Web Survey Bibliography
Title A Comparison of the validity of a paper based and an online Conjoint Analysis
Author Klein, A., Scheffold, K.
Year 2006
Access date 20.09.2006
Abstract The data for a Conjoint Analysis is traditionally gathered by personal interviews. Hence, reaching a sample, which is big enough for a Conjoint Analysis, is highly expensive and time consuming. By changing the data collection process from a paper based personal interview to the Internet, it is easier to contact larger number of people within a shorter amount of time. In addition, collecting the data on the Internet is a more cost effective method compared to a paper based personal interview. However, it is questionable if the data, which is gathered by using the World Wide Web is of the same quality as data, which is gathered the traditional way. Therefore, a scientific study was conducted in order to compare the validity of two data sets, where one data set was the result of a paper based survey and the other data was the result of an online survey. To be able to compare the two methods an online survey and a paper based survey were conducted for four weeks each. However, the two samples did not consist of the same test persons. But the demographic, gender and the profession of the persons who took part in the surveys was similar. In addition, the test questions were identical. While taking the survey the test persons were asked to rank and rate nine specific MP3 players according to their preference. These specific products were derived from an orthogonal main effect plan. Since ranking and rating nine different stimuli is a rather complicated task, it had to be assured that the test persons could visually move the stimuli. This was accomplished by using special HTML code in order to move the nine products on a test person’s computer screen. Special product cards for the paper based survey assured that the test persons, who took part in the paper based survey also had the possibility to visually rank the nine products. At the end of the questionnaire several questions about the degree of difficulty had to be answered on a six point rating scale by the test persons. The comparison of the data is done in two ways. First the personal judgments of the test persons regarding the degree of difficulty are compared. Second certain validity criteria are used to compare the quality of the data on an individual as well as on aggregate level e.g. face validity, internal validity (e.g. Persons R and Kendalls tau) and prognostic validity (e.g. Hit Rate).
Access/Direct link Conference homepage (abstract)
Year of publication2006
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Full text availabilityNon-existant
Web survey bibliography - 2006 (98)
- Adult gadget ownership over time (2006-2012); 2012
- Dutch Online Panel Comparison Study (NOPVO); 2006; R. van Ossenbruggen; T. Vonk; P. Willems
- Migration Watch: an Internet survey to monitor spring migration in Britain and Ireland; 2006; Baillie, S. R., Balmer, D. E., Downie, I. S., Wright, K. H. M.
- Substance use and sexual behaviours of Japanese men who have sex with men: A nationwide internet survey...; 2006; Hidaka, Y., Ichikawa, S., Koyano, J., Urao, M., Yasuo, T., Kimura, H., Kihara, M., Ono-Kihara, M.
- Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing: Mode Effects on Data Quality and Likely Causes. Report...; 2006; Jaeckle, A., Lynn, P., Roberts, C.,
- DADOS-Survey: an open-source application for CHERRIES-compliant Web surveys; 2006; Shah, A., Jacobs, D. O., Martins, H., Harker, M., Menezes, A., Harker, M., McCready, M., Pietrobon,...
- Snowball Sampling ; 2006; Berg, S.
- Introduction nonresponse bias in household surveys ; 2006; Singer, E.
- Essential Steps for Web Surveys: A Guide to Designing, Administering and Utilizing Web Surveys for University...; 2006; Cheskis-Gold, R., Loescher, R., Shepard-Rabadam, E., Carroll, B.
- Don't make me think: a common sense approach to web usability; 2006; Krug, S.
- The use of an Internet-based Ask the Doctor Service involving family physicians: evaluation by a web...; 2006; Umefjord, G., Hamberg, K., Malker, H., Petersson, G.
- A short introduction to usability in online surveys; 2006; Kaczmirek, L.
- Measuring task-specific perceptions of the world wide web ; 2006; Page-Thomas, K.
- Oversurveying: Causes, Consequences, and Cures; 2006; Weiner, S. P., Dalessio, A. T.
- Online Reporting: Real Time, Real Impact, Real Opportunities ; 2006; Barbera, K. M., Young, S.
- Online Surveys: Critical Issues in Using the Web to Conduct Surveys; 2006; Fenlason, K., Suckow-Zimberg, K.
- Getting Action from Organizational Surveys: New Concepts, Technologies, and Applications; 2006; Kraut, A. I.
- Survey Methodology; 2006; Nusser, S. M.
- Web-based survey techniques. A synthesis of Transit practice; 2006
- Web 2.0 & panels. The shift from lectures to conversations; 2006; Cook, M., Buckley, N.
- Understanding people. Sample matching; 2006; Rivers, D.
- The power of the visible: Visual design for Web surveys; 2006; Couper, M. P.
- The internet response method: Impact on the Canadian Census of population data; 2006; Roy, L., Laroche, D.
- The effect of conditioning when re-interviewing; 2006; Cartwright, T., Nancarrow, C.
- The anonymous elect. Market research through online access panels; 2006; Postoaca, A.
- Statistics for real-life sample surveys: non-simple-random samples and weighted data; 2006; Dorofeev, S., Grant, P.
- Sample matching. Representative sampling from Internet panels; 2006; Rivers, D.
- Research quality: The next MR industry challenge; 2006; Dedeker, K.
- Optimizing quality in the use of web-based and computer based testing for personnel selection; 2006; Hornke, L. F., Kersting, M.
- Online marketing research; 2006; Miller, J.
- Need for high quality auxiliary data service for improving the quality of editing and imputation...; 2006; Laaksonen, S.
- Microsoft sues testing material vendors; 2006; Johnston, S. J.
- Introduction to the Special Issue on the ITC - Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet-Delivered Testing...; 2006; Coyne, I., Bartram, D.
- International Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet-Delivered Testing; 2006
- How successful I am depends on what number I get: The effects of numerical scale labels and need for...; 2006; Yan, T.
- Greenfield unveils real-time sampling; 2006
- Global market research 2006; 2006
- F-Shaped pattern for reading web content; 2006; Nielsen, J.
- Blocked versus randomized format of questionnaires. A confirmatory multigroup analysis; 2006; Sparfeldt, J. R., Schilling, S. R., Rost, D. H., Rost, D. H., Thiel, A.
- Benefits and challenges of multi-sourcing. Understanding differences between sample sources; 2006; de Gaudemar, O.
- Behavioral self-report measures. International extensions; 2006; Thomas, R. K., Klein, J. D.
- Attitudinal differences. Comparing people who belong to multiple versus single panels; 2006; Casdas, D., Fine, B., Menictas, C.
- Assessing individual respondents' quality. An innovative scoring system; 2006; Loeb, C.,Hartmann, A.
- Assessing Panel Bias in the Knowledge Networks Panel: Updated Results from 2005 Research ; 2006; Pineau, V., Nukulkij, P., Tang, X.
- A Critical Assessment of Online Survey Tools; 2006; Marra, R. M., Bogue, B.
- A dynamic technique for conducting online survey-based research; 2006; Bonometti, R. J., Tang, J.
- The 2006 Confirmit Annual MR Software Survey; 2006; Macer, T., Wilson, S.
- Online community survey: an effectiveness measure for revealing citizen preferences in their role as...; 2006; Martin Juanil, D., Ismail, M.
- Blaise – Alive and kicking for 20 years; 2006; Bethlehem, J., Hofman, L.
- Physical or Virtual Presence of the Experimenter: Psychological Online-Experiments in Different Settings...; 2006; Ollesch, H., Heineken, E., Schulte, F. P.