Web Survey Bibliography
Title Ranking vs. Rating in an online Environment
Author Neubarth, W.
Year 2006
Access date 21.09.2006
Abstract The use of ranking scales is a controversial topic in social science. Since the Rockeach Value Survey (RVS) (1963) there is persistent discussion about the pros and cons of the rank ordering approach. The main argument against ranking is its complicated and expensive implementation in self administered surveys. Even though the number of objects is small, respondents are cognitively overstrained by writing the rank number next to the corresponding object. This leads to weak data quality and high non response. But if concentration is desired or the objects are likely to cause floor and ceiling effects, ranking exceeds rating. For this reasons Rockeach insisted on the rank ordering task for his 18 value items. He sent out gummed value labels to be pasted in the personal rank order of each respondent. This method leads to valid results, but is very laborious and costly. So it never became popular. To field rankings on the Internet with the standard HTML language likewise leads to unsatisfactory results. But using JavaScript, which is activated by approximately 99% of users, opens a whole new dimension of data collection. The graphical objects can freely be manipulated by drag & drop functions to result in the respondent’s personal rank order. But classical rank order approach does not allow the user to built ties. So a new method was implemented to allow the user a metric arrangement of the 18 instrumental values of the RVS. As a third condition classical rating was implemented. Even this was hard to answer, without graphical aid. So a highlighting method was developed to keep the respondents in the right line. The presentation will show when to use ranking scales from a methodological perspective. A catalogue of different possibilities of operationalisations will be given. Then the results of an experimental study comparing the ranking, rating and the “metric” ranking options will be provided. Besides objective criteria like drop out and item non-response, soft indicators like sensed suitability for the task, perceived burden and technical complexity will be contrasted.
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.