Web Survey Bibliography
Many internet-panels consist of self-selected respondents and hence cover a relatively small part of the population. Estimates based on Internet-panels therefore may suffer from non-coverage and self-selection bias. One way to correct for these biases is to use adjustment weighting(Lee, 2006). However, when Internet-panel respondents are intrinsically different from the general population, previous studies showed that weighting may result in an increase in bias (for example, see Loosveldt and Sonck, 2008).
How can we show that panel-members are intrinsically different from respondents that take part in a conventional random-sample survey? To answer this question we compared the results of a volunteer Internet-panel to the results of a web-interview (WI) based on a random sample of the same population. First, differences in population coverage are studied. Secondly, we test if significant differences in coverage predict differences on dependent variables. Finally, we use propensity matching to test for self-selection bias. This contribution sheds light on the extent of coverage bias relative to self-selection bias in random- and volunteer opt-in Internet surveys.
We use propensity score matching to answer our question. Propensity scores summarize the conditional probability of a respondent to be member of either the random or volunteer sample based on a set of covariates. When the propensity score includes relevant covariates, respondents with the same propensity scores can be matched. Remaining differences between dependent variables after matching cannot be caused by coverage errors, and are indicative for the size of self-selection bias.
Journal Homepage (abstract)/(full text)
Web Survey Bibliography - Survey Practice (52)
- Toward Understanding Response Sequence in Check-All-That-Apply Web Survey Questions: A Research Note...; 2012; Stern, M. J., Bilgen, I., Rookey, B. D.
- The Mode of Invitation for Web Surveys; 2012; Bandilla, W., Couper, M. P., Kaczmirek, L.
- Encouraging Survey Response via Smartphones: Effects on Respondents’ Use of Mobile Devices and...; 2012; Dillman, D. A., Millar, M. M.
- Surveying Rare Populations Using a Probabilitybased Online Panel; 2012; Peugh, J., Wright, G.
- Methods for Improving Response Rates in Two-Phase Mail Surveys; 2012; Brick, J. M., Andrews, W. R., Brick, P. D., King, H., Mathiowetz, N. A., Stokes, L.
- Do Mail and Internet Surveys Produce Different Item Nonresponse Rates? An Experiment Using Random Mode...; 2012; Millar, M. M., Dillman, D. A.
- Item Nonresponse in a Client Survey of the General Public; 2012; Israel, G. D., Lamm, A. J.
- Comparing Item Nonresponse across Different Delivery Modes in General Population Surveys; 2012; Lesser, V. M., Newton, L., Yang, D.
- Determinants of Item Nonresponse to Web and Mail Respondents in Three Address-Based Mixed-Mode Surveys...; 2012; Messer, B. L., Edwards, M. L., Dillman, D. A.
- A Potential Solution for Easing Authentication of Respondents for a Web-Based Survey?; 2012; Baum, H. M.
- Exploring Animated Faces Scales in Web Surveys: Drawbacks and Prospects; 2012; Emde, M., Fuchs, M.
- Smart Surveys for Smart Phones: Exploring Various Approaches for Conducting Online Mobile Surveys via...; 2012; Buskirk, T. D., Andrus, C.
- Benefits and Costs of a Multi-Mode Survey of Recent College Graduates; 2011; Crow, D.,
- Using Facebook to Locate Sample Members; 2011; Rhodes, B. B., Marks, E. L.
- Paradata in Survey Research; 2011; West, B. T.
- Comparison of Web and Mail Responses in a Census of Swedish Local Political Representatives; 2011; Gilljam, M., Granberg, D., Holm, B., Persson, M., Karlsson, D., Sundell, A.
- Towards Usage of Avatar Interviewers in Web Surveys; 2011; Jans, M., Malakhoff, L.
- Method Effects and Robo-polls; 2011; van Lohuizen, J., Samohyl, R. W.
- Mode Effect Analysis - Paper Respondents vs. Web Respondents in the 2004-05 Teacher Follow-up Survey; 2011; Aritomi, T., Hill, J.
- Placement and Design of Navigation Buttons in Web Surveys; 2011; Couper, M. P., Baker, R. P., Mechling, J.
- Mixed-Mode Surveys and the Internet; 2010; de Leeuw, E. D.
- Do You Know Which Device Your Respondent Has Used to Take Your Online Survey?; 2010; Callegaro, M.
- Segmented or Overlapping Dual Frame Samples in Telephone Surveys; 2010; Boyle, J., Lewis, F., Tefft, B.
- Comparison of Paper, Web, and IVR Responses in the Veterans Health Administration Survey; 2010; Teclaw, R., Osatuke, K., Yanovsky, B., Moore, S., Dyrenforth, S.
- Multi-Mode and Method Experiment in a Study of Nurses; 2010; Friese, C. R., Lee, C. S., O'Brien, S., Crawford, S. D.
- Does the Timing of Offering Multiple Modes of Return Hurt the Response Rate?; 2010; Bensky, E. N., Link, M., Shuttles, D. C.
- Response Mode and Bias Analysis in the IRS Individual Taxpayer Burden Survey; 2010; Brick, J. M., Contos, G., Masken, K., Nord, R.
- An Experiment With an Employment Sector Question; 2010; Finno, A. A., Kohout, J.
- Lottery Incentives and Online Survey Response Rates; 2010; Preece, M. J., Johanson, G., Hitchcock, J.
- Does Prefilling Questions in a Longitudinal Survey Encourage Participation?; 2010; Mooney, G., Krakowiecki, M., Trunzo, D.
- Life360: Usability of Mobile Devices for Time Use Surveys; 2010; Lai, J. W., Vanno, L., W., Pearson, J., Makowska, H., Benezra, K., Green, M.Link, M. W.
- Cell Phone Mainly Households: Coverage and Reach for Telephone Surveys Using RDD Landline Samples; 2009; Boyle, J., Lewis, F., Tefft, B.
- Does Response Rate Matter? Journal Editors Use of Survey Quality Measures in Manuscript Publication...; 2009; Carley-Baxter, L. R., Hill, C., Roe, D. J., Twiddy, S. E., Baxter, R. K., Ruppenkamp, J.
- Declining Working Phone Rates Impact Sample Efficiency; 2009; Piekarski, L.
- Using Non-Probability Samples for Confusion Surveys - Mall Intercepts and the Internet; 2009; Ericksen, E. P.
- Using Debit Cards for Incentive Payments: Experiences of a Weekly Survey Study; 2009; Gatny, H. H., Couper, M. P., Axinn, W., Barber, J. S.
- Characteristics of Cell Phone Only, Listed, and Unlisted Telephone Households; 2009; Tarnai, J., , Schultz, R.Moore, D.
- Cell Phone-Only Households: A Good Target for Internet Surveys?; 2009; Bates, N.
- Comments on the Articles (3) - Three Key Takeaways from the Zero Bank Debate; 2009; W.Link, M. W.
- Comments on the Articles (2) - A Failure to Communicate; 2009; Tucker, C.
- Reply to Fahimi et al Comments; 2009; Boyle, J., Bucuvalas, M., Piekarski, L., Weiss, A.
- Zero Banks: Coverage Error in List Assisted RDD Samples; 2009; Boyle, J., Bucuvalas, M., Piekarski, L., Weiss, A.
- Combining Data from Probability and Non-Probability Samples Using Pseudo-Weights; 2009; Elliott, M. R.
- Separating Selection Bias and Non-coverage in Internet Panels using Propensity Matching; 2009; Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J., Lugtig, P. J., Hubregtse, M.
- Obtaining Responses by Mail or Web: Response Rates and Data Consequences; 2009; Israel, G. D.
- Analyzing the Cost-Effectiveness of Using Return Receipt and Address Corrections in Mail Surveys; 2009; Stuckey, H. L., Malhotra, N., Sims, B. A., Walters, M. R.
- Summaries of Address-Based Sampling Presentations at the AAPOR Annual Meeting; 2009; W., Daily, G., Shuttles, D. C., Yancey, L. T., Thu Burks, A., Bourquin, C.Link, M. W.
- Can Survey Respondents with Visual Deficits Complete My Web Survey?; 2009; Malakhoff, L.
- How Many Scale Points Should I Include for Attitudinal Questions?; 2009; Maitland, A.
- Should I label all scale points or just the end points for attitudinal questions?; 2009; Maitland, A.