Web Survey Bibliography
Survey data are unavoidably contaminated with measurement error. We focus on formatting error, the increase in con dential intervals of survey estimates, making it more difficult to detect existing dierences. Formatting error happens when respondents do not fi nd an option on a rating scale that perfectly reflects their true value. The dierence between the true value and the chosen response option is formatting error.
From a theoretical point of view, continuous visual analogue scales (VASs) have on the individual as well as on the aggregated level an expected formatting error of zero, because there is a perfectly tting option for every graduation of the true value. An empirical determination of formatting error with VASs is pending and it is unclear, if populations with a low formal education are able to use VASs in a meaningful way.
Formatting error with categorical scale is dierent for single individual variables and for aggregate data. In the first case, it depends on the number of categories only. In the second case it is additionally in uenced by the actual distribution of values in the sample. We simulated differently distributed data (e.g. from uniform distributions, narrow and wide normal distributions, chi-square and exponential distributions) to determine the expected formatting error with categorical scales consisting of 3 to 21 categories. Overall (N = 1909), we found a very low mean empirical formatting error of M = -1.24 percentage points (SD = 3.05). Ratings on plain VASs without any marker (n = 167) were worse (M = -2.48, SD = 2.64) and formal education (below college: M = -2.87, SD = 2.93; at least college: M = -1.71, SD = 1.61) made a statistically signi cant dierence: F(1, 166) = 7.56, p < .01, eta2 = .04. VASs with ten markers (n = 181) lead to the smallest formatting error (M = -0.41, SD = 1.55) for respondents with a low education (M = -0.47, SD = 1.63) and respondents with a high formal education (M = -0.30, SD = 1.39), F(1, 180) < 1. For individual variables, the empirical formatting error for VASs with ten markers is even with respondents with a low formal education lower than the expected formatting error for categorical scales up to 50 options. Overall, the authors strongly recommend considering VASs in computer-based self-administered questionnaires for the sake of more con dent survey estimates.
Web Survey Bibliography - Thomas, R. K. (64)
- Ordering Your Attention: Response Order Effects in Parallel Phone and Online Surveys; 2012; Barlas, F. M., Thomas, R. K.
- A Shot in the Dark: Measurement Influence on Likelihood to Vaccination; 2012; Higgins, W. B., Thomas, R. K.
- Response Anchoring and Polarity Effects on Endorsement and Response Patterns; 2012; Higgins, W. B., Thomas, R. K.
- Evaluating the Impact of Emails and Landing Page on Web Survey Access; 2012; Falcone, A. E., Thomas, R. K., Mack, A. R.
- I Got a Feeling: Comparison of Feeling Thermometers with Verbally Labeled Scales in Attitude Measurement...; 2012; Thomas, R. K., Bremer, J.
- The River Flows: Comparison of Experimental Effect Replicability with Different Sample Sources; 2012; Thomas, R. K.
- How Likely?: Comparisons of Behavioral Intention Measurement Validity; 2012; Bremer, J., Thomas, R. K.
- Effects of response format on requalification for recontact studies; 2011; Thomas, R. K.
- Slider Scales Causing Serious Problems With Less Educated Respondents; 2011; Funke, F., Reips, U. -D., Thomas, R. K.
- Cross-country Comparisons: Effects of Scale Type and Response Style Differences; 2011; Thomas, R. K.
- A Comparison of Branching Response Formats with Single Response Formats; 2011; Thomas, R. K.
- Cleaving the Past Behind: A Comparison of Response Formats in the Measurement of Ethnic and Racial Origins...; 2011; Barlas, F. M., Thomas, R. K., Higgins, W. B.
- An Injured Party?: A Comparison of Political Party Response Formats in Party Identification.; 2011; Schwarz, S., Barlas, F. M., Thomas, R. K., Corso, R. A., Szoc, R.
- Sliders for the Smart: Type of Rating Scale on the Web Interacts With Educational Level; 2011; Funke, F., Reips, U. -D., Thomas, R. K.
- Function follows form: Effects of response format on self-reported individuals and household disability...; 2010; Falcone, A. E., Thomas, R. K.
- Response format effects on measurement of employment; 2009; Thomas, R. K., Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D.
- Twisting rating scales in Web surveys: Slider scales versus categorical scales of horizontal versus...; 2009; Funke, F. Reips, U. -D. Thomas, R. K.
- Increasing Confidence in Survey Estimates with Visual Analogue Scales; 2009; Funke, F., Reips, U. -D., Thomas, R. K.
- Response Formats in Cross-cultural Comparisons in Web-based Surveys; 2009; Thomas, R. K.l, Terhanian, G., Funke, F.
- Optimal Design of Branching Questions to Measure Bipolar Constructs; 2009; Malhotra, N., Krosnick, J. A., Thomas, R. K.
- Comparing Adolescent Response Bias Between Internet and Telephone Surveys ; 2009; Klein, J. D., Graff Havens, C., Thomas, R. K.
- Parallel Phone and Web-based Interviews: Effects of Sample and Weighting on Comparability and Validity...; 2008; Thomas, R. K., Krane, D., Taylor, H., Terhanian, G.
- Response Non-Differentiation and Response Styles in Web-Based Studies: Causes and Consequences ; 2008; Frisina, L. T., Thomas, R. K.
- Visual Analogue Scales in Cross Cultural Web Surveys ; 2008; Funke, F., Reips, U. -D., Thomas, R. K.
- Truth in measurement: Comparing Web Based interviewing Techniques; 2007; Couper, M. P., Terhanian, G., Bremer, J., Thomas, R. K.
- A Comparison of Visual Analog and Graphic Rating Scales ; 2007; Thomas, R. K., Couper, M. P.
- The Best of Intentions: Response Format Effects on Measures of Behavioral lntention ; 2007; Thomas, R. K., Klein, J. D., Behnke, C. S., Terhanian, G.
- Scaling Social Desirability: Establishing its Influence Across Modes; 2007; Krane, D., Thomas, R. K., Taylor, H.
- On the Importance of Form: Effects of Response Format on Measures off importance; 2007; Thomas, R. K., Behnke, C. S., Allenza, J., Klein, J. D.
- Improving importance Assessment: Experimental Comparisons between Variations of Ranking and Rating Tasks...; 2007; Thomas, R. K., Allenza, J., Behnke, C. S.
- Behavioral self-report measures. International extensions; 2006; Thomas, R. K., Klein, J. D.
- Merely Incidental?: Effects of Response Format on Self-reported Behavior; 2006; Thomas, R. K., Klein, J. D.
- Response Order Effects in International Online Surveys; 2006; Thomas, R. K., Greenfield, S., Bremer, J.
- Attitude Measurement in Phone and Online Surveys: Can Different Modes and Samples Yield Similar Results...; 2006; Thomas, R. K., Krane, D., Taylor, H., Terhanian, G.
- Response format effects in self-report of political and non-political contributions; 2005; Thomas, R. K. et al.
- Rating versus comparative trade-off measures. Trending changes in political issues across time and predictive...; 2005; Thomas, R. K. et al.
- A Comparison of an Online Card Sorting Task to a Rating Task; 2005; Thomas, R. K., Bayer, L. R., Johnson, A. M., Behnke, C. S.
- A Comparison of Presidential Candidate Vote Intention Measures in U.S. Elections; 2005; Thomas, R. K., Krane, D., Sanders, M. G., Behnke, C. S.
- To Vote or Not to Vote?: A Comparison of Vote Intention Measures; 2005; Thomas, R. K., Sanders, M. G., Smith, R., Behnke, C. S.
- Response Order Effects in Online Surveys; 2005; Thomas, R. K., Behnke, C. S., Johnson, A. M.
- How Does Social Desirability Affect Responses?: Differences in Telephone and Online Surveys; 2005; Taylor, H., Krane, D., Thomas, R. K.
- On the primacy of affect in attitude-behavior research; 2004; Thomas, R. K., Schofield, C. M.
- Measuring television viewership through a multi-method approach; 2004; Terhanian, G., Bremer, J., Delaney, T. F., Thomas, R. K.
- Behavioral Intention Measurement: International Findings; 2004; Thomas, R. K., Terhanian, G., Bayer, L. R.
- A Comparison of Sliding Scales with Other Scale Types in Online Surveys; 2004; Bayer, L. R., Thomas, R. K.
- A Comparison of Ranking versus Rating in Online Surveys; 2004; Thomas, R. K.
- To Do or Not to Do?: A Comparison of Behavioral Intention Measures; 2004; Thomas, R. K., Behnke, C. S., Johnson, A. M.
- Item Non-response: Don't Know about Mandatory Responses?; 2004; Thomas, R. K., Johnson, A. M., Behnke, C. S.
- Rating versus Comparative Trade-off Measures; 2004; Thomas, R. K., Behnke, C. S., Johnson, A. M.
- It's Only Incidental: International Web Survey Considerations; 2004; Thomas, R. K., Klein, J. D., Behnke, C. S.