Web Survey Bibliography
Relevance and research question: Nonserious answering is one of the most important threats to the validity of online research (Oppenheimer, 2009). Respondents with little motivation to participate, or respondents who are interested in a survey's content or methodology only may decide to participate without giving serious answers, thus increasing noise and reducing experimental power.
Methods and data: One approach to identifying nonserious participants is to directly ask respondents about the seriousness of their participation (Klauer, Musch & Naumer, 2000; Musch & Klauer, 2002; Reips, 2000, 2002). We hypothesized that when given an opportunity to do so, randomly answering participants might be willing to identify themselves to help researchers (Reips, 2009). To validate this approach, we questioned a sample of more than 3000 respondents in the week prior to the German 2009 federal election to the Bundestag. We asked the participants whether they were responding to the questions in earnest, expecting that the exclusion of nonserious participants would help to improve data quality.
Results: We found that restricting analyses to serious participants allowed a more valid forecast of the election result. Moreover, serious participants answered attitudinal questions in a more consistent manner than nonserious participants. For example, among serious participants, self-ratings on a left-right scale correlated more strongly with approval ratings for the two major parties (CDU/CSU and SPD), and intentions to vote corresponded better with the participant’s recollections of their voting behavior in a previous election.
Added value: Taken together, our results document the usefulness of employing seriousness checks to improve data validity. We therefore recommend to routinely employ seriousness checks in online surveys. Nonserious participants should be allowed to render their data invalid, instead of letting their data invalidate the results.
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Springer Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Testing the Applicability of Respondent Driven Sampling as an Online Research Method to Sample Hidden...; 2010; Pajak, D.
- Seriousness Checks are Useful to Improve Data Validity in Online Research; 2010; Diedenhofen, D., Aust, F., Ullrich, S., Musch, J.
- Enrichment of Qualitative Research through Online Approaches: New Insights due to Online CoCreation...; 2010; Krischke-Ramaswamy, M., Knorr, H.
- Developing and Evaluating a Student Online Panel.; 2010; Stiglbauer, B., Gamsjäger, M., Gnambs, T., Batinic, B., Altrichter, H.
- Online Access Panels: A detailed look at different Ways of Entering, their Costs and Participation Behavior...; 2010; Führer, R., Keusch, F.
- Eye Tracking and Cognitive Interviewing: Steps to improve online questionnaires; 2010; Tries, S., Sattelberger, S.
- Trial by Ordeal, a medieval approach to a modern day problem; 2010; Cape, P., Cavallaro, K.
- How new engagement techniques and question approaches are revolutionizing online research data gathering...; 2010; Puleston, J.
- Social Networking Sites: New approaches for Online-Panels?; 2010; Drosdow, M., Geißler, H.
- The Impact of Visual and Functional Design Elements in Online Survey Research; 2010; Hammen, K.
- Theoretical model of context-sensitive mobile methods; 2010; Maxl, E.
- Can a professional questionnaire layout make up for a boring topic? The mediating role of topic interest...; 2010; Keusch, F., Mayerhofer, W., Jungreithmaier, S., Weilbuchner, N., Fuehrer, R., Kling, H.
- Using Propensity Score Weighting to Reduce Bias of a Swiss Market Research Web Panel; 2010; Wiegand, G., Jella, H., Beat, H., Stefan, L.
- Potentials and Constraints of Propensity Score Weighting to Improve Web Survey Quality; 2010; Steinmetz, S., Tijdens, K.
- Are well-selected panelists better respondents? Insights into the effect of a master screener on panel...; 2010; Irmer, C., Tress, F.
- Selection Bias in Web Surveys and the Use of Propensity Scores in Forecasting the Result of the 2009...; 2010; Musch, J., Ullrich, S., Diedenhofen, D.
- KnowledgePanel®: Processes & Procedures Contributing to Sample Representativeness & Tests for Self...; 2010; Dennis, J. M.
- A Comparison of Psychometric Properties Between Internet and Paper Versions of Two Depression Instruments...; 2010; Andersson, G., Engstroem, I., Hollaendare, F.
- Combining Link-Tracing Sampling and Cluster Sampling to Estimate Totals and Means of Hidden Human Populations...; 2010; Félix-Medina, M. H., Monjardin, P. E.
- Increasing Respondents' Use of Definitions in Web Surveys; 2010; Peytchev, A., Conrad, F. G., Couper, M. P., Tourangeau, R.
- Quality in Unimode and Mixed-Mode designs: A Multitrait-Multimethod approach; 2010; Revilla, M.
- Elaborate Item Count Questioning: Why Do People Underreport in Item Count Responses?; 2010; Hirai, Y., Tsuchiya, Ta.
- Some Notes on the Probability Space of Statistical Surveys; 2010; Petrakos, G.
- Use of a Web-based Questionnaire in the Black Women's Health Study; 2010; Boggs, D. A., Palmer, J. R., Rosenberg, L., Russell, C. W.
- Reaching Emergency Medical Services Providers: Is One Survey Mode Better than Another?; 2010; Schmuhl, P., Van Duker, H., Gurley, K. L., Webster, A., Olson, L. M.
- Web-based Questionnaires: The Future in Epidemiology?; 2010; van Gelder, M. M. H. J, Bretveld, R. W., Roeleveld, N.
- Statistical foundations of cell-phone surveys; 2010; Wolter, K., Smith, P., Blumberg, S. J.
- Epidemiologic Research and Web 2.0—the User-driven Web; 2010; Lee, B. K.
- Developing a Research Framework for Usability in Online Surveys: Human-Survey Interaction; 2010; Kaczmirek, L.
- Online Survey Research in the Work-Family Field: Basic Concepts and Definitions; 2010; Lambert, A. D.
- Choosing Between Telephone and Online for Survey Data Collection ; 2010; Baker, R. P.
- Results of Targeting Pre-Identified Minority, Unidentified Non-Internet and Vacant Homes in Two National...; 2010; DiSogra, C., Hendarwan, E.
- Using KnowledgePanel® to Improve the Sample Representativeness and Accuracy of Opt-in Panel Data...; 2010; Dennis, J. M., Peugh, J., Graham, P.
- Self-administered mobile surveys: Usability and (non)participation; 2010; Scherrer, S., Bosnjak, M.
- Web panels: Replacement technology for market research; 2010; Goeritz, A.
- Social desirability and self-reported health risk behaviors in web-based research: three longitudinal...; 2010; Crutzen, R., Goeritz, A.
- Security and Data Protection: Collection, Storage, Feedback in Internet Research; 2010; Thiele, O., Kaczmirek, L.
- Designing Web Surveys in Marketing Research: Does Use of Forced Answering Affect Completion Rates?; 2010; Albaum, G., Roster, C. A.,Wiley, J. B., Rossiter, J., Smith, S. M.
- Methoden der Online-Forschung; 2010; Welker, M., Wünsch, C.
- Online-Befragungen im Kontext von Lehrevaluationen – praktisch und unzuverlässig; 2010; Meinefeld, W.
- AAPOR Report on Online Panels; 2010; P., Blumberg, S. J., Brick, J. M., Rivers, D. et. al.Baker, R. P.
- The impact of incentives and interview methods on response quantity and quality in diary- and booklet...; 2010; Bonke, J., Fallesen, P.
- Multi-Mode and Method Experiment in a Study of Nurses; 2010; Friese, C. R., Lee, C. S., O'Brien, S., Crawford, S. D.
- An Experiment With an Employment Sector Question; 2010; Finno, A. A., Kohout, J.
- Lottery Incentives and Online Survey Response Rates; 2010; Preece, M. J., Johanson, G., Hitchcock, J.
- Color red in web-based knowledge testing; 2010; Gnambs, T., Batinic, B., Appel, Ma.
- A comparison of surveys using different modes of data collection; 2010; Revilla, M., Saris, W. E.
- Variations in Response Style Behavior by Response Scale Format in Attitude Research; 2010; Kieruj, N. D., Moors, G.
- Selection Bias in Web Surveys; 2010; Bethlehem, J.
- Using the Internet to Give Children a Voice: An Online Survey of 10-and 11-Year-Old Children in Northern...; 2010; Lloyd, K., Devine, P.