Web Survey Bibliography
The item count technique is an indirect questioning technique that is used to estimate the proportion of people who have engaged in stigmatizing behavior. This technique is expected to yield a more appropriate estimate than the ordinary direct questioning technique because it requests respondents to indicate, based on a list of several items, simply the number of items that are applicable to them, including the target key item. An experimental web survey was conducted in an attempt to compare the direct questioning technique and the item count technique. Compared with the direct questioning technique, the item count technique yielded higher estimates of the proportion of shoplifters by nearly 10 percentage points, whereas the difference between the estimates using these two techniques was mostly insignificant with respect to innocuous blood donation. The survey results suggest that in the item count technique respondents tend to report fewer total behaviors compared to the direct question case. This tendency is more pronounced in the case of longer item lists. Three domain estimators for the item count technique were compared, and the cross-based method appeared to be the most appropriate method. Large differences in domain estimates for shoplifting between the item count and direct questioning techniques were found among female respondents, middle-aged respondents, respondents living in urban areas, and highly-educated respondents.
Journal Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Web Survey Bibliography - Online measurement (786)
- The place for mobile research? Multi-mode studies of major cultural events; 2011; Conry, S., Atkinson, S.
- How far is too far: Traditional, flash and gamification interfaces, and implications for the future...; 2011; Puleston, J., Malinoff, B.
- The Evolution of Edits in the Canadian Census of Population Online Questionnaires; 2011; Laroche, D.
- The Main Innovations of Data Editing and Imputation for the 2010 Italian Agricultural Census ; 2011; Bianchi, G., Lipsi, R. M., Ruocco, G., Salvatore, M. A.
- Wages worldwide results and measurement issues from the multi-country. WageIndicator web-survey ; 2011; van Klaveren, M., Tijdens, K.
- A Methodological Inference towards the Quantification of Technological Frames ; 2011; Cachia, E., Camilleri, P.
- 2nd WEBDATANET Meeting Amsterdam. Global Data Collecting; 2011; van Beveren, I.
- DIME-SHS; 2011; Lesnard, L.
- Calibrating Non-Probability Internet Samples with Probability Samples Using Early Adopter Characteristics...; 2011; DiSogra, C., Cobb, C. L., Chan, E., Dennis, J. M.
- Web Survey Methodology: Interface Design, Sampling and Statistical Inference; 2011; Couper, M. P.
- Dropout rates during completion of an occupation search tree in web-surveys; 2011; Tijdens, K.
- Ignoring the compatibility of online questionnaires may bias the psychological composition of your sample...; 2011; Funke, F.
- New data sources for statistics: Experiences at Statistics Netherlands; 2011; Daas, P., ten Bosch, O., de Blois, C., Hoekstra, R., Roos, M.
- Further research on the design of complex grids; 2011; Couper, M. P., Tourangeau, R.Conrad, F. G., Zhang, C.
- Interactive carrots and sticks to improve data quality; 2011; Conrad, F. G., Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P., Zhang, C.
- Optimum Blending of Panels and Social Network Respondents; 2011; Gittelman, S. H., Portner, A.
- Making the move to mobile Apps-based research: A case study in the evaluation and implementation of...; 2011; Graham, P., Conry, S.
- Once a 'Bad' Respondent, Always a 'Bad' Respondent - How to Identify and Exclude '...; 2011; Suresh, N.
- Dealing with the Effects of Panelist Experience; 2011; Burdein, I.
- Results from Real-Time Data Collection (RTD) vs. Data from Traditional Panelists: Is it valid to combine...; 2011; Pingitore, G., Witten, S., Walker, A., Seldin, D., Ellrodt, R., Muns, N., Parks, C., Serrato, C.
- Widening the Net: A Comparison of Online Intercept and Access Panel Sampling; 2011; Bakken, D. G., Nawani, R.
- Does choice of vendor make a difference in respondent validation and how does it impact the overall...; 2011; Courtright, M., Miller, C.
- Probably the Best Bias in the World?; 2011; Dent, T.
- The development of the KubeMatrix™ as a mobile app for Market Research Online Communities; 2011; Birks, D. F., Wilson, D.
- The Research-Data-Centre in Research-Data-Centre Approach: A First Step Towards Decentralised International...; 2011; Bender, S., Heining, J.
- First Equals Most Important? Order Effects in Vignette- Based Measurement; 2011; Auspurg, K., Jaeckle, A.
- Using Online Surveys to Conduct Jury Research; 2011; Edelman, B.
- The “Frequency Divide” on Web Surveys: Opinions, Behaviours and Demographics Differences...; 2011; Reis, E., Vicente, P.
- Researching Personal Information on the Public Web - Methods and Ethics; 2011; Wilkinson, D., Thelwall, M.
- Apples and oranges: does a web survey produce similar results to social media tracking?; 2011; Bourque, C., Hobbs, R., Hilaire, D. S.
- The influence of Social Support and Personal Networks on Doctoral Student Performance; 2011; Hlebec, V., Kogovsek, T., Ferligoj, A.
- From Busy Bees to Science Geeks and Party Animals: A Typology of Slovenian Doctoral Students; 2011; Hlebec, V., Kogovsek, T., Ferligoj, A.
- PhD Students’ Research Group Social Capital in Two Countries: A Clustering Approach with Duocentred...; 2011; Coenders, G., Coromina, L., Ferligoj, A., Guia, J.
- Preface; 2011; Coenders, G., Doreian, P.
- Preferences, intentions, and expectation violations: A large-scale experiment with a representative...; 2011; Bellemare. C., Kroeger, S., van Soest, A.
- Twitter mood predicts the stock market.; 2011; Bollen, J., Mao, H., Zeng, X.-J.
- Exploring Health-related Experiences and Access to Care: Differences between Online and Telephone Survey...; 2011; Doty, M. M., Peugh, J., Shand-Lubbers, J.
- The Impact of “Forgiving” Introductions on the Reporting of Sensitive Behavior in Surveys...; 2011; Peter, J., Valkenburg, P. M.
- Surveying the General Public over the Internet Using Address-Based Sampling and Mail Contact Procedures...; 2011; Messer, B. L., Dillman, D. A.
- The power of qualitative research in the era of social media; 2011; Branthwaite, A., Patterson, S.
- E-Census 2011 Portugal: implementation and results of the Pilot Survey; 2011; Vicente, P., Rosa, A., Reis, E.
- Sampling v. Scale: An investigation the tension between convenience sampling, response rates, probability...; 2011; Garland, P.
- Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk for the recruitment of participants in Internet-based research; 2011; Reips, U. -D., Buffardi, L., Kuhlmann, T.
- Should we use the progress bar in online surveys? A meta-analysis of experiments manipulating progress...; 2011; Callegaro, M., Yang, Y., Villar, A.
- In the market for an online panel? What clients need to know; 2011; Hartmann, S.
- How Procter & Gamble worked to develop online data quality guidelines; 2011; Gloeckler, D.
- Web/Cloud Based CATI Using queXS; 2011; Zammit, A.
- Developing Paradata Tools to Maximize Call Center Conversion Rates; 2011; Heinrich, T., Pittman, J., Abu, K.
- e-Collection at Statistics Canada; 2011; Faid, M.
- Developing and Implementing Adaptive Total Design (ATD); 2011; Carley-Baxter, L. R., Mitchell, S., Peytchev, A., Day, O.

