Web Survey Bibliography
The visual capabilities offered by the internet provide a platform by which magazine readers may be queried about their viewing, noting and recognizing of ad copy appearing in specific magazine issues. However, it is well known that “samples” used in these studies may be subject to substantial bias arising from the non-probability nature of the sample selection process. Furthermore, when correctly computed, the response rates on many internet panels are quite low. In those situations when certain key variables are statistically linked (i.e. strongly correlated) with sample selection bias and key substantive outcomes, these variables may be used to adjust or calibrate these estimates. This is sometimes known as post stratification in traditional full-probability sampling and model-based estimation for model based (non-probability) sampling. In examining a large number of internet samples used to collect data on ad-noting and ad recognition it is has been found that these outcome measures are associated and correlated, to varying degrees, with gender, time spent reading, place of reading, percent of pages opened, and frequency of reading. Furthermore, we have found the distribution of these variables among internet respondents is substantially different from those in traditional full-probability surveys. We have developed a series of sample weighting procedures to remove a substantial amount of the “selection bias” linked to these reading qualities. This bias reduction step results in meaningful changes in readership ad-noting and ad identification. This paper will show, using actual data, how our approach to bias reduction weighting was developed, and how it impacts the outcomes of ad-noting and identification. In our decision to apply these weights we have adopted a standard minimization of mean squared error approach and perspective. That is, any weighting which increases variable random error must be offset with bias reduction. Bias reduction occurs when changes in the survey estimates are observed. Within a single magazine issue, the overall changes in ad noting scores are not typically large. However, there are ads in which noting scores do show substantial change. These changes are consistent with expectations linked to the adjustment measures. Furthermore, while an outside validation of the model based estimates has not been undertaken, our examination of overall impact across magazines is highly consistent with those expected on the basis of the variables involved. Thus, while we do not claim that our results are externally validated, we are comfortable in saying that the adjustments are in the expected direction and appear to make sense.
Conference Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Web survey bibliography (183)
- Using experts’ consensus (the Delphi method) to evaluate weighting techniques in web surveys not...; 2017; Toepoel, V.; Emerson, H.
- A Partially Successful Attempt to Integrate a Web-Recruited Cohort into an Address-Based Sample; 2017; Kott, P. S., Farrelly, M., Kamyab, K.
- Overview: Online Surveys; 2017; Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Inferences from Internet Panel Studies and Comparisons with Probability Samples; 2016; Lachan, R.; Boyle, J.; Harding, R.
- Integration of a phone-based household travel survey and a web-based student travel survey; 2016; Verreault, H.; Morency, C.
- Estimation and Adjustment of Self-Selection Bias in Volunteer Panel Web Surveys ; 2016; Niu, Ch.
- Calculating Standard Errors for Nonprobability Samples when Matching to Probability Samples ; 2016; Lee, Ad.; ZuWallack, R. S.
- Establishing the accuracy of online panels for survey research; 2016; Bruggen, E.; van den Brakel, J.; Krosnick, J. A.
- Evaluating Three Approaches to Statistically Adjust for Mode Effects; 2016; Kolenikov, S.; Kennedy, C.
- Linearization Variance Estimators for Mixed ‒ mode Survey Data when Response Indicators are Modeled...; 2016; Demnati, A.
- Options for Fielding and Analyzing Web Surveys; 2016; Schonlau, M.; Couper, M. P.
- Report of the Inquiry into the 2015 British general election opinion polls; 2016; Sturgis, P., Baker, N., Callegaro, M., Fisher, St., Green, J., Jennings, W., Kuha, J., Lauderdale, B...
- Solving the Nonresponse Problem With Sample Matching?; 2016
- Online and Social Media Data As an Imperfect Continuous Panel Survey; 2016; Diaz, F.; Garmon, F.; Hofman, J. K.; Kiciman, E.; Rothschild, D.
- Quota Controls in Survey Research.; 2016; Gittelman, S. H.; Thomas, R. K.; Lavrakas, P. J.; Lange, V.
- Scientific Surveys Based on Incomplete Sampling Frames and High Rates of Nonresponse; 2016; Fahimi, M.; Barlas, F. M.; Thomas, R. K.; Buttermore, N. R.
- Doing Surveys Online ; 2016; Toepoel, V.
- Using Mobile Phones for High-Frequency Data Collection; 2015; Azevedo, J. P.; Ballivian, A.; Durbin, W.
- On Bias Adjustments for Web Surveys; 2015; Fan, L.; Lou, W.; Landsman, V.
- The quality of data collected using online panels: a decade of research ; 2015; Callegaro, M.
- Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour...; 2015; Liebe, U., Glenk, K., Oehlmann, M., Meyerhoff, J.
- Web-based survey, calibration, and economic impact assessment of spending in nature based recreation; 2015; Paudel, K. P., Devkota, N., Gyawali, B.
- Using Web Panels for Official Statistics; 2014; Bethlehem, J.
- Self-reported cheating in web surveys on political knowledge; 2014; Jensen, C., Thomsen, J. P. F.
- Keeping Surveys Valid, Reliable, and Useful: A Tutorial; 2014; Greenberg, M. R., Weiner, M. D.
- Prioritisation of alternatives with analytical hierarchy process plus response latency and web survey...; 2014; Barone, S. Errore, A., Lombardo, A.
- A critical review of studies investigating the quality of data obtained with online panels based on...; 2014; Callegaro, M., Villar, A., Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A.
- Online panel research: History, concepts, applications and a look at the future; 2014; Callegaro, M., Baker, R., Bethlehem, J., Goeritz, A., Krosnick, J. A., Lavrakas, P. J.
- Using Paradata to Predict and to Correct for Panel Attrition in a Web-based Panel Survey; 2014; Rossmann, J., Gummer, T.
- Improving cheater detection in web-based randomized response using client-side paradata; 2014; Dombrowski, K., Becker, C.
- Modelling ”don’t know” responses in rating scales; 2014; Manisera, M., Zuccolotto, P.
- User Modeling via Machine Learning and Rule-Based Reasoning to Understand and Predict Errors in Survey...; 2013; Stuart, L. C.
- Comparison of Three Modes for a Crime Victimization Survey; 2013; Laaksonen, S., Heiskanen, M.
- The Short-term Campaign Panel of the German Longitudinal Election Study 2009. Design, Implementation...; 2013; Steinbrecher, M., Rossmann, J.
- Too Fast, Too Straight, Too Weird: Post Hoc Identification of Meaningless Data in Internet ; 2013; Leiner, D. J.
- Assessing Nonresponse Bias in the Green Technologies and Practices Survey; 2013; Meekins, B., Sverchkov, M., Stang, S.
- Web Panel Representativeness; 2013; Bianchi, A., Biffignandi, S.
- On the Impact of Response Patterns on Survey Estimates from Access Panels; 2013; Enderle, T., Muennich, R., Bruch, C.
- Unit Nonresponse and Weighting Adjustments: A Critical Review; 2013; Brick, J. M.
- Adjusting for bias in a mixed-mode CAWI survey on University students ; 2013; Clerici, R., Giraldo, A.
- A probability-based web panel for the UK: What could it look like?; 2013; Nicolaas, G.
- Panel Attrition: Separating Stayers, Sleepers and Other Types of Drop-Out in an Internet Panel; 2013; Lugtig, P. J.
- Speeding and Non-Differentiation in Web Surveys: Evidence of Correlation and Strategies for Reduction...; 2013; Zhang, Che.
- Web Versus Outbound: A Mode Face-Off Following the Presidential Debate; 2013; Marlar, J.
- The Effects of Errors in Paradata on Weighting Class Adjustments: A Simulation Study; 2013; West, B. T.
- Practical tools for designing and weighting survey samples; 2013; Valliant, R. L., Daver, J. A., Kreuter, F.
- Moving an established survey online – or not?; 2013; Barber, T., Chilvers, D., Kaul, S.
- Measuring working conditions in a volunteer web survey; 2013; de Pedraza, P., Villacampa, A.
- Propensity Score Weighting – Can Personality Adjust for Selectivity?; 2013; Glantz, A., Greszki, R.
- Eurobarometer Special surveys: Special Eurobarometer 381; 2012