Web Survey Bibliography
"Dynamic form" is the generic heading for dynamic text fields and dynamic lists, two innovative ways of reactive data collection in self-administered online surveys.
Dynamic forms are considered a
Open-ended questions do not pose limitations on the respondent in choosing an answer. Closed questions often are faster to answer with little mental effort, offer the benefit of ease to standardization, and data gathered from closed-ended questions need little time for coding and lend themselves to statistical analysis. At first glance, _dynamic text fields_ do not differ from ordinary HTML text fields. However, upon beginning with an entry, suggestions for the most probable word are offered in an area below the text field. With each new letter these suggestions are readapted. At http://labs.google.com/suggest Google shows an example for the use of this technique in a search engine.
By using _dynamic lists_, even questions with large numbers of response categories that can be brought into an hierarchical order, can be answered like closed-ended questions. At first, the respondent sees only a single table with very general categories. As soon as one of these categories is selected, more specific choices appear in a second table. Finding the appropriate answer is supported by gradually offering chunks of more detailed descriptions.
Both kinds of dynamic forms are suitable for the measurement of variables more possible values than feasible in tradition al closed-ended questions (e.g. subject of study or classification of occupations).
Dynamic forms provide new ground in online research and have not been examined yet, for example regarding their influence on the quality of data or the cognitive processes underlying the response behavior. We postulate that there is a change from recall to recognition when using dynamic forms instead of open-ended questions. Consequently, number and quality of responses should increase.
ln the experimental panel studies presented, dynamic text fields and lists were compared with radio buttons, drop-down menus and standard text fields. Thereby, the influence of implementing dynamic forms on motivation to participate in a study, response times and efforts needed to code data were examined.
"Dynamische Formulare" ist der Oberbegriff fOr dynamische Textfelder und dynamische Listen, zwei innovative Arten reaktiver Datenerhebung in selbstadministrierten Onlinebefragungen.
Dynamische Formulare werden als eine Web-2.0-Technik angesehen. Wir zeigen hier, dass diese Technik genutzt werden kann, um die Vorteile offener und geschlossener Fragetypen miteinander zu verbinden. Offenen Fragen beschranken die Antwortm6glichkeit des Befragten nicht durch Vorgaben; geschlossenen Fragen lassen sich haufig schneller und mit geringerer kognitiver Beanspruchung beantworten und bieten den Vorteil der einfachen Standardisierung. Zudem k6nnen Daten, die mit geschlossenen Fragen erhoben wurden, schnell fOr statistische Auswertungen vercodet werden.
_Dynamische Textfelder_ sehen auf den ersten Blick genauso aus wie herk6mmliche HTML-Textfelder. Sobaid jedoch mit der Texteingabe begonnen wird, erscheinen in einem Bereich unterhalb des Eingabefeldes Vorschlage, welches Wort gerade wahrscheinlich eingegeben wird. Mit jedem weiteren eingegebenen Zeichen passen sich die Vorschlage an. Auf http://labs.google.com/suggest findet sich ein Beispiel fOr die Anwendung dieser Technik in einer Suchmaschine. _Dynamische Listen_ erm6glichen die geschlossene Erhebung von Items mit einer groflen Zahl von Auspragungen, die sich hierarchisch ordnen lassen. Zunachst sieht der Nutzer nur eine Tabelle mit allgemeinen Kategorien. Sobaid auf der obersten Ebene eine Kategorie gewahlt wird, erscheinen in einer zweiten Tabelle speziellere Auswahlm6glichkeiten. Das Finden der zutreffenden Antwort wird durch das stufenweise Darbieten von Chunks mit detaillierteren Informationen unterstutzt.
Dynamische Formulare sind wissenschaftliches Neuland. Bisher wurde nicht erforscht, ob ihr Einsatz einen Einfluss auf die DatengUte oder die kognitiven Prozesse hat, die dem Antwortverhalten zugrunde liegen. Wir postulieren, dass auf kognitiver Ebene ein Wechsel von Recall zu Recognition stattfindet, wenn dynamische Formulare anstelle von offenen Fragen genutzt werden.
ln den vorgestellten experimentellen Panel-Studien wurden dynamische TextfeIder und Listen mit Radiobuttons, Drop-down-Mens und herk6mmlichen Textfeldern verglichen. Dadurch konnte der Einfluss dynamischer Formulare auf die Teilnahmemotivation, die Datenqualitat, die Responsezeit und den Kodieraufwand analysiert werden .
Web survey bibliography (281)
- Overview: Online Surveys; 2017; Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Standard Definitions Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys; 2016
- Retrospective Measurement of Students’ Extracurricular Activities with a Self-administered Calendar...; 2016; Furthmueller, P.
- Pitfalls, Potentials, and Ethics of Online Survey Research: LGBTQ and Other Marginalized and Hard-to...; 2016; McInroy, L. B.
- Computer-assisted and online data collection in general population surveys; 2016; Skarupova, K.
- A Statistical Approach to Provide Individualized Privacy for Surveys; 2016; Esponda, F.; Huerta, K.; Guerrero, V. M.
- Social Media Analyses for Social Measurement; 2016; Schober, M. F.; Pasek, J.; Guggenheim, L.; Lampe, C.; Conrad, F. G.
- Doing Surveys Online ; 2016; Toepoel, V.
- An Overview of Mobile CATI Issues in Europe; 2015; Slavec, A.; Toninelli, D.
- Utilizing iPads in the Field; 2015; Kiser, P.
- Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys 2015; 2015
- The Web Survey Revolution ; 2015; Murray, D.
- Methodology of the RAND Mid-Term 2014 Election Panel; 2015; Carman, K. G; Pollack, S.
- 28 Questions to Help Buyers of Online Samples; 2015; Cape, P. J.; Phillips, A.; Baker, R.; Cooke, M.; Ribeiro, E.; Terhanian, G.
- Ethical decision-making and Internet research 2.0: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee...; 2015; Markham, A.; Buchanan, E. A.
- Doing online research involving university students with disabilities: Methodological issues; 2015; De Cesarei, A.; Baldaro, B.
- Exploring ethical issues associated with using online surveys in educational research; 2015; Roberts, L. D.; Allen, P. J.
- An Introduction to Survey Research; 2015; Cowles, E. L.; Nelson, E.
- Ethical issues in online research; 2015; James, N.; Busher, H.
- Leading Edge Insights: Foundations of Quality 2.0; 2014; Fuguitt, G.
- Methods and systems for managing an online opinion survey service; 2014; Mcloughlin, M. H., Seton, N., Blesy, K.
- Recent Books and Journals in Public Opinion, Survey Methods, and Survey Statistics; 2014; Callegaro, M.
- Undisclosed Privacy: The Effect of Privacy Rights Design on Response Rates; 2014; Haer, R., Meidert, N.
- Tailoring mode of data collection in longitudinal studies; 2013; Kaminska, O., Lynn, P.
- How do we Know Cognitive Interviewing is Any Good?; 2013; Willis, G. B.
- Quality of Web surveys; 2013; Revilla, M.
- Experiments in Obtaining Data Linkage Consent in Web Surveys ; 2013; Sakshaug, J. W., Kreuter, F.
- Response Burden in Official Business Surveys: Measurement and Reduction Practices of National Statistical...; 2013; Giesen, D., Bavdaz, M., Loefgren, T., Raymond-Blaess, V.
- Internet as a new source of information for the production of official statistics. Experiences of Statistics...; 2013; Heerschap, N.
- A standard with quality indicators for web panel surveys: a Swedish example; 2013; Nyfjaell, M.
- How Mobile Stacks Up to Traditional Online: A Comparison of Studies; 2013; Knowles, R.
- How to make your questionnaire mobile-ready; 2013; Cape, P. J.
- Phish Rising: How Internet Criminals are Undermining the Viability of Online Survey Research…and...; 2013; Kunovic, K.
- Self-Reported Participation in Research Practices Among Survey Methodology Researchers; 2013; Perez-Vergara, K., Smith, C., Lowenstein, C., Ozonoff, A., Martins, Y.
- Ethics, privacy and data security in web-based course evaluation; 2013; Salaschek, M., Meese, C., Thielsch, M.
- Beyond methodology - some ethical implications of "doing research online"; 2013; Heise, N.
- Code Comparison; 2012
- Evaluation procedures for Survey questions; 2012; Saris, W. E.
- Transparency, Access and the Credibility of Survey Research; 2012; Lupia, A.
- Anonymity and Confidentiality; 2012; Tourangeau, R.
- Cognitive Evaluation of Survey Instruments: State of the Science (Art?) and Future Directions; 2012; Willis, G. B.
- How to provide high data quality in online-questionnaires: Setting guidelines in design; 2012; Tries, S., Nebel, S., Blanke, K.
- Comparability of Survey Measurements; 2012; Oberski, D.
- Classification of Surveys; 2012; Stoop, I., Harrison, E.
- Enhancing Web Surveys With New HTML5 Input Types; 2012; Funke, F.
- Why one should incorporate the design weights when adjusting for unit nonresponse using response homogeneity...; 2012; Kott, P. S.
- Assessing the Quality of Survey Data ; 2012; Blasius, J.
- Designing and Doing Survey Research; 2012; Andres, L.
- Using break-offs in web interviews for predicting web response in mixed mode surveys; 2011; Beukenhorst, D.
- Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys 2011; 2011