Web Survey Bibliography
Research in the field of mobile surveys is still in an early stage. While Web-Surveys amount to about 21% of all surveys in Germany, mobile surveys are not listed separately in the statistics yet. By contrast about 73% of the general population use mobile phones and only about 60% have internet access. Therefore the potential of mobile interviews is very high, as soon as this survey technique is applicable for the general population.
Similar to Web-Survey Research a few years ago, there is no standard for mobile research to date. Until today mobile phones served to send pre-notices for web-surveys (Bosnjak, et al.; in press), but were also used for online questionnaires directly via mobile internet. Displaying questionnaires within a Java application run offline on mobile phones, or conducting entire surveys by sending many SMS-messages to and fro are current applications of mobile research, too. As in stationary online research, it is expected that some survey methods will prevail while other methods vanish, just like sending word questionnaires by e-mail has become very uncommon.
This paper presents results of a qualitative comparative study processed with about 40 experts of the mobile telecommunication market. Including a preceding test of both methods, the study compares the mobile survey variants online and offline. This leads to findings on the following topics: Usability, estimation of public acceptance, useful applications for both methods as well as future expectations. The study is endorsed by data from an online case study. The findings of the presented paper will soon acquire very high relevance for both commercial and academic research.
Die Forschung zu mobilen Online-Befragungen befindet sich derzeit noch in einem frühen Stadium. Im Vergleich zu Web-Befragungen, die aktuell ca. 21% der Befragungen ausmachen, werden Mobile-Studien aktuell noch nicht separat in der Statistik aufgeführt. Die Verbreitung von Mobiltelefonen übertrifft jedoch mit einer Abdeckungsrate von ca. 73% deutlich die der Online-Zugänge (ca. 60%). Folglich liegt das Potential für mobile Online-Befragungen sehr hoch, wird diese Befragungstechnik für die Allgemeinbevölkerung einsetzbar.
Ähnlich wie noch vor einigen Jahren in der Online-Forschung, bestehen derzeit keine Standards für mobile Befragungen. Mobile Endgeräte wurden im Bereich der Umfrageforschung bisher dazu verwendet, SMS Vorankündigungen für Online-Befragungen zu versenden (Bosnjak, et al.; in Druck), direkt online im mobilen Internet zu befragen, Fragebögen offline zur Beantwortung anzuzeigen (Anwendung in Java) und komplette Befragungen über den Versand vieler einzelner SMS durchzuführen. Es ist zu erwarten, dass sich einige Befragungsmethoden durchsetzen, während andere wieder verschwinden, wie dies z.B. für E-Mail-Befragungen im stationären Online-Bereich der Fall war.
Der hier vorgestellte Beitrag präsentiert die Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Vergleichsstudie, die mit ca. 40 Experten des Mobilkommunikationsmarktes durchgeführt wurde. Die Studie kontrastiert die beiden Mobil-Erhebungsvarianten online und offline gegeneinander, nachdem die Befragten jeweils einen Nutzungstest abgeschlossen haben. Daraus ergeben sich Erkenntnisse zu den folgenden Themenbereichen: Usability, Akzeptanzeinschätzung, sinnvolle Anwendungsszenarien für beide Ansätze sowie zu Zukunftserwartungen. Die Ergebnisse dieser Studie werden durch Kennzahlen aus einer online durchgeführten Fallstudie ergänzt. Die Erkenntnisse der vorgestellten Studien sind sowohl für die kommerzielle, als auch für die akademische Forschung in naher Zukunft von großer Relevanz.
General online research (GOR) 2008 (abstract)
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Displaying Videos in Web Surveys: Implications for Complete Viewing and Survey Responses; 2017; Mendelson, J.; Lee Gibson, J.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Using experts’ consensus (the Delphi method) to evaluate weighting techniques in web surveys not...; 2017; Toepoel, V.; Emerson, H.
- Mind the Mode: Differences in Paper vs. Web-Based Survey Modes Among Women With Cancer; 2017; Hagan, T. L.; Belcher, S. M.; Donovan, H. S.
- Answering Without Reading: IMCs and Strong Satisficing in Online Surveys; 2017; Anduiza, E.; Galais, C.
- Ideal and maximum length for a web survey; 2017; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.
- Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey; 2017; Caputo, A.
- Web-Based Survey Methodology; 2017; Wright, K. B.
- Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; 2017; Liamputtong, P.
- Lessons from recruitment to an internet based survey for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: merits of...; 2017; Davies, B.; Kotter, M. R.
- Web Survey Gamification - Increasing Data Quality in Web Surveys by Using Game Design Elements; 2017; Schacht, S.; Keusch, F.; Bergmann, N.; Morana, S.
- Effects of sampling procedure on data quality in a web survey; 2017; Rimac, I.; Ogresta, J.
- Comparability of web and telephone surveys for the measurement of subjective well-being; 2017; Sarracino, F.; Riillo, C. F. A.; Mikucka, M.
- Achieving Strong Privacy in Online Survey; 2017; Zhou, Yo.; Zhou, Yi.; Chen, S.; Wu, S. S.
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote...; 2017; Breton, C.; Cutler, F.; Lachance, S.; Mierke-Zatwarnicki, A.
- Examining Factors Impacting Online Survey Response Ratesin Educational Research: Perceptions of Graduate...; 2017; Saleh, A.; Bista, K.
- Usability Testing for Survey Research; 2017; Geisen, E.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Paradata as an aide to questionnaire design: Improving quality and reducing burden; 2017; Timm, E.; Stewart, J.; Sidney, I.
- Fieldwork monitoring and managing with time-related paradata; 2017; Vandenplas, C.
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Interviewer Gender and Survey Responses: The Effects of Humanizing Cues Variations; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Krzewinska, A.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.
- Millennials and emojis in Spain and Mexico.; 2017; Bosch Jover, O.; Revilla, M.
- Where, When, How and with What Do Panel Interviews Take Place and Is the Quality of Answers Affected...; 2017; Niebruegge, S.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Nonresponses as context-sensitive response behaviour of participants in online-surveys and their relevance...; 2017; Wetzlehuetter, D.
- Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment...; 2017; Wenz, A.
- Predicting Breakoffs in Web Surveys; 2017; Mittereder, F.; West, B. T.
- Measuring Subjective Health and Life Satisfaction with U.S. Hispanics; 2017; Lee, S.; Davis, R.
- Humanizing Cues in Internet Surveys: Investigating Respondent Cognitive Processes; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.; Krzewinska, A.
- A Comparison of Emerging Pretesting Methods for Evaluating “Modern” Surveys; 2017; Geisen, E., Murphy, J.
- The Effect of Respondent Commitment on Response Quality in Two Online Surveys; 2017; Cibelli Hibben, K.
- Pushing to web in the ISSP; 2017; Jonsdottir, G. A.; Dofradottir, A. G.; Einarsson, H. B.
- The 2016 Canadian Census: An Innovative Wave Collection Methodology to Maximize Self-Response and Internet...; 2017; Mathieu, P.
- 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.
- In search of best practices; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; Steijn, S.
- Redirected Inbound Call Sampling (RICS); A New Methodology ; 2017; Krotki, K.; Bobashev, G.; Levine, B.; Richards, S.
- An Empirical Process for Using Non-probability Survey for Inference; 2017; Tortora, R.; Iachan, R.
- The perils of non-probability sampling; 2017; Bethlehem, J.
- A Comparison of Two Nonprobability Samples with Probability Samples; 2017; Zack, E. S.; Kennedy, J. M.
- 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.
- Necessary but Insufficient: Why Measurement Invariance Tests Need Online Probing as a Complementary...; 2017; Meitinger, K.
- Nonresponse in Organizational Surveying: Attitudinal Distribution Form and Conditional Response Probabilities...; 2017; Kulas, J. T.; Robinson, D. H.; Kellar, D. Z.; Smith, J. A.
- Theory and Practice in Nonprobability Surveys: Parallels between Causal Inference and Survey Inference...; 2017; Mercer, A. W.; Kreuter, F.; Keeter, S.; Stuart, E. A.
- Is There a Future for Surveys; 2017; Miller, P. V.
- Reducing speeding in web surveys by providing immediate feedback; 2017; Conrad, F.; Tourangeau, R.; Couper, M. P.; Zhang, C.
- Social Desirability and Undesirability Effects on Survey Response latencies; 2017; Andersen, H.; Mayerl, J.
- A Working Example of How to Use Artificial Intelligence To Automate and Transform Surveys Into Customer...; 2017; Neve, S.
- A Case Study on Evaluating the Relevance of Some Rules for Writing Requirements through an Online Survey...; 2017; Warnier, M.; Condamines, A.
- Estimating the Impact of Measurement Differences Introduced by Efforts to Reach a Balanced Response...; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; De Leeuw, E. D.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.