Web Survey Bibliography
OBJECTIVES: To compare 3 communication modes (postal, fax, and e-mail) in a rotavirus vaccine physician survey. METHODS: We used 3 communication modes to distribute a survey to physicians listed in the membership directory of the Georgia Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The directory listed 1391 members; however, 404 were deemed ineligible on the basis of their listing as a specialist, retiree, resident in training, or government public health employee. Of the 987 members expected to administer vaccines, 150 were selected randomly to receive the postal survey (postal group). Of the remaining listings, 488 (58%) of 837 listed a fax number; 150 members were selected randomly and faxed a survey (fax group). Of the remaining members, 266 (39%) of 687 had e-mail addresses listed; 150 members were selected randomly for the e-mail survey (e-mail group). A follow-up survey was sent by the same mode at 2 weeks. A final survey was sent via another mode (mixed mode) at 1 month: by fax to e-mail and postal nonresponders and by post to fax nonresponders and those without fax. RESULTS: Eligible respondents in the 3 survey groups were similar in their practice setting and location. Although the e-mail group had fewer median years (8 years) since medical school graduation than the fax group (19 years) and postal group (17 years), a similar percentage of responders in all groups had computers (>85%) and Internet access (> or =70%) at work. However, only 39% of members listed an e-mail address in the directory. In the 2 weeks after the first mailing, 39 surveys were completed via postal mail, 50 via fax, and 16 via e-mail. In the 2 weeks after the second contact (sent at 2 weeks), 20 surveys were completed via postal mail, 15 via fax, and 17 via e-mail. The response rate after the first 2 mailings was 41% (59 of 143) for postal, 47% (65 of 137) for fax, and 26% (33 of 125) for e-mail surveys. The third and final survey (sent 1 month after the first mailing) was sent by a different (ie, mixed) mode and elicited an additional 73 responses: 19 responses (15 postal, 4 fax) from the postal group, 19 responses (18 postal, 1 fax) from the fax group, and 35 responses (15 postal, 13 fax, 7 e-mail) from the e-mail group. Twenty-three percent (9 of 40) of the e-mail and 18% (15 of 83) of the fax surveys completed were returned on the same or subsequent day they were sent, compared with none of the postal surveys. There were significant differences among the 3 groups for invalid addresses/numbers (4% postal, 8% fax, and 16% e-mail) listed in the directory. Using mixed modes as the third contact, the overall response rate increased from 39% before mixed mode to a final of 53%. On the basis of the 3 initial groups, responses to 1 of 12 rotavirus questions differed significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Future use of e-mail surveys in selected circumstances is promising, because the majority of providers have Internet access and acknowledged interest in participating in e-mail surveys. E-mail surveys could be especially useful if rapid response time is necessary. There were fewer incomplete questions by participants who completed the e-mail survey compared with postal or fax participants. Updating membership e-mail addresses and routinely using e-mail as a communication tool should improve the ability to use e-mail surveys. There may need to be ongoing evaluations that critically evaluate providers' responses to e-mail surveys compared with other survey modes before e-mail surveys can become a standard survey tool. In the meantime, mixed-mode surveys may be an option.
Pediatrics Homepage - (abstract)/(full text)
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.