Web Survey Bibliography
It is generally accepted that conducting surveys online is both faster and cheaper than other, more traditional, survey methodologies. Such advantages have helped to drive the growth of online surveys over recent years. In addition to the growth of online surveys, respondents are increasingly required to answer more personal and sensitive questions online. It is therefore important to investigate and understand the behaviour of respondents to sensitive questions in surveys in order to ensure the most effective methodology is employed.
A salient issue in online survey research is the removal of an interviewer. This is particularly relevant when dealing with sensitive topics - when the lack of interviewer presence can remove response bias. Much research has demonstrated that surveys administered online, without an interviewer being present, are characterised by higher levels of self disclosure (Weisband and Kiesler 1996), an increased willingness to answer sensitive questions (Tourangeau 2004) and reductions in socially desirable responding (Frick et al. 2001; Joinson 1999). Furthermore, survey methodologies that reduce the level of question administration by human interviewers (e.g. via computer-aided self interviews) also increase responses to sensitive personal questions and yield more honest, candid answers.
As part of the ongoing experimental work at Ipsos MORI we are investigating the affect of different survey methodologies on respondents’ behaviour to sensitive questions.
In the present paper we present a two part study. Part 1 searches evidence of survey mode effect on disclosure levels and examines data consisting of participants interviewed in one of three conditions. In condition one, 1,645 members of the Ipsos Online Panel completed an online survey. In condition two, 902 were interviewed offline, face-to-face using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) interviewing. Finally, in condition three, 1028 participants were again interviewed offline, using Computer Assisted Self Interviewing (CASI). Direct comparison were possible between the two offline samples. Allocation to the online sample, on the other hand, was not randomized thus propensity score adjustment was applied to control for possible confounding of online/offline comparisons. Respondents were asked more than 50 questions about a variety of topics from politics to media consumption. Within these questions respondents were asked five which were deemed as sensitive. The topics for the sensitive items covered: immigration, adultery, drink driving, abortion, and attitudes toward debt.
Part 2 examined the association between the level of sensitivity and level of disclosure, and specifically any differences between the three survey modes. To estimate the social sensitivity an ad hoc panel of five experienced independent social researchers sampled from a larger pool of experts and were asked to rank levels of sensitivity of each of the five questions. After passing reliability tests of agreement between raters the estimated sensitivity was correlated with item disclosure level by mode.
Finally, implications for the handling of sensitive questions in survey research are discussed.
Web survey bibliography (286)
- Paradata as an aide to questionnaire design: Improving quality and reducing burden; 2017; Timm, E.; Stewart, J.; Sidney, I.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.
- Using Mixed Methods to Research the Professional Development Needs of English Teacher Educators in PCET...; 2017; Eliahoo, R.
- The Failure of the Polls: Lessons Learned from the 2015 UK Polling Disaster; 2017; Sturgis, P.
- Web based health surveys: Using a Two Step Heckman model to examine their potential for population health...; 2016; Morrissey, K.; Kinderman, P.; Pontin, E.; Tai, S.; Schwannauer, M.
- Fieldwork Effort, Response Rate, and the Distribution of Survey Outcomes: A Multilevel Meta-analysis; 2016; Sturgis, P.; Williams, Jo.; Brunton-Smith, I.; Moore, J.
- Gamifying. Not all fun and games; 2016; Stubington, P.; Crichton, C.
- Are interviews costing £0.08 a waste of money? Reviewing Google Surveys for Wisdom of the Crowd...; 2016; Roughton, G.; MacKay, I.
- Observations from Twelve Years of an Annual Market Research Technology Survey; 2016; Macer, T.; Wilson, S.
- FocusVision 2015 Annual MR Technology Report; 2016; Macer, T., Wilson, S.
- Last Year Your Answer Was … The Impact of Dependent Interviewing Wording and Survey Factors on...; 2016; Al Baghal, T.
- Gamifying Questions Using Text Alone; 2016; Cape, P. J.
- Eye-tracking Social Desirability Bias; 2016; Kaminska, O.; Foulsham, T.
- Assessing targeted approach letters: effects in different modes on response rates, response speed and...; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Report of the Inquiry into the 2015 British general election opinion polls; 2016; Sturgis, P., Baker, N., Callegaro, M., Fisher, St., Green, J., Jennings, W., Kuha, J., Lauderdale, B...
- The Validity of Surveys: Online and Offline; 2016; Wiersma, W.
- Revisiting “yes/no” versus “check all that apply”: Results from a mixed modes...; 2016; Nicolaas, G.; Campanelli, P.; Hope, S.; Jaeckle, A.; Lynn, P.
- Adapting Labour Force Survey questions from interviewer-administered modes for web self-completion in...; 2015; Betts, P.; Cubbon, B.
- Recent Books and Journals Articles in Public Opinion, Survey Methods, Survey Statistics, and Big Data...; 2015; Callegaro, M.
- Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment...; 2015; Boerger, T.
- Using equivalence testing to disentangle selection and measurement in mixed modes surveys ; 2015; Cernat, A.
- Polling Error in the 2015 UK General Election: An Analysis of YouGov’s Pre and Post-Election Polls...; 2015; Wells, A.; Rivers, D.
- The Cathie Marsh lecture: What does the failure of the polls tell us about the future of survey research...; 2015; Sturgis, P., Matheson, J.
- Understanding Society Innovation Panel Wave 7: Results from Methodological Experiments; 2015; Blom, A. G.; Burton, J.; Booker, C. L.; Cernat, A.; Fairbrother, M.; Jaeckle, A.; Kaminska, O.; Keusch...
- Email subject lines and response rates to invitations to participate in a web survey and a face-to-face...; 2015; Sappleton, N.; Lourenco, F.
- Validity of Internet-Based Longitudinal Study Data: The Elephant in the Virtual Room; 2015; Pugh, C. A.; Summers, K. M.; Bronsvoort, M. C.; Handel, I. G.; Clements, D. N.
- Challenges with Online Research for Couples and Families: Evaluating Nonrespondents and the Differential...; 2015; Busby, D. M.; Yoshida, Ke.
- Gamification in market research: Increasing enjoyment, participant engagement and richness of data,...; 2015; Bailey, P.; Pritchard, G.; Kernohan, H.
- Going Online with a Face-to-Face Household Panel: Effects of a Mixed Mode Design on Item and Unit Non...; 2015; Burton, J.; Jaeckle, A.; Lynn, P.
- Adapting an interviewer - administered survey for web self - completion in a mixed - mode design ; 2015; Betts, P.; Cubbon, B.
- Technology and Reporting of Daily Activities – Considerations for Analysis of Behaviours in Mixed...; 2015; Fisher, K.; Gershuny, J.
- Measurement Error in Discontinuous Online Survey Panels: Panel Conditioning and Data Quality; 2015; Atkeson, L. R.; Adams, A. N.; Karp, J. A.
- The importance of scale direction between different modes; 2015; Agalioti-sgompou, V.
- The effect of response formats on data quality and comparability across online PC and smartphone surveys...; 2015; Cleary, A.; Allum, N.; Kolbas, V.
- A web-based survey of United Kingdom sedation practice in the intensive care unit; 2015; Yassin, S. M., Yassin, J., Terblanche, M., McKenzie, C. A.
- The Use of Cognitive Interviewing Methods to Evaluate Mode Effects in Survey Questions; 2014; Gray, M., Blake, M., Campanelli, P.
- FocusVision 2014 Annual MR Technology Report; 2014; Macer, T., Wilson, S.
- Do your own online surveys. DYI and self serve market research; 2014; Cary, N.
- Nonprobability Web Surveys to Measure Sexual Behaviors and Attitudes in the General Population: A Comparison...; 2014; Erens, B.; Burkill, S.; Couper, M. P.; C., Clifton, S., Tanton, C., Phelps, A., Datta, J., Mercer,...
- 640 Current trends in management of high-risk prostate cancer in Europe: Results of a web-based survey...; 2014; Briganti, A., Isbarn, H., Ost, P., Ploussard, G., Sooriakumaran, P., Van Den Bergh, R.C.N., Van Oort...
- Is Vague Valid? The Comparative Predictive Validity of Vague Quantifiers and Numeric Response Options...; 2014; Al Baghal, T.
- Improving Survey Response Rates in Online Panels Effects of Low-Cost Incentives and Cost-Free Text Appeal...; 2014; Pedersen, M. J., Nielsen, C. V.
- The role of email addresses and email contact in encouraging web response in a mixed mode design ; 2014; Cernat, A., Lynn, P.
- Mixed-mode surveys of the general population - Results from the European Social Survey mixed-mode experiment...; 2014; Park, A., Humphrey, A.
- Measurement effects between CAPI and Web questionnaires in the UK Household Longitudinal Study; 2014; Lynn, P., Vannieuwenhuyze, J. T. A.
- Role of mode in respondents’ decisions to participate in IP5: findings from a qualitative follow...; 2014; Collins, D., Mitchell, Ma.
- Understanding Society Innovation Panel Wave 6: results from methodological experiments; 2014; Allum, N., Auspurg, K., Blake, M., Booker, C. L., Crossley, T. F., D'ardenne, J., Fairbrother, M., Iacovou...
- The untold story of multi-mode (online and mail) consumer panels; 2014; McCutcheon, A. L., Rao, K., Kaminska, O.
- A critical review of studies investigating the quality of data obtained with online panels based on...; 2014; Callegaro, M., Villar, A., Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A.
- Recent Books and Journals in Public Opinion, Survey Methods, and Survey Statistics; 2014; Callegaro, M.