Web Survey Bibliography
Background: It is unclear whether offering online data collection to study participants affects compliance or produces bias.
Objective: To compare response rates, baseline characteristics, test-retest reliability, and outcomes between cigarette smokers who chose to complete a survey by mail versus those who chose to complete it online.
Methods: We surveyed cigarette smokers who intended to stop smoking within the next 30 days to determine barriers to calling a smoking quit line. Participants were offered the choice of completing a paper version of the survey sent through the mail or an online version at a password-protected website. Participants were called 2 months later to determine if they had made a quit attempt and/or called a smoking quit line since the baseline survey. We compared characteristics and outcomes among those who chose postal versus online completion. We measured test-retest reliability of the baseline survey by resurveying a semirandom sample of participants within 10 days of the original survey.
Results: Of 697 eligible respondents to newspaper ads in 12 US cities, 438 (63%) chose to receive a mailed paper survey and 259 (37%) chose an Internet survey. Survey return rates were the same for the 2 modes (92% versus 92%, P = .82). Online respondents were younger (mean of 46 versus 51 years old for postal, P < .001), more likely to be white (76% versus 62%, P < .001), less likely to be African American (18% versus 30%, P < .001), more highly educated (34% college graduate versus 23%, P < .001), more likely to intend to stop smoking in the next 30 days (47% definitely versus 30%, P < .001), and more likely to have heard of a smoking quit line (51% versus 40%, P = .008). Participants did not differ on gender (54% female for online versus 55% for postal, P = .72) or cigarettes smoked per day (mean of 19 versus 21, P = .30). Online respondents had slightly fewer missing items on the 79-item survey (mean of 1.7% missing versus 2.3%, P = .02). Loss to follow-up at 2 months was similar (16% for online and 15% for postal, P = .74). There was no significant difference between online and postal respondents in having called a smoking quit line during the 2-month follow-up period (20% versus 24%, P = .22) or in having made a quit attempt (76% versus 79%, P = .41).
Conclusions: Cigarette smokers who chose to complete a survey using the Internet differed in several ways from those who chose mailed surveys. However, more importantly, online and postal responses produced similar outcomes.
Journal Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Web Survey Bibliography - 2010 (397)
- Using ad hoc measures for response styles: a cautionary note; 2010; de Beuckelaer, A.; Weijters, B.; Rutten, A.
- How Harmful are Survey Translations? A Test with Schwartz's Human Values Instrument; 2010; Davidov, E., de Beuckelaer, A.
- Elastic-R, a Google docs-like portal for data analysis in the Cloud ; 2010; Chine, K.
- Restructuring and innovations on the survey “capacity of collective tourist accommodation”...; 2010; Santoro, M. T., Staffieri, S.
- Managing the knowledge base - the DUVA system, from data entry to output tools; 2010; Then, R., Bangert, D.
- An Analyze of the Zero Price Effect on Online Business Performance - An Research Based on the Mobile...; 2010; Liu, Y., Yuan, P.
- Is there a future for “real” qualitative market research interviewing in the digital age...; 2010; McPhee, N.
- From clipboards to online research communities; 2010; Poynter, R., Cierpicki, S., Lorch, J., Zuo, B., Davis, C., Eddy, C.
- 3 screen measurement: Soccer World Cup 2010; 2010; Conry, S., Benezra, K., Singh, S.
- Can biomarkers be collected in an Internet survey? A pilot study in the LISS panel; 2010; Avendano, M., Mackenbach, J., Scherpenzeel, A.
- Dealing with Nonresponse in Survey Sampling: an Item Response Modeling Approach; 2010; Matei, A.
- Power, sample size, and optimal designs in social research; 2010; Moerbeek, M., van Breukelen, G. J. P.
- Codebook and explanatory note on the WageIndicator dataset ; 2010; Tijdens, K., van Zijl, S., Hughie-Williams, M., van Klaveren, M., Steinmetz, S.
- Modeling non-sampling errors and participation in Web surveys; 2010; Biffignandi, S.
- Perspectives on Web Survey Development: Views from Programmers, Content Specialists, and Survey Methodologists...; 2010; Downey, K.
- Using a Mixed-Mode Design to Survey Ethnic Minorities?; 2010; Feskens, R., Kappelhof, J.
- Blogosphere and Democracy in Portugal–Results of a Websurvey; 2010; Carvalho, T., Casanova, J. L.
- Recent Findings on Using Rich Media in Online Surveys; 2010; Malinoff, B., Henning, J.
- Digital, Social Moms: Using Social Media to Increase Respondent Engagement and Decrease Recruiting Costs...; 2010; Stemberg, C., Rimmer, L., Weinstein, D.
- From Buzz to Biz: Social Media Research for Results; 2010; Pettit, F. A.
- Archiving and Re-using Qualitative and Qualitative Longitudinal Data in Slovenia; 2010; Stebe, J., Hudales, J., Kragelj, B.
- Establishing a Qualitative Data Archive in Austria; 2010; Smioski, A.
- Methodological and Ethical Dilemmas of Archiving Qualitative Data; 2010; Kuula, A.
- Qualitative and Qualitative Longitudinal Resources in Europe; 2010; Bishop, L., Neale, B.
- The Rise of Survey Programming Automation as an Alternative to Outsourcing; 2010; Ahmed, A. S., Guyer, L.
- How is Emerging Technology/Web 2.0 Changing Gathering Consumer Feedback and the Delivery of Data? ; 2010; Price, K., Patel, N.
- Sexy Questions, Dangerous Results? - Exploring the Impact of Rich Media Question Formats in Online Survey...; 2010; Malinoff, B.
- Mobile Research: New Platform, New Thinking ; 2010; Johnson, A. J., Conry, S.
- Managing Quality in Large Multi-Country / Multi-Category / Multi-Modal Studies; 2010; Thompson, J.
- State of Technology in Market Research ; 2010; Coates, D.
- Mobile Research – The future’s in their hands: Exploring the Application of Digital Research...; 2010; Dodgson, S.
- Factorial Design on Survey Router Configuration Effect by Sample Source; 2010; Fawson, B., Johnson, E. P.
- Use of Faces in Surveys; 2010; Burdein, I.
- Participant Satisfaction and Panel Member Retention; 2010; Portner, A.
- Conditioning Effects in Online Communities; 2010; Cape, P. J.
- Sample Blending; 2010; Lorch, J., Cavallaro, K., van Ossenbruggen, R.
- Looking Beyond Quality Differences: How Do Consumer Buying Patterns Differ by Sample Source?; 2010; Baker-Prewitt, J.
- Predicting the Future with Social Media ; 2010; Asur, S., Huberman, B. A.
- From Tweets to Polls: Linking Text Sentiment to Public Opinion Time Series; 2010; O’Connor, B., Balasubramanyan, R,, Routledgex, B. R., Smith, N. A.
- News Platform Preference: Advancing the Effects of Age and Media Consumption on Political Participation...; 2010; Bachmann, I., Kaufhold, K., Lewis, S. C., de Zuniga, H. G.
- ReCal: Intercoder Reliability Calculation as a Web Service ; 2010; Freelon, D. G.
- Statistics Canada's Process Automation of On-line Survey Development and CATI Data Integration; 2010; Dubois, M.-A.
- Recruiting Online Panel Members from a Mail survey in the General Population: Results from an Exploratory...; 2010; Reuband, K.H.
- Operational Aspects of Recruiting High Internet Users via a CATI Screening on an RDD Frame; 2010; Batra, P.
- Uses of YouTube, and Other Web 2.0 Applications, in Data Collection; 2010; Franklin, J.
- Towards Usage of Web 2.0 Technology and Avatars for Web Surveys; 2010; Malakhoff, L.
- Technical Challenges in the Development and Implementation of QUEST (CARI Monitoring System); 2010; Sattaluri, S., Spain, C., Nguyen, M., Thissen, R.
- Off-the-shelf Web Software: Qualtrics; 2010; Warren, N.
- Web Based Paper Form Verification Using QueXF; 2010; Zammit, A.
- Cell Connectivity Options for Field Interviewing ; 2010; Nofziger, J., Griggs, C.