Web Survey Bibliography
Transportation is an important part of urban policy and precise knowledge about the population’s travel practices is needed in order to develop sustainable transport policies. However, the increasing ‐selection or a selection decision by the study managers. When mixed survey modes are used, individuals choose to belong to one group or another or only respond if the proposed medium suits them. The responses are therefore not comparable, because the sample is no longer random and the presence of respondents is determined by external factors which may also affect the variable of interest in the studied model. This type of selection bias has received considerable coverage in the literature, from both theoretical and empirical standpoints, but as yet little attention has been paid to it with regard to transport surveys. ‐to‐face household travel survey, that is to say individuals who refused to allow an interviewer into their home or who could not be contacted during the first wave of interviews. The results of this survey show that Internet respondents travelled less than the respondents to the face‐to‐face survey. This result subsists even when we limit the socio‐economic differences between the two samples. The comparative analysis is fairly complex as it had to attempt to distinguish between three effects. First, the effect of socioeconomic differences between the Internet respondents and the standard respondents (who answered the face‐to‐face household travel survey), second the effect of any differences in travel between Internet respondents and face‐to‐face respondents, and, third, the effect of differences that were merely due to the survey medium and that did not reflect behavioural differences. It is highly likely that the socioeconomic characteristics and the travel behaviours of the individuals who respond using the Internet are different from those of the individuals who respond to a face‐to‐face interview. To take analysis further, it is necessary to apply econometric techniques that are used for qualitative variables. The sample selection model, whose parameters must be estimated using the two‐stage procedure developed by Heckman provide a promising avenue as, for example, it allows us to isolate the effect on daily travel of socio‐economic differences from that of survey mode. The first stage consists of estimating the survey medium “choice” equation using a probit model. The second stage consists of explaining the differences in travel behaviour using a specific model.
difficulty of obtaining representative data for the target population and the growing complexity of the data that are needed to feed increasingly sophisticated models mean that it is generally not possible to collect all the necessary data in the course of a single survey or with a single method. Combining different data sources has become an extremely important way of increasing knowledge about behaviours and how they are changing as well as improving transport models.
But proposing several data collection modes or methods carries a risk. The collection of information from different sources may provide results that lack comparability. The danger when databases are merged is that a sample selection bias will be created that will compromise the accuracy of explanatory models of travel behaviours. In practice, the selection bias has two sources. It results either from respondent self
The Laboratoire d’Economie des Transports has conducted an Internet survey of no respondents to the 2006 Lyon face
The object of this article is to show that survey mode has an impact on the mobility pattern of respondents. We first present the explanatory variables available for the analysis and estimate an equation of mobility which does not take into account the selection bias. Theoretical developments relative to selection bias follow. Finally, we propose an econometric model that takes into account the selection bias, applied to Lyon household travel survey data.
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.