Web Survey Bibliography
Since it gets more difficult to compensate panel mortality with the recruitment of fresh panelists, panel maintenance is becoming more and more important. The challenge is to increase panelists’ commitment by basically giving them more positive experiences than negative ones. Probably one of the worst experiences panelists can have is being frequently screened out, as the shown willingness to participate leads to immediate disappointment. The application of a master screener helps to preselect panelists more precisely and thus to sustain panelists’ commitment. In our contribution, we would like to present first evidencesthat the use of a master screener not only improves panel performance, but furthermorealso has a positive impact on data quality.
In our case study, we compared two groups of panel members. The first group had been pre-selected for each study by participating in a master screener, while the second group had been screened separately after entering each survey. In a common survey without screening conditions both groups are asked to answer the same questions. Our comparison of both groups extends over indicators of panel performance like response-rate and break-off-rate, but also on data quality and user feedback. Differences in these variables are assumed to be caused by the experience of participation in the master screener.
In both groups overall satisfaction with panel membership is correlated with the subjectively perceived frequency of survey termination. Participants in the Masterscreener were more satisfied with the frequency of termination, as well as with other aspects of panel membership. Therefore, we expect a confounding influence of three variables on the perceived frequency of termination. Regarding the probability of participating in further surveys and recommending the panel-membership, the participants in the Masterscreener had a more positive attitude. The observed differences between both groups make us confident, that we will be able to identify further positive effects inthe intermediate and long term.
Our case study sheds some light on the effects of a master screener on the intermediateterm(e.g. data quality, response rates, satisficing behaviour) and in the longterm(panelist commitment, panel mortality).
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Web Survey Bibliography - Germany (416)
- Challenges of assessing the quality of a prerecruited probability-based panel of internet users in...; 2012; Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L.
- Item comparability in cross-national surveys: results from asking probing questions in cross-national...; 2012; Behr, D., Braun, M., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W.
- Assessing Cross-National Equivalence of Measures of Xenophobia: Evidence from Probing in Web Surveys; 2012; Behr, D., Braun, M., Kaczmirek, L.
- Mobile Befragungen: Was Big Data mit kleinen Geräten zu tun hat; 2012
- Item non-response in open-ended questions: Who does not answer on the meaning of left and right?; 2012; Scholz, E., Zuell, C.
- Innovation der Online-Datenerhebung für wissenschaftliche Forschungen. Das niederländische MESS-Projekt...; 2012; Das, M.
- Comparing Ranking Techniques in Web Surveys; 2012; Blasius, J.
- Design of CAWI Instruments for Social Surveys ; 2012; Blanke, K.
- Enhancing Web Surveys With New HTML5 Input Types; 2012; Funke, F.
- GESIS Online Access Panel Pilot Study: Recruitment and Panel Maintenance; 2012; Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W., Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Weyandt, K.
- The German Internet Panel: First Results from the Recruitment Phases; 2012; Blom, A. G.
- Assessing the Magnitude of Non-Consent Biases in Linked Survey and Administrative Data; 2012; Sakshaug, J. W., Kreuter, F.
- Improving RDD Cell Phone Samples. Evaluation of Different Pre-call Validation Methods; 2012; Kunz, T., Fuchs, M.
- Marktforschung mit dem iPad-Panel von Axel Springer Media Impact; 2012
- Effects of Personalized Versus Generic Implementation of an Intra-Organizational Online Survey on Psychological...; 2012; Mueller, K., Straatmann, T., Hattrup, K., Jochum, M.
- Positioning of Clarification Features in Web Surveys: Evidence from Eye Tracking Data; 2012; Kunz, T., Fuchs, M.
- Using Adaptive Questionnaire Design in Open-ended Questions: A Fieldexperimental Study on the Size of...; 2012; Fuchs, M., Emde, M.
- Exploring New Pathways to Survey Recruitment; 2012; Bilgram, V., Stadler, D.Jawecki, G.
- Does Mode Matter? Initial Evidence from the German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES); 2012; Blumenstiel, J. E., Rossmann, J.
- Best of both worlds – The INSA study 50plus; 2012; Geissler, H., Blome, C.
- The “MediaLiveTracker” – A New Online-Tool for Real-Time-Response-Measurement; 2012; Kercher, J., Bachl, M., Voegele, C., Vohle, F.
- Surveytainment 2.0: Why investing 10 more minutes more in constructing your questionnaire is worth considering...; 2012; Muehle, A., Tress, F., Schmidt, S., Winkler, T.
- Market research online community (MROC) versus focus group; 2012; Zuber, M.
- Data quality in MAWI and CAWI; 2012; Mavletova, A. M., Blasius, J.
- Can mobile-web surveys substitute classic web-surveys? Results from an exploratory, comparative method...; 2012; Bohn, A., Doering, N., Maxl, E.
- Scrutinizing Dynamics – Rolling panel waves in theory and practice; 2012; Faas, T., Blumenberg, J. N.
- The German Internet Panel: Design of a Probability-Based Online Survey; 2012; Blom, A. G., Gathmann, C., Holthausen, A., Riepe, C.
- The price we have to pay: Incentive experiments in the recruitment process for a probability-based online...; 2012; Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W.
- Effects of number of response options in web surveys: The role of verbal labels; 2012; Thorsdottir, F., Fuchs, M., Jonsdottir, J.
- Little experience with technology as a cause of nonresponse in online surveys; 2012; Struminskaya, B., Schaurer, I., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W.
- Comparing Item-Non-Response and Open Questions within different Web Survey Types; 2012; Silber, H., Lischewski, J., Leibold, J.
- Continuous large-scale volunteer web-surveys: The experience of Lohnspiegel and WageIndicator; 2012; Oez, F.
- Is Pretesting Established Among Online Survey Tool Users?; 2012
- An Evaluation of Two Non-Reactive Web Questionnaire Pretesting Methods; 2012; Lenzner, T.
- High potential for mobile Web surveys: Findings from a survey representative for German Internet users...; 2012; Funke, F., Wachenfeld, A.
- Better low-tech than sorry: How technophile questionnaires may affect psychological representativeness...; 2012; Funke, F., Reips, U. -D.
- Can Social Media Research replace traditional research methods?; 2012; Faber, T., Einhorn, M., Hofmann, O., Loeffler, M.
- Bad Boy Matrix Question – Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?; 2012; Tress, F.
- Effects of Static versus Dynamic Formatting Instructions for Open-Ended Numerical Questions in Web Surveys...; 2012; Kunz, T., Fuchs, M.
- FamilyVote – Conducting online surveys with children and families; 2012; Geissler, H., Peeters, H.
- New Insights about market research with an iPad-panel; 2012; Manouchehri, A., Rieber, D., Moughrabi, C.
- Asking Probing Questions in Web Surveys: Which factors have an Impact on the Quality of Responses? ; 2012; Behr, D., Kaczmirek, L., Braun, M., Bandilla, W.
- Assessing the Quality of Survey Data ; 2012; Blasius, J.
- Exploring Animated Faces Scales in Web Surveys: Drawbacks and Prospects; 2012; Emde, M., Fuchs, M.
- Reminders in Web-Based Data Collection: Increasing Response at the Price of Retention?; 2012; Goeritz, A., Crutzen, R.
- Mobile, webmail, desktops: Where are we viewing email now?; 2011
- Assessing personality traits through response latencies using item response theory; 2011; Ranger, J., Ortner, T. M.
- Web-based rating scales: HTML 5 and other innovations; 2011; Funke, F.
- German Web-based Registry for Eating Disorders; 2011; Gross, G., Birgegård, A., Zipfel, S.
- E-dater, Artificial Actors, and German Households; 2011; Hebing, M.