Web Survey Bibliography
With the ever increasing difficulty of conducting RDD interviews in the United States, it was desired to evaluate the effectiveness of offering cash incentives to participants. Incentives historically have had some success (but the success of these incentives is highly dependent upon the population, type of incentive (cash versus lottery or other gifts), timing of the incentive (pre or post data collection) and mode of data collection). Results of offering cash incentives in two omnibus RDD studies; one national and one at the state level only, were examined to determine the impact of incentives on response rates, cooperation rates, demographic characteristics of respondents, and actual responses to substantive questions. In addition to offering incentives to participants, the state
‐wide study also offered incentives to the interviewers. It was hypothesized that offering incentives to interviewers would have a positive impact on overall response rates, cooperation rates, and quality of data. Both studies were designed as randomized control trials. The national study used an RDD sample, and the sample was randomly assigned an incentive or non‐incentive status (with approximately half the sample being assigned an incentive status and the other half being assigned a non‐incentive status). If flagged for an incentive, the potential respondent was offered a $10 incentive upon completion of the interview. A check in the amount of $10 was mailed to the respondent post completion of the interview. If not flagged for an incentive, no incentive was offered to the participant. The state‐wide survey was slightly more complicated in that there were two levels of incentives offered. The first level of incentive was similar to the national study, offering an incentive to participants. The RDD sample was again randomly assigned an incentive or non‐incentive status (with approximately half the sample assigned an incentive status and the other half not). Again, if flagged for an incentive, participants were offered $10 cash after completing the survey. If not flagged for an incentive, no incentive was offered. The second level of incentive was offered to the interviewers. A $10 cash incentive was offered to interviewers every odd week of the data collection period for each interview they successfully complete above and beyond their minimal required productivity targets. Interviewers were required to maintain a minimum productivity pace regardless of being offered an incentive or not. This minimum productivity criteria included completing a minimum number of interviews per hour, maintaining the average expected number of refusals per hour, maintaining the required dialing pace, abiding by the facility attendance requirements , and maintaining high data collection quality standards. These criteria were held constant so as to permit the evaluation of the introduction of an incentive on improving response rates by interviewers. This state‐wide study was essentially a two by two randomized control trial with four possible “incentive” groups: 1) respondent incentive only, 2) interviewer incentive only, 3) respondent and interviewer incentive, and 4) no incentive at all. Overall, the findings were somewhat surprising and proved to improve response rates and cooperation rates among certain demographic groups only, with no effect on other groups. There were slight improved overall response rates for those age 34 and under (and in particular those aged 24 or younger). Those aged 24 and younger are the most difficult populations to reach now by telephone (mainly due to the increase use of cell phone only use). Interestingly, the impact on interviewer performance was negligible. Based on the findings of these two experiments, offering incentives only to certain demographic groups (the younger age groups) may be the best use of cash incentives.
Conference homepage (abstract)
Web survey bibliography (367)
- Displaying Videos in Web Surveys: Implications for Complete Viewing and Survey Responses; 2017; Mendelson, J.; Lee Gibson, J.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Ideal and maximum length for a web survey; 2017; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.
- Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; 2017; Liamputtong, P.
- Web Survey Gamification - Increasing Data Quality in Web Surveys by Using Game Design Elements; 2017; Schacht, S.; Keusch, F.; Bergmann, N.; Morana, S.
- Effects of sampling procedure on data quality in a web survey; 2017; Rimac, I.; Ogresta, J.
- Comparability of web and telephone surveys for the measurement of subjective well-being; 2017; Sarracino, F.; Riillo, C. F. A.; Mikucka, M.
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Interviewer Gender and Survey Responses: The Effects of Humanizing Cues Variations; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Krzewinska, A.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment...; 2017; Wenz, A.
- Predicting Breakoffs in Web Surveys; 2017; Mittereder, F.; West, B. T.
- The 2016 Canadian Census: An Innovative Wave Collection Methodology to Maximize Self-Response and Internet...; 2017; Mathieu, P.
- Push2web or less is more? Experimental evidence from a mixed-mode population survey at the community...; 2017; Neumann, R.; Haeder, M.; Brust, O.; Dittrich, E.; von Hermanni, H.
- In search of best practices; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; Steijn, S.
- The perils of non-probability sampling; 2017; Bethlehem, J.
- Nonresponse in Organizational Surveying: Attitudinal Distribution Form and Conditional Response Probabilities...; 2017; Kulas, J. T.; Robinson, D. H.; Kellar, D. Z.; Smith, J. A.
- Theory and Practice in Nonprobability Surveys: Parallels between Causal Inference and Survey Inference...; 2017; Mercer, A. W.; Kreuter, F.; Keeter, S.; Stuart, E. A.
- Reducing speeding in web surveys by providing immediate feedback; 2017; Conrad, F.; Tourangeau, R.; Couper, M. P.; Zhang, C.
- A Working Example of How to Use Artificial Intelligence To Automate and Transform Surveys Into Customer...; 2017; Neve, S.
- A Case Study on Evaluating the Relevance of Some Rules for Writing Requirements through an Online Survey...; 2017; Warnier, M.; Condamines, A.
- Estimating the Impact of Measurement Differences Introduced by Efforts to Reach a Balanced Response...; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; De Leeuw, E. D.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.
- Analyzing Survey Characteristics, Participation, and Evaluation Across 186 Surveys in an Online Opt-...; 2017; Revilla, M.
- Careless Response and Attrition as Sources of Bias in Online Survey Assessments of Personality Traits...; 2017; Meade, A. W.; Ward, M. K.; Alfred, C. M.; Pappalardo, G.; Stoughton, J. W.
- Do Incentives Increase Response Rates to an Internet Survey of American Evaluation Association Members...; 2017; Wilson, L. N.
- Examining Completion Rates in Web Surveys via Over 25,000 Real-World Surveys; 2017; Liu, M.; Wronski, L.
- Data collection mode differences between national face-to-face and web surveys on gender inequality...; 2017; Liu, M.
- Improving survey response rates: The effect of embedded questions in web survey email Invitations; 2017; Liu, M.; Inchausti, N.
- An experimental comparison of web-push vs. paper-only survey procedures for conducting an in-depth health...; 2017; McMaster, H. S.; LeardMann, C. A.; Speigle, S.; Dillman, D. A.
- Demographic Question Placement: Effect on Item Response Rates and Means of a Veterans Health Administration...; 2017; Teclaw, R.; Price, M.; Osatuke, K.
- Effects of Applying Multimedia and Dialogue Box to Web Survey Design; 2017; Chen, H.
- Role of online survey tools in creating temporally accurate Environmental Product Declarations (EPD)...; 2017; Ganguly, I.; Bowers, T.; Pierobon, F.; Eastin, I.
- A test of sample matching using a pseudo-web sample; 2017; Chatrchi, G., Gambino, J.
- A Partially Successful Attempt to Integrate a Web-Recruited Cohort into an Address-Based Sample; 2017; Kott, P. S., Farrelly, M., Kamyab, K.
- Grundzüge des Datenschutzrechts und aktuelle Datenschutzprobleme in der Markt- und Sozialforschung; 2017; Schweizer, A.
- Data chunking for mobile web: effects on data quality; 2017; Lugtig, P. J.; Toepoel, V.
- Comparing data quality and cost from three modes of on-board transit surveys ; 2017; Agrawal, A. W.; Granger-Bevan, S.; W.; Newmark, G. L.; Nixon, H.
- Finding and Investigating Geographical Data Online; 2017; Martin, D.; Cockings, S.; Leung, S.
- Three Methods for Occupation Coding Based on Statistical Learning; 2017; Geweon, H.; Schonlau, L.; Blohum, M.; Steiner, St.
- Dynamic Question Ordering in Online Surveys; 2016; Early, K.; Mankoff, J.; Fienberg, S. E.
- How to use online surveys to understand human behaviour concerning window opening in terms of building...; 2016; Fabbri, K.
- Impact of satisficing behavior in online surveys on consumer preference and welfare estimates; 2016; Gao, Z.; House, L. A.; Bi, X.
- Targeted Appeals for Participation in Letters to Panel Survey Members; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Can we assess representativeness of cross-national surveys using the education variable?; 2016; Ortmanns, V.; Schneider, S.
- Methodological Aspects of Central Left-Right Scale Placement in a Cross-national Perspective; 2016; Scholz, E.; Zuell, C.
- Fieldwork Effort, Response Rate, and the Distribution of Survey Outcomes: A Multilevel Meta-analysis; 2016; Sturgis, P.; Williams, Jo.; Brunton-Smith, I.; Moore, J.
- Comparison of Face-to-Face and Web Surveys on the Topic of Homosexual Rights; 2016; Liu, M.; Wang, Yic.
- Question order sensitivity of subjective well-being measures: focus on life satisfaction, self-rated...; 2016; Lee, S.; McClain, C.; Webster, N.; Han, S.
- Web-Based Statistical Sampling and Analysis; 2016; Quinn, A.; Larson, K.