Web Survey Bibliography
With the introduction of the Internet as a new data collection mode, traditional survey methodology is challenged fundamentally. The increasing popularity of web surveys created a demand for appropriate web survey methodology, thereby triggering a heated debate about the quality and reliability of web surveys for scientific use. The most obvious potential drawback of web surveys is that they may not be 114 representative of the population of interest because the sub-population with Internet access is quite specific.
In this context, propensity score adjustment (PSA) has been proposed to statistically surmount inherent problems, particularly in non-probability-based web surveys. In this procedure, a parallel probabilitybased reference survey is used to estimate the propensities of being in the web sample based on a vector of covariates (socio-demographic and ‘webographic’ (lifestyle) variables) measured in both samples. It is critical for the method to choose appropriate covariates. In the scientific community, however, this method has not been applied traditionally in the field of surveys. There has been a minimal amount of evidence for its applicability. The implications particularly for survey methodology still need to be studied more extensively.
Against this background, the paper will explore the efficiency of PSA in adjusting biases arising from nonrandomized sample selection. For that purpose, the un-weighted and weighted results from the Dutch volunteer web sample of the WageIndicator Survey 2009 will be compared with data from the Dutch LISS Panel that have been collected parallel. The advantage of this reference survey is that it provides a proper probability sample stemming from the same resource (e.g. the same questionnaire). Survey mode effects can be excluded as both questionnaires are completed individually on the computer. Finally, the application will also examine the sensitivity of the results, particularly with regard to changes in the specification of the propensity score.
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Web Survey Bibliography (264)
- The Effects of Errors in Paradata on Weighting Class Adjustments: A Simulation Study; 2013; West, B. T.
- Improving Surveys with Paradata: Analytic Uses of Process Information; 2013; Kreuter, F.
- Ten questions to ask your online survey provider; 2013; Williams, D.
- Practical tools for designing and weighting survey samples; 2013; Valliant, R. L., Daver, J. A., Kreuter, F.
- Measuring Wages Worldwide: Exploring the Potentials and Constraints of Volunteer Web Surveys; 2013; Steinmetz, S., Raess, D., Tijdens, K., de Pedraza, P.
- Moving an established survey online – or not?; 2013; Barber, T., Chilvers, D., Kaul, S.
- The comparison of road safety survey answers between web-panel and face-to-face; Dutch results of SARTRE...; 2013; Goldenbeld, C., de Craen, 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.
- The rise of the "connected viewer"; 2012; Smith, A., Boyles, J. L.
- Eurobarometer Special surveys: Special Eurobarometer 381; 2012
- Computation of Survey Weights: Bridging Theory and Practice; 2012; Debell, M.
- Modes of Data Collection; 2012; Tourangeau, R.
- An experimental investigation of the effects of noncontingent and contingent incentives in recruiting...; 2012; Lavrakas, P. J., Dennis, J. M., Peugh, J., Shand-Lubbers, J., Lee, E., Peugh, J., Charlebois, O., Murakami...
- Rules of engagement: The war against poorly engaged respondents - guidelines for elimination; 2012; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Web Panels; 2012; Bethlehem, J., Biffignandi, S.
- Use of Response Propensities; 2012; Bethlehem, J., Biffignandi, S.
- Weighting Adjustment Techniques; 2012; Bethlehem, J., Biffignandi, S.
- The Problem of Self-Selection; 2012; Bethlehem, J.,Biffignandi, S.
- The Problem of Undercoverage; 2012; Bethlehem, J., Biffignandi, S.
- Respondent-driven sampling; 2012; Schonlau, M., Liebau, E.
- A Structural Analysis Based on Similarity between Fuzzy Clusters and Its Application to Evaluation Data...; 2012; Chiba, R., Furutani, T., Sato-Ilic, M.
- Why one should incorporate the design weights when adjusting for unit nonresponse using response homogeneity...; 2012; Kott, P. S.
- Cell Sample Demographics under Alternative Dual-Frame Sample Designs; 2012; Montgomery, R., Morrison, H., Zeng, W., Wolter, K., Blumberg, S. J., O'Connor, K.
- Data Quality from Low Cost Data Collection Methodologies; 2012; Traugott, M. W.
- To Weight, or Not to Weight, That is the Question: Survey Weights and Multivariate Analysis; 2012; Young, R., Johnson, D. R.
- Multiple Imputation for Unit Nonresponse and Measurement Error; 2012; Peytchev, A.
- Assessing the Quality of Survey Data ; 2012; Blasius, J.
- Collecting, Managing, and Assessing Data Using Sample Surveys; 2012; Stopher, P.
- Online survey research: Findings, best practices, and future research. Report prepared for the Advertising...; 2011; Vannette, D.
- Online survey research: Findings, Best practices, and future research; 2011
- Just published: Forrester Wave™ of enterprise feedback management satisfaction and loyalty solutions...; 2011; McInnes, A.
- In search of a new approach to measure newspaper audiences in Canada: The journey continues; 2011; Crassweller, A., Rogers, J., Graves, F., Gauthier, E., Charlebois, O.
- Households with Computers, Telephone Subscriptions, and Internet Access, Selected Years, 1997 - 2010; 2011
- Eurobarometer Special surveys: EB75.1 E-Communications Household Survey. Special Eurobarometer 362; 2011
- A meta-analysis of experiments manipulating progress indicators in Web surveys; 2011; Callegaro, M., Villar, A., Yang, Y.
- The Evolution of Edits in the Canadian Census of Population Online Questionnaires; 2011; Laroche, D.
- Current Projects at University of Ljubljana; 2011; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Maintaining Cross-Sectional Representativeness in a Longitudinal General Population Survey ; 2011; Lynn, P.
- The German Access Panel and the Impact of Response Propensities; 2011; Amarov, B., Enderle, T., Muennich, R., Rendtel, U., Zins, S.
- A Bayesian analysis of small area probabilities under a constraint; 2011; Nandram, B., Sayit, H.
- The Impact of Non-Response Treatments on the Stability of Blockmodels; 2011; Znidarsic, A., Ferligoj, A., Doreian, P.
- test; 2011; Aadland, D.; Øverlien, C.; Abbott, R. D.; Abels, E. G.
- Research on Internet survey errors and control methods; 2011; Mingyue, F., Xicang, Z.
- Separation of selection bias and mode effect in mixed-mode survey – Application to the face-to...; 2011; Bayart, C., Bonnel, P.
- Social Climate Survey of Tobacco Control: A mixed-mode approach; 2011; Klein, J. D., McMillen, R.
- Exploring use of information in paradata through calibration method to detect and adjust non-response...; 2011; Billiet, J. Matsuo, H.
- Assessment of propensity score methods on nonresponse bias adjustment; 2011; Alanya, A., Billiet, J., Matsuo, H.
- Nonsampling errors in dual frame telephone surveys ; 2011; Brick, J. M., Flores Cervantes, I., Lee, S., Norman, G.
- Handbook of Nonresponse in Household Surveys ; 2011; Bethlehem, J., Cobben, F., Schouten, B.