Web Survey Bibliography
Compared with traditional interviews or drop-off/mail-back surveys, web surveys are advantageous for extracting particular subsamples or panel surveys with short intervals. These advantages are expected to bring about methodological advances in voting behavior research. However, web surveys with screening or intensive panel design inevitably have to be based on purposive sampling, and this purposive sampling brings about a serious deviation from probabilistic survey data. Using two datasets sharing certain variables and which were collected in the same period, we investigated the effectiveness of propensity score adjustment for web surveys. One set of data was from a web panel survey based on purposive sampling with short intervals, and the other set was from personal interview surveys based on probabilistic random sampling. The web panel survey ran for three days, starting two days before the voting day of the national election of the House of Councilors (upper house) in 2007; i.e., July 27th, 28th, and 29th (voting day). The respondents were purposively screened from a vast pool of registrants on the condition that they were usually exposed to information about political and social issues on the Internet. The personal interview survey data was collected right after the election of the House of Councilors in 2007 by probabilistic random sampling using the electoral rolls. Setting party identification and the parties to which respondents actually voted as dependent variables, the covariates for calculating the propensity scores were selected on the basis of the “strongly ignorable treatment assignment” condition (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983). Using three sets of covariates, three propensity scores were calculated and their effectivenesses in adjusting dependent variables were compared. The results of propensity score adjustment indicated that the distribution of parties to which respondents actually voted was effectively adjusted. However, propensity scores failed to adjust the distribution of party identification. Conditions on which propensity scores can effectively adjust web survey data are discussed. In particular, the need for enough covariates and further research into stable covariates are emphasized.
Conference homepage(abstract)
Web survey bibliography (281)
- Overview: Online Surveys; 2017; Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Standard Definitions Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys; 2016
- Retrospective Measurement of Students’ Extracurricular Activities with a Self-administered Calendar...; 2016; Furthmueller, P.
- Pitfalls, Potentials, and Ethics of Online Survey Research: LGBTQ and Other Marginalized and Hard-to...; 2016; McInroy, L. B.
- Computer-assisted and online data collection in general population surveys; 2016; Skarupova, K.
- A Statistical Approach to Provide Individualized Privacy for Surveys; 2016; Esponda, F.; Huerta, K.; Guerrero, V. M.
- Social Media Analyses for Social Measurement; 2016; Schober, M. F.; Pasek, J.; Guggenheim, L.; Lampe, C.; Conrad, F. G.
- Doing Surveys Online ; 2016; Toepoel, V.
- An Overview of Mobile CATI Issues in Europe; 2015; Slavec, A.; Toninelli, D.
- Utilizing iPads in the Field; 2015; Kiser, P.
- Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys 2015; 2015
- The Web Survey Revolution ; 2015; Murray, D.
- Methodology of the RAND Mid-Term 2014 Election Panel; 2015; Carman, K. G; Pollack, S.
- 28 Questions to Help Buyers of Online Samples; 2015; Cape, P. J.; Phillips, A.; Baker, R.; Cooke, M.; Ribeiro, E.; Terhanian, G.
- Ethical decision-making and Internet research 2.0: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee...; 2015; Markham, A.; Buchanan, E. A.
- Doing online research involving university students with disabilities: Methodological issues; 2015; De Cesarei, A.; Baldaro, B.
- Exploring ethical issues associated with using online surveys in educational research; 2015; Roberts, L. D.; Allen, P. J.
- An Introduction to Survey Research; 2015; Cowles, E. L.; Nelson, E.
- Ethical issues in online research; 2015; James, N.; Busher, H.
- Leading Edge Insights: Foundations of Quality 2.0; 2014; Fuguitt, G.
- Methods and systems for managing an online opinion survey service; 2014; Mcloughlin, M. H., Seton, N., Blesy, K.
- Recent Books and Journals in Public Opinion, Survey Methods, and Survey Statistics; 2014; Callegaro, M.
- Undisclosed Privacy: The Effect of Privacy Rights Design on Response Rates; 2014; Haer, R., Meidert, N.
- Tailoring mode of data collection in longitudinal studies; 2013; Kaminska, O., Lynn, P.
- How do we Know Cognitive Interviewing is Any Good?; 2013; Willis, G. B.
- Quality of Web surveys; 2013; Revilla, M.
- Experiments in Obtaining Data Linkage Consent in Web Surveys ; 2013; Sakshaug, J. W., Kreuter, F.
- Response Burden in Official Business Surveys: Measurement and Reduction Practices of National Statistical...; 2013; Giesen, D., Bavdaz, M., Loefgren, T., Raymond-Blaess, V.
- Internet as a new source of information for the production of official statistics. Experiences of Statistics...; 2013; Heerschap, N.
- A standard with quality indicators for web panel surveys: a Swedish example; 2013; Nyfjaell, M.
- How Mobile Stacks Up to Traditional Online: A Comparison of Studies; 2013; Knowles, R.
- How to make your questionnaire mobile-ready; 2013; Cape, P. J.
- Phish Rising: How Internet Criminals are Undermining the Viability of Online Survey Research…and...; 2013; Kunovic, K.
- Self-Reported Participation in Research Practices Among Survey Methodology Researchers; 2013; Perez-Vergara, K., Smith, C., Lowenstein, C., Ozonoff, A., Martins, Y.
- Ethics, privacy and data security in web-based course evaluation; 2013; Salaschek, M., Meese, C., Thielsch, M.
- Beyond methodology - some ethical implications of "doing research online"; 2013; Heise, N.
- Code Comparison; 2012
- Evaluation procedures for Survey questions; 2012; Saris, W. E.
- Transparency, Access and the Credibility of Survey Research; 2012; Lupia, A.
- Anonymity and Confidentiality; 2012; Tourangeau, R.
- Cognitive Evaluation of Survey Instruments: State of the Science (Art?) and Future Directions; 2012; Willis, G. B.
- How to provide high data quality in online-questionnaires: Setting guidelines in design; 2012; Tries, S., Nebel, S., Blanke, K.
- Comparability of Survey Measurements; 2012; Oberski, D.
- Classification of Surveys; 2012; Stoop, I., Harrison, E.
- Enhancing Web Surveys With New HTML5 Input Types; 2012; Funke, F.
- Why one should incorporate the design weights when adjusting for unit nonresponse using response homogeneity...; 2012; Kott, P. S.
- Assessing the Quality of Survey Data ; 2012; Blasius, J.
- Designing and Doing Survey Research; 2012; Andres, L.
- Using break-offs in web interviews for predicting web response in mixed mode surveys; 2011; Beukenhorst, D.
- Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys 2011; 2011