Web Survey Bibliography
The present analysis has been made possible by the survey on graduates' condition that is carried out every year by the Inter
‐universities Consortium ALMALAUREA1. The survey makes it possible to analyse the most recent labour market trends through an examination of the career opportunities available for the Italian graduates of the universities taking part in the Consortium during the 5 years on from graduation. All graduates are contacted 1, 3 and 5 years on from graduation. More specifically, the data have been collected during the last survey conducted by ALMALAUREA in 2008 (over 287,000 graduates examined). This survey also involved all first and second level (=cycle of the Bologna Process) graduates from the class of 2007 (about 140,000). The huge number of graduates involved has determined the necessity to use survey methods that allow the reduction of costs and duration. This objective has been achieved through the introduction of two survey methods: CAWI and CATI. More precisely, the graduates having a mailbox (85% of the cohort) have been emailed and asked to answer to a questionnaire on the web site of ALMALAUREA. The survey procedure also included two e‐mail reminders. Afterwards, all graduates who had not answered to the online questionnaire have been contacted by phone. ‐to‐entry into the labour market and so on. These pieces of information are integrated by the huge quantity of data on the sociodemographic characteristics of graduates (e.g. social origins, gender, age), pre‐university studies, academic studies (e.g. degree course, graduation mark) and further experiences made during studies (foreign languages and IT skills, internships, study experiences made abroad and work experiences). It is possible that the survey methods used may have influenced the answer given by graduates. In other words, since the information have been collected through different survey tools (CAWI and CATI), they may have caused distortions that are not casual. For example, the presence/absence of interviewers is an important determinant for the quality of the information collected. On the other hand, because of the cultural level of the cohort involved in the interview, the contribution given by the interviewer may be limited; in some cases it may even be counterproductive, since they may influence the answer of the graduates. In consideration of the complexity of the subject that is dealt with, it has become important to determine if there are significant differences between the answers given by those who filled in the online questionnaire and those who gave their answers during the telephone interview. This need has also been confirmed by the fact that these two groups of graduates have also turned out during some preliminary analysis to be different in terms of their studies and area of residence. The method for evaluating an error deriving from a differentiated treatment (CATI or CAWI) will be developed by following a particular approach that is referred to the typical notions of the so‐called “causal inference”. This problem may be faced by referring to the approach proposed by Rosembaum and Rubin (1983), that is known as propensity score. The authors demonstrate that, having in hand several information which characterise the individuals and which are related to the time that preceded the treatment, it is possible to create groups of individuals having similar characteristics. These groups are, therefore, theoretically deconditioned by the kind of undergone treatment. Within this groups of individuals it is possible to compare the target variable (e.g. the occupational status) among those who have undergone the treatment and those who have not or just have undergone a different treatment. ALMALAUREA has also implemented a monitoring system of selection bias due to different data collection techniques. In this system an innovative approach was used (Camillo and D’Attoma, 2008). It involves a data transformation that allows measuring and testing in an automatic and multivariate way the presence of selection bias. The aim of ALMALAUREA is to measure and eventually to evaluate the effect of the undergone treatment on the answers given by graduates.
The survey enabled us to collect the main information related to academic and work experiences made after graduation: employment condition at the time of the interview, characteristics of the job (contract, branch of activity, earning), time
Conference homepage (abstract)
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Displaying Videos in Web Surveys: Implications for Complete Viewing and Survey Responses; 2017; Mendelson, J.; Lee Gibson, J.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Using experts’ consensus (the Delphi method) to evaluate weighting techniques in web surveys not...; 2017; Toepoel, V.; Emerson, H.
- Mind the Mode: Differences in Paper vs. Web-Based Survey Modes Among Women With Cancer; 2017; Hagan, T. L.; Belcher, S. M.; Donovan, H. S.
- Answering Without Reading: IMCs and Strong Satisficing in Online Surveys; 2017; Anduiza, E.; Galais, C.
- Ideal and maximum length for a web survey; 2017; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.
- Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey; 2017; Caputo, A.
- Web-Based Survey Methodology; 2017; Wright, K. B.
- Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; 2017; Liamputtong, P.
- Lessons from recruitment to an internet based survey for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: merits of...; 2017; Davies, B.; Kotter, M. R.
- 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.
- Achieving Strong Privacy in Online Survey; 2017; Zhou, Yo.; Zhou, Yi.; Chen, S.; Wu, S. S.
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote...; 2017; Breton, C.; Cutler, F.; Lachance, S.; Mierke-Zatwarnicki, A.
- Examining Factors Impacting Online Survey Response Ratesin Educational Research: Perceptions of Graduate...; 2017; Saleh, A.; Bista, K.
- Usability Testing for Survey Research; 2017; Geisen, E.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Paradata as an aide to questionnaire design: Improving quality and reducing burden; 2017; Timm, E.; Stewart, J.; Sidney, I.
- Fieldwork monitoring and managing with time-related paradata; 2017; Vandenplas, C.
- 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.
- Millennials and emojis in Spain and Mexico.; 2017; Bosch Jover, O.; Revilla, M.
- Where, When, How and with What Do Panel Interviews Take Place and Is the Quality of Answers Affected...; 2017; Niebruegge, S.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Nonresponses as context-sensitive response behaviour of participants in online-surveys and their relevance...; 2017; Wetzlehuetter, D.
- 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.
- Measuring Subjective Health and Life Satisfaction with U.S. Hispanics; 2017; Lee, S.; Davis, R.
- Humanizing Cues in Internet Surveys: Investigating Respondent Cognitive Processes; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.; Krzewinska, A.
- A Comparison of Emerging Pretesting Methods for Evaluating “Modern” Surveys; 2017; Geisen, E., Murphy, J.
- The Effect of Respondent Commitment on Response Quality in Two Online Surveys; 2017; Cibelli Hibben, K.
- Pushing to web in the ISSP; 2017; Jonsdottir, G. A.; Dofradottir, A. G.; Einarsson, H. B.
- 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.
- Redirected Inbound Call Sampling (RICS); A New Methodology ; 2017; Krotki, K.; Bobashev, G.; Levine, B.; Richards, S.
- An Empirical Process for Using Non-probability Survey for Inference; 2017; Tortora, R.; Iachan, R.
- The perils of non-probability sampling; 2017; Bethlehem, J.
- A Comparison of Two Nonprobability Samples with Probability Samples; 2017; Zack, E. S.; Kennedy, J. M.
- Rates, Delays, and Completeness of General Practitioners’ Responses to a Postal Versus Web-Based...; 2017; Sebo, P.; Maisonneuve, H.; Cerutti, B.; Pascal Fournier, J.; Haller, D. M.
- Necessary but Insufficient: Why Measurement Invariance Tests Need Online Probing as a Complementary...; 2017; Meitinger, K.
- 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.
- Is There a Future for Surveys; 2017; Miller, P. V.
- Reducing speeding in web surveys by providing immediate feedback; 2017; Conrad, F.; Tourangeau, R.; Couper, M. P.; Zhang, C.
- Social Desirability and Undesirability Effects on Survey Response latencies; 2017; Andersen, H.; Mayerl, J.
- 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.