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 (388)
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Fieldwork monitoring and managing with time-related paradata; 2017; Vandenplas, C.
- Push2web or less is more? Experimental evidence from a mixed-mode population survey at the community...; 2017; Neumann, R.; Haeder, M.; Brust, O.; Dittrich, E.; von Hermanni, H.
- Rates, Delays, and Completeness of General Practitioners’ Responses to a Postal Versus Web-Based...; 2017; Sebo, P.; Maisonneuve, H.; Cerutti, B.; Pascal Fournier, J.; Haller, D. M.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.
- Improving survey response rates: The effect of embedded questions in web survey email Invitations; 2017; Liu, M.; Inchausti, N.
- Enhancing survey participation: Facebook advertisements for recruitment in educational research; 2017; Forgasz, H.; Tan, H.; Leder, G.; McLeod, A.
- Overview: Online Surveys; 2017; Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- “Better do not touch” and other superstitions concerning melanoma: the cross-sectional web...; 2016; Gajda, M.; Kamiñska-Winciorek, G.; Wydmañski, J.; Tukiendorf, A.
- Targeted Appeals for Participation in Letters to Panel Survey Members; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Population Survey Features and Response Rates: A Randomized Experiment; 2016; Guo, Y.; Kopec, J.; Cibere, J.; Li, L. C.; Goldsmith, C. H.
- The Effects of a Delayed Incentive on Response Rates, Response Mode, Data Quality, and Sample Bias in...; 2016; McGonagle, K., Freedman, V. A.
- Can Student Populations in Developing Countries Be Reached by Online Surveys? The Case of the National...; 2016; Langer, A., Meuleman, B., Oshodi, A.-G. T., Schroyens, M.
- How to maximize survey response rates ; 2016; DeVall, R.; Colby, C.
- Impact of Field Period Length and Contact Attempts on Representativeness for Web Survey ; 2016; Bertoni, N.; Turakhia, C.; Magaw, R.; Ackermann, A.
- Have You Taken Your Survey Yet? Optimum Interval for Reminders in Web Panel Surveys ; 2016; Kanitkar, K. N.; Liu, D.
- User Experience and Eye-tracking: Results to Optimize Completion of a Web Survey and Website Design ; 2016; Walton, L.; Ricci, K.; Libman Barry, A.; Eiginger, C.; Christian, L. M.
- A Multi-phase Exploration Into Web-based Panel Respondents: Assessing Differences in Recruitment, Respondents...; 2016; Redlawsk, D.; Rogers, K.; Borie-Holtz, D.
- Exploring the Feasibility of Using Facebook for Surveying Special Interest Populations ; 2016; Lee, C.; Jang, S.
- National Estimates of Sexual Minority Women Alcohol Use through Web Based Respondent Driven Sampling...; 2016; Farrell Middleton, D.; Iachan, R.; Freedner-Maguire, N.; Trocki, K.; Evans, C.
- User Experience Considerations for Contextual Product Surveys on Smartphones ; 2016; Sedley, A.; Mueller, H.
- Web Probing for Question Evaluation: The Effects of Probe Placement ; 2016; Fowler, S.; Willis, G. B.; Moser, R. P.; Townsend, R. L. M.; Maitland, A.; Sun, H.; Berrigan, D.
- Early-bird Incentives: Results From an Experiment to Determine Response Rate and Cost Effects ; 2016; De Santis, J.; Callahan, R.; Marsh, S.; Perez-Johnson, I.
- Effects of an Initial Offering of Multiple Survey Response Options on Response Rates; 2016; Steele, E. A.; Marlar, J.; Allen, L.; Kanitkar, K. N.
- How to Invite? Methods for Increasing Internet Surv ey Response Rate ; 2016; Huang, A. R.; Noel, H.; Hargraves, L.
- Reaching the Mobile Generation: Reducing Web Survey Non-response through SMS Reminders ; 2016; Kanitkar, K. N.; Marlar, J.
- "Don't be Afraid ... We're Researchers!": The Impact of Informal Contact Language...; 2016; Foster, K. N.; Hagemeier, N. E.; Alamain, A. A.; Pack, R.; Sevak, R. J.
- Does Embedding a Survey Question in the Survey Invi tation E-mail Affect Response Rates? Evidence from...; 2016; Vannette, D.
- Communication Channels that Predict and Mediate Self-response ; 2016; Walejko, G. K.
- Ballpoint Pens as Incentives with Mail Questionnaires – Results of a Survey Experiment; 2016; Heise, M.
- Non-Observation Bias in an Address-Register-Based CATI/CAPI Mixed Mode Survey; 2016; Lipps, O.
- Pre-Survey Text Messages (SMS) Improve Participation Rate in an Australian Mobile Telephone Survey:...; 2016; Dal Grande, E.; Chittleborough, C. R.; Campostrini, S.; Dollard, M.; Taylor, A. W.
- Effects of Personalization and Invitation Email Length on Web-Based Survey Response Rates; 2016; Trespalacios, J. H.; Perkins, R. A.
- Assessing targeted approach letters: effects in different modes on response rates, response speed and...; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Refining the Web Response Option in the Multiple Mode Collection of the American Community Survey; 2016; Hughes, T.; Tancreto, J.
- Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population The German Internet Panel; 2016; Blom, A. G.; Gathmann, C.; Krieger, U.
- Sample Representation and Substantive Outcomes Using Web With and Without Incentives Compared to Telephone...; 2016; Lipps, O.; Pekari, N.
- Collecting Data from mHealth Users via SMS Surveys: A Case Study in Kenya; 2016; Johnson, D.
- “Money Will Solve the Problem”: Testing the Effectiveness of Conditional Incentives for...; 2016; DeCamp, W.; Manierre, M. J.
- Effects of Incentive Amount and Type of Web Survey Response Rates; 2016; Coopersmith, J.; Vogel, L. K.; Bruursema, T.; Feeney, K.
- Effect of a Post-paid Incentive on Response to a Web-based Survey; 2016; Brown, J. A.; Serrato, C. A.; Hugh, M.; Kanter, M. H.; A.; Spritzer, K. L.; Hays, R. D.
- Reminder Effect and Data Usability on Web Questionnaire Survey for University Students; 2016; Oishi, T.; Mori, M.; Takata, E.
- Is One More Reminder Worth It? If So, Pick Up the Phone: Findings from a Web Survey; 2016; Lin-Freeman, L.
- Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey. ; 2016; Chen, J. S.; Sprague, B. L.; Klabunde, C. N.; Tosteson, A. N. A.; Bitton, A.; Onega, T.; MacLean, C....
- The effect of email invitation elements on response rate in a web survey within an online community; 2016; Petrovcic, A.; Petric, G.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data; 2016; Rouse, S. V.
- Doing Surveys Online ; 2016; Toepoel, V.
- A Privacy-Friendly Method to Reward Participants of Online-Surveys; 2015; Herfert, M.; Lange, B.; Selzer, A.; Waldmann, U.
- Incentive Types and Amounts in a Web-based Survey of College Students; 2015; Krebs, C.; Planty, M.; Stroop, J.; Berzofsky, M.; Lindquist, C.
- Using Mobile Phones for High-Frequency Data Collection; 2015; Azevedo, J. P.; Ballivian, A.; Durbin, W.