TABLE 1.

Factors to consider when choosing software for moderated online data collection.

Accessibility	Software should ideally be easy to obtain and use, especially for participants. In addition to monetary concerns or internet access (Lourenco and Tasimi, 2020), the need for technical skills, time (e.g., for downloading and installing new software), or specific hardware (e.g., Facetime requires Apple OS) can create barriers to participation. Intuitive software also makes online research easier for both experimenters and participants by reducing time spent setting up and troubleshooting sessions. Using software that many people already have and know how to use can alleviate this issue. Note, however, that accessibility is always relative to a particular population at a particular time; software that is suitable for one population may not necessarily be so for others. For example, Zoom became a more accessible option for conducting developmental research in the United States following the COVID-19 pandemic as more families downloaded and used Zoom in their day-to-day lives for work and remote schooling. As trends in software usage change over time for a given population, researchers should continue to adapt their methodologies accordingly.
Functionality	A software’s user interface, customizability, and security features determine how studies are conducted and the extent to which researchers can customize participants’ online experience. Importantly, security standards regarding recording and storage of online sessions vary across institutions and countries; researchers should keep these in mind when assessing the level of security a given software provides. Additionally, while basic video- and screen-sharing as well as text-chat functionalities are common in most software, the details vary in a number of ways, including how users customize what they can view on screen and how recording is implemented (e.g., local vs. cloud storage). More broadly, intuitive design and real-time flexibility often trades off with precise structure and customization options. Some software (e.g., Adobe Connect) allows experimenters to predetermine the layout of participants’ screens before sessions, and others (e.g., Zoom) automatically generate participants’ layouts and allow participants to modify their layout in real time (following instructions from experimenters). While the former type is ideal for experiments that require precise control over what participants view on screen, the latter type of software is more suitable for sessions involving rapid transitions between multiple experiments with different visual layouts.
Robustness	Recurring lag, audio or video problems, and even login errors can slow down or derail an online session. Although technical issues can also occur in person, issues can be more difficult to resolve in remote interactions where experimenters have limited means to understand participants’ issues. Therefore, it is important to test the frequency and duration of technical issues on both experimenters’ and participants’ ends before committing to a particular video-conferencing software. Depending on the software, screen-sharing or streaming large video or audio files can contribute to unwanted lag or delays. Further, their severity can vary depending on connection speed or devices used by both experimenters and participants. For experiments that rely on precise timing of presented stimuli, researchers might consider presentation methods that do not rely on screen-sharing (e.g., hosting video stimuli on servers or other platforms where participants can access directly, such as online video-hosting or slide-presentation services). If there are consistent participant-end issues that impact the fidelity of a study, researchers can also set explicit criteria for participation (e.g., must use a laptop or cannot use a phone signal-based internet connection).