Web Survey Bibliography
To date, researchers have assumed that continuums ranging from left to right (or top to bottom) and positive to negative (or negative to positive) are the optimal questionnaire format. This format is thought to encourage reading of all scale points and to promote comprehension of the words used for each response option. If verbal labels are constructed by researchers as arrayed in a continuum, then what respondents might actually be doing is ranking a construct according to its slot on a continuum relative to other constructs measured using the same type of scale.
This study compares the results yielded by two types of rating scales. One scale was designed to mimic the conventional scales widely used in survey research with response options fully labeled verbally. The second set of scales was presented one of four ways; 1) a slider with five verbal labels on it, exactly mimicking a traditional Likert scale, but with tick marks along the scale, 2) a slider with five tick marks on it, but only the end points labelled with the text anchors, 3) a slider with no tick marks and with only the end points labelled with the text anchors, 4) a slider with anchors but no tick marks but with the actual “numerical score” displayed as the slider is moved. Respondents in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and China were members of an online panel and were randomly assigned to receive either the conventional, verbal, presentation or one of the four visual presentations.
Respondents report a preference for the slider approach because it allows for more accurate opinion reporting. The results suggest that using a slider rather than a traditional Likert scale will produce the same mean scores. It would therefore seem likely that the slider scales would also increase levels of engagement, which in turn could improve data quality by reducing satisficing. On the other hand, sliders take longer to complete, which may decrease quality (although completion time may decrease somewhat as respondents become used to using the slider). Additional analyses will illuminate which type of scale yields greater predictive validity.
Conference homepage (abstract)
Web survey bibliography - Germany (361)
- Are well-selected panelists better respondents? Insights into the effect of a master screener on panel...; 2010; Irmer, C., Tress, F.
- Selection Bias in Web Surveys and the Use of Propensity Scores in Forecasting the Result of the 2009...; 2010; Musch, J., Ullrich, S., Diedenhofen, D.
- Self-administered mobile surveys: Usability and (non)participation; 2010; Scherrer, S., Bosnjak, M.
- Social desirability and self-reported health risk behaviors in web-based research: three longitudinal...; 2010; Crutzen, R., Goeritz, A.
- Security and Data Protection: Collection, Storage, Feedback in Internet Research; 2010; Thiele, O., Kaczmirek, L.
- Methoden der Online-Forschung; 2010; Welker, M., Wünsch, C.
- Online-Befragungen im Kontext von Lehrevaluationen – praktisch und unzuverlässig; 2010; Meinefeld, W.
- The Effects of Different Incentives on Data Quantity and Data Quality in Online Panels; 2010; Singh, R. K., Voggeser, B. J., Goeritz, A.
- Breakoff in Web Surveys of the German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES); 2010; Blumenstiel, J. E., Roßmann, J., Steinbrecher, M.
- The longitudinal effect of incentives on participation and data quality in online panels; 2010; Neumann, B. P., Goeritz, A.
- The denominator problem: Estimating MSM-specific incidence of sexually transmitted infections and prevalence...; 2009; Marcus, U., Schmidt, A. J., Kollan, C., Hamouda, O.
- Mobile surveys from a technological perspective; 2009; Pferdekämper, T., Batanic, B.
- The Effect of Phrasing Scale Items in Low-Brow or High-Brow Language on Responses; 2009; Blasius, J., Friedrichs, J.
- Continuous Measurement of Musically-Induced Emotion: A Web Experiment ; 2009; Egermann, H., Nagel, F., Altenmueller, E., Kopiez, R.
- Methodeneffekte von Web-Befragungen: Soziale Erwünschtheit vs. Soziale Entkontextualisierung; 2009; Taddicken, M.
- A Comparison of Different Survey Periods in Online Surveys of Persons with Eating Disorders and Their...; 2009; Wesemann, D., Grunwald, A., Grunwald, M.
- Are telephone Surveys a dying bread. How declining response rates can be explained and resolved; 2009; Degen, M., Obermüller, A., Schielicke, A.-M.
- Are people sharing their mobile phones? Selection probabilities in cellular telephone surveys; 2009; Fuchs, M., Busse, B.
- Accuracy of Estimates in Access Panel based Surveys; 2009; Enderle, T., Münnich, R., Bruch, C.
- Survey cooperation: response to initial and follow-up requests - Recent experiences from the recruitment...; 2009; Bartsch, S., Engel, U., Schnabel, C., Vehre, H.
- Using Mobile Phones to Administer a Working Memory Updating Task in a Survey - Cognitive Performance...; 2009; Schmiedek, F., Riediger, M., Lindenberger, U., Wagner, G. G.
- Accessibility of individuals for mobile phone surveys; 2009; Gabler, S., Häder, S.
- Mobile Phone Surveys in Germany – Response rates and response behaviour; 2009; Hader, S., Schneiderat, G.
- Interviewer voice characteristics and productivity in telephone surveys; 2009; Best, H., Bauer, G., Steinkopf, L.
- The impact of forgiving wording and question context on social desirability bias in sensitive surveys...; 2009; Naher, A.- F., Krumpal, I.
- Interactive feedback can improve accuracy of responses in web surveys; 2009; Conrad, F. G., Couper, M. P., Tourangeau, R., Galesic, M.
- The influence of the field time on data quality in list-based Web surveys; 2009; Goeritz, A., Stieger, S.
- Are Respondents Sharing their Mobile Phones? Preliminary results based on a mobile phone panel in Germany...; 2009; Fuchs, M.
- Dynamic feedback in open-ended questions: Experiments on the visual design language of Web surveys; 2009; Fuchs, M.
- Effects of monetary incentives on participation in a two-wave online survey; 2009; Bandilla, W., Haas, I.
- Representativeness of Mobile Internet Surveys - A comparative study of CAMI vs. CATI ; 2009; Maier, U., Neubarth, W., Grosser, A., Hombach, A.
- Using flash type questions – stroke of luck or curse for data quality?; 2009; Laufer, S., Klapproth, U., Noll, S.
- Generic or Project-Specific Mail? – The Influence of Invitations on Response Behaviour in the...; 2009; Schroll, S.
- An Online Study on Coping with Anxiety and Disease-Specific Internet Use in Panic Attack Sufferers; 2009; König, D., Hiebler, C., Kryspin-Exner, I.
- Volumetric Forecast based on Online Access Panels; 2009; Rodenhausen, T., Drewes, F.
- How representative are sentiments expressed in social media for the marketing target audience? A comparison...; 2009; Jarchow, C., Thomas, J.
- SNB - Social Network Barometer; 2009; Drosdow, M., Geißler, H.
- Payments via Paypal as an Incentive in Online Panels; 2009; Goeritz, A., Wolff, H.-G., Goldstein, D. G.
- Advertising Effects of Online Video Ads; 2009; Wolf, M., Schönfeldt, J.
- Online election forecasts; 2009; Faas, T., Geißler, H.
- Why Do I Use the Social Web?” Exploring the Motives of Active and Passive Users via Focus Groups...; 2009; Jers, C., Taddicken, M., Schenk, M.
- Verbal Vs Visual Response Options: Reconciling Meanings Conveyed by a Computer Aided Visual Rating Scale...; 2009; Garland, P., Cape, P.
- AGOF internet facts – increasing the response rate for onsite-surveys; 2009; Foerstel, H.
- It’s all about customer satisfaction - Advantages and limitations of online surveys in applied...; 2009; Einhorn, M., Klein-Reesink, T., Löffler, M.
- Potential Of The Mobile Internet - What You Ask Is What You Get; 2009; Neubarth, W., Maier, U., Geißlitz, A.
- Using Tag Clouds to Analyse and Visualise Results of Open Ended Questions; 2009; Melles, T., Jaron, R.
- Measuring Perceived Virtual Social Support in Online Self-Help Groups; 2009; Preiß, H.
- Personalization as Strategy to Increase Response Rates; 2009; Althoff, S.
- Integrating Mobile Surveys into digital market research: Recommendations for Mobile Panel operation...; 2009; Friedrich-Freksa, M., de Groote, Z., Metzger, G.
- Social Web and Self-Disclosure = Participation vs. Privacy? Exploring How Users Manage this Dilemma...; 2009; Taddicken, M., Jers, C., Schenk, M.