Web Survey Bibliography
We have a self-selected sample when the units of the frame population are not chosen by the researcher, but these units choose to participate in the survey process by self-decision. We can nd self-selected samples very often in web surveys, but the reasons of self selection are very dierent. In fact, suppose you have a mailing list from a frame population i.e. the students of a university course and suppose you send the questionnaire to all students, our intention is therefore to plan a census, however only a part of the students replies to the questionnaire. Or suppose you post a questionnaire in a website of a rm and ask the hypothetical customers to ll in the questionnaire. In both cases we will have a self selected sample. However the survey backgrounds are very dierent. In the rst case we know the frame population and we can know auxiliary variables for each unit. On the contrary, in the second case we do not know the frame therefore we cannot have auxiliary information we do not know the population size. Moreover, some web surfers that ll in the questionnaire could not be customers and many customers are not web surfers.
It is well known that the self selected sample is not probabilistic, therefore we would not have estimators according to the design-based approach.
Heckman (1979) proposed a method to estimate the values of the study variable for the unobserved units, in order to overcome the problem of sample selection bias. The method is performed in two steps and requires the use of some auxiliary variables. Then it can be employed when the frame population is known. The contribution of this paper is to use the Heckman method in a customer satisfaction survey where the study variable is not quantitative but categorical.
Conference homepage (abstract)
Web Survey Bibliography - European survey research associaton conference 2009, ESRA, Warsaw (37)
- An experimental mixed mode design on a general population survey ; 2009; Eva, G.
- Presentation of a Single Item versus a Grid: Effects on the Vitality and Mental Health Scales of the...; 2009; Callegaro, M., Shand-Lubbers, J., Dennis, J. M.
- Survey Research in Virtual Worlds: Second Life R as a Research Platform; 2009; Hill, C., Dean, E.
- Elderly in an Internet panel, the quality of the data; 2009; Vis, C.
- Computer-Assisted Audio Recording (CARI): Repurposing a Tool for Evaluating Comparative Instrument Design...; 2009; Edwards, B., Hicks, W., Tourangeau, K., Harris-Kojetin, L., Moss, A.
- Do online translated questionnaires result in higher response rates for patient surveys?; 2009; Boyd, J., Davis, A.
- A comparison of two mixed mode designs: cati-capi and web-cati-capi; 2009; Beukenhorst, D., Wetzels, W.
- Comparison between Liss panel (web) and ESS data (face to face); 2009; Revilla, M., Saris, W. E.
- 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.
- Mobile Phone Surveys in Germany – Response rates and response behaviour; 2009; Hader, S., Schneiderat, G.
- Ethical Considerations in the Use of Paradata in Web Surveys; 2009; Couper, M. P., Singer, E.
- Interviewer voice characteristics and productivity in telephone surveys; 2009; Best, H., Bauer, G., Steinkopf, L.
- Standardized recall aids for online life course surveys; 2009; Glasner, T.
- 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.
- Increasing Confidence in Survey Estimates with Visual Analogue Scales; 2009; Funke, F., Reips, U. -D., Thomas, R. K.
- Effectiveness of incentives in mixed-mode systems: An evaluation of errors & costs; 2009; Lozar Manfreda, K., Berzelak, N., Vehovar, V.
- The influence of the field time on data quality in list-based Web surveys; 2009; Goeritz, A., Stieger, S.
- Twisting Rating Scales: Horizontal versus Vertical Visual Analogue Scales versus Categorical Scales...; 2009; Funke, F., Reips, U. -D.
- Online Analysis and Programmed Disclosure Risk Protection: New Access to Restricted-use Microdata; 2009; McFarland O’Rourke, J., Rush, S. H., Maxwell, C.
- Using the Available On-line Secondary Data in Education and Research Practice; 2009; Perek-Bialas, J.
- Nice portal! But where is the data . . . ? - Experiences of a data archive with offering online access...; 2009; Mauer, R.
- Making Use of Online Survey Documentation & Analysis; 2009; Terwey, M.
- Access to Survey Data on the Internet; 2009; Kolsrud, K.
- Individual Follow-up of the Target Population: the Plural Strategies of a Web Survey; 2009; Markou, E., de Cledat, B., Razafindratsima, N., Laurent, R., Issenhuth, P.
- The influence of selective nonresponse in the analysis of levels of annoyance and sleep disturbance...; 2009; Breugelmans, O.
- Motivating different groups: questionnaire topic and participation rates; 2009; Marchand, M.
- How to cover the general public by Internet interviewing; 2009; Das, M.
- The Internet sample; 2009; Getka-Wilczynska, E.
- 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.
- Presentation of WEBSURVNET; 2009; de Pedraza, P., Steinmetz, S., Tijdens, K.
- Telephone Survey and political behaviour estimates in 22 European countries: Evaluating the need for...; 2009; Hufken, V.
- Self-Selected Samples in Customer Satisfaction Surveys; 2009; Nicolini, G., Dalla Valle, L.
- What to do if Probability Sampling is Impossible in a Web Survey?; 2009; Markou, E., Razafindratsima, N., de Cledat, B., Issenhuth, P., Laurent, R.
- Sampling Frame Coverage and Domain Adjustment Procedures for Internet Surveys; 2009; Asan, Z., Ayhan, H. O.
- New Challenges in Sampling: Introduction; 2009; Laaksonen, S.