Web Survey Bibliography
The objective of this work is to study, de ne and compare alternative sampling frames (population lists) for the representative population coverage as a base for sample selection in internet surveys. In addition, the study aims to provide a methodology for the domain adjustment procedures which enables to use the latest available information. There are several types of sampling frames such as target population frame and available list frame. The target population frames are the ideal frame, which cannot easily be obtained. On the other hand, total population list frames can be either household or individual unit based. The quality of the existing sampling frames can be can be dierent. The sampling frames may be; unde ned, ill de ned, partially de ned, or perfectly de ned.
The target population of the sample information collected from internet surveys (e-mail surveys & web surveys) faces many diculties in the identi cation of the possible sampling frame. For voluntary participation, one has to identify the coverage of the target population. Within the available data sources, special adjustments are proposed for the small domains. Some basic variables can be proposed for this purpose. Adjustments can be made for gender breakdown, age groups, and education groups. In terms of sample selection, the type of access to internet surveys can be based on several limitations. Early attempts was based on the restricted access designs for e-mail survey, or e-mail message followed with a web survey. As an alternative, voluntary participation designs became common for web surveys. In this type of design, observations are obtained through haphazard entry to the web survey questionnaire. Therefore, a probability sample cannot be obtained, due to unknown selection probabilities. Alternative data adjustment procedures for the case of voluntary participation is proposed in this study. Several types of weighted location estimators are proposed on the basis of these designs. For surveys having complex sample designs, a combined ratio mean (proportion, mean, or ratio) or separate ratio mean alternatives can be proposed. The overall selection probabilities for households can be determined by obtaining household based information from the population information for each domain. This information can be obtained by dividing the total population of each domain by the corresponding average household size for this domain. The overall selection probability of the domains will be their overall sampling fractions. From the previous experience with the
variability of the average household sizes in dierent domains, an alternative approach is also proposed. Due to the unavailability of the census data as Urban and Rural, it was decided to evaluate the available version as City (province centre & district centre) versus Village (sub-district centre & village).
In this study, alternative sampling frames are compared for their population coverage and representation for sample selection in internet surveys. The work also aims to provide a methodology for the domain adjustment procedures which also enables to eliminate the sample selection bias on the basis of the corrected information.
Conference homepage(abstract)
Web Survey Bibliography - Weighting & imputation (264)
- Applying maximum entropy weighting to on line panel data collection; 2011; Bianchi, A., Biffignandi, S., Hartmann, E., Sekhon, J.
- More comparisons of Probability and Non-Probability Sample Internet Surveys: The Dutch NOPVO Study.; 2011; Weiss, R., Krosnick, J. A., Yeager, D. S.
- Web Survey Live Validations - What Are They Doing?; 2011; Crawford, S. D.; McClain, C.
- Estimating Propensity Adjustments for Volunteer Web Surveys; 2011; Valliant, R. L., Dever, J. A.
- Can web surveys provide an adequate alternative to phone and face to face surveys?; 2011; Bethlehem, J.
- A Method for Evaluating Mode Effects in Mixed-mode Surveys; 2011; Vannieuwenhuyze, J., Loosveldt, G., Molenberghs, G.
- Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet Surveys Conducted with Probability and...; 2011; Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Chang, L. C., Javitz, H. S., Levindusky, M. S., Simpser, A.; Wang, R...
- The weirdest people in the world?; 2010; Heine, S. J., Henrich, J., Norenzayan, A.
- The Gallup Poll: Public opinion 2009; 2010; Gallup, A. M.
- Real ID. State of The Art Representative and Repeatable Online Samples. Behaviorally Profiled Respondents...; 2010; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Measuring the group quarters population in the American Community Survey: Interim report; 2010; Marton, K., Voss, P. R.
- Disclosure standards; 2010
- Online panel survey, Change and stability of political attitudes; 2010
- Weighting Strategy for Understanding Society; 2010; Lynn, P., Kaminska, O.
- Walking in Facebook: A Case Study of Unbiased Sampling of OSNs; 2010; Gjoka, M., Kurant, M., Butts, C. T., Markopoulou, A.
- Web Surveys in the Social Sciences: An Overview ; 2010; Frippiat, D., Marquis, N.
- Normalized Database Structure to Support Survey Fulfillment Operations; 2010; Sikes, N., Pittman, J., Hazel, K.
- Using a Simulation Study to Examine Strategies for Combining Cell and Landline Survey Samples; 2010; Duffy, T., Bausch, S., Iachan, R., Lu, B.
- Potentials and Constraints of Propensity Score Weighting to Improve Web Survey Quality; 2010; Steinmetz, S., Tijdens, K.
- Using Propensity Score Weighting to Reduce Bias of a Swiss Market Research Web Panel; 2010; Wiegand, G., Jella, H., Beat, H., Stefan, L.
- Potentials and Constraints of Propensity Score Weighting to Improve Web Survey Quality; 2010; Steinmetz, S., Tijdens, K.
- Influence of Outliers on Some Multiple Imputation Methods; 2010; Quintano, C., Castellano, R., Rocca, A.
- Statistical foundations of cell-phone surveys; 2010; Wolter, K., Smith, P., Blumberg, S. J.
- Using KnowledgePanel® to Improve the Sample Representativeness and Accuracy of Opt-in Panel Data...; 2010; Dennis, J. M., Peugh, J., Graham, P.
- Selection Bias in Web Surveys; 2010; Bethlehem, J.
- A Spanish Continuous Volunteer Web Survey: Sample Bias, Weighting and Efficiency; 2010; de Pedraza, P., Tijdens, K., de Bustillo, R., Steinmetz, S.
- Sampling of populations: methods and applications, 4th Edition; 2009; Levy, P. S., Lemeshow, S.
- comScore Media Metrix U.S. Methodlogy. An ARF research review; 2009; Cook, W. A., Pettit, R.
- Computing weights for the American National Election Study survey data; 2009; Debell, M., Krosnick, J. A.
- Internet Measurement of Ad-noting: Sampling and Statistical Issues; 2009; Frankel, M. R., Baim, J., Galin, M., Agresti, J., Augemberg, K.
- A Structured Approach For Reducing Bias In Surveys Using Online Access Panels ; 2009; Farrer, N., Dayan, Y.
- Online Interviewing through Access Panel: Quantity and Quality Assurance; 2009; Petric, I., Appel, M., de Leeuw, E. D.
- College Experiences Survey: Methodological Summary. Final Report; 2009; DesRoches, D., Hall, J. W., Santos, B.
- Does Weighting Improve the Accuracy of Data from Non- Probability Internet Survey Panels of People Who...; 2009; Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A.
- Estimating Local Phone Service Percentages: How to Weight the Data from a Local, Dual-Frame Sample Survey...; 2009; Guterbock, T. M.
- Wireless and Wireline: Dual Frame Implications for Sample Design Decisions on Estimates, Weighting and...; 2009; Benford, R., Tompson, T., Feinberg, B., Feinberg, G., Weber, A., Speulda, N., Fleury, C.
- Cell Phone Mainly Households: Coverage and Reach for Telephone Surveys Using RDD Landline Samples; 2009; Boyle, J., Lewis, F., Tefft, B.
- National Surveys Via RDD Telephone Interviewing vs. the Internet: Comparing Sample Representativeness...; 2009; Chang, L. C., Krosnick, J. A.
- Indicators for the representativeness of survey response; 2009; Schouten, B., Cobben, F., Bethlehem, J.
- Do we hear different voices?: Investigating the differences between internet and non-internet users...; 2009; Zhang, C., Callegaro, M., Thomas, M., DiSogra, C.
- Summary of KnowledgePanel® Design; 2009; Dennis, J. M.
- Is a cell phone really a personal device? Results from the first wave of a mobile phone panel on sharing...; 2009; Fuchs, M., Busse, B.
- Online Analysis and Programmed Disclosure Risk Protection: New Access to Restricted-use Microdata; 2009; McFarland O’Rourke, J., Rush, S. H., Maxwell, C.
- Comparing different weighting procedures for volunteer online panels - Lessons to be learned from German...; 2009; Steinmetz, S., Tijdens, K., de Pedraza, P.
- Selection bias in Internet panels: challenge or dead blow?; 2009; Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J.
- Sampling Frame Coverage and Domain Adjustment Procedures for Internet Surveys; 2009; Asan, Z., Ayhan, H. O.
- Propensity Score Matching to Correct Telephone Surveys for Cell Phone Nonresponse; 2009; Bremer, J.
- An experiment on the effects of non-response reweighting on estimators' precision in a web survey; 2009; Fabrizi, E., Biffignandi, S., Toninelli, D.
- Use of Web surveys in Official Statistics; 2009; Bethlehem, J.
- Combining Data from Probability and Non-Probability Samples Using Pseudo-Weights; 2009; Elliott, M. R.

