.
