Web Survey Bibliography
Survey researchers using the web for data collection often must contend with respondents who provide poor quality data. Poor data can come from careless responders or fraudulent responders. Careless responders are those who may simply be distracted or fatigued when completing the survey or may respond carelessly and quickly in an effort to expend as little energy as possible in exchange for the survey incentive. Fraudulent responders are those who are interested in intentionally manipulating the survey results or collecting a valued incentive multiple times. This study compares a number of overt and covert methods to uncover fraudulent and careless responding. Overt traps are part of the survey content and are visible to the respondent on the survey, but covert traps are not. Covert traps analyze response characteristics that suggest poor data quality. Our research indicates that overt survey traps were effective in capturing careless responders, but covert traps were best for capturing fraudulent responders. Recommendations on the use of overt and covert survey traps based on our findings are provided.
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Web survey bibliography - The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) 65th Annual Conference, 2010 (30)
- Offering a Web Option in a Mail Survey of Young Adults: Impact on Survey Quality; 2010; Turner, S., Viera Jr., L., Marsh, S. M.
- Investigating Data Quality in Cell Phone Surveying; 2010; Lavrakas, P. J., Tompson, T., Benford, R.
- The Role of Landline and Cell Phone Usage Patterns in Nonreponse Error Potential Among Young Adults...; 2010; Currivan, D. B., Levine, B., Mayo, Ni.
- Differences in Early and Late Responders: Findings from a Military Web-Based Community Survey.; 2010; Prabhakaran, J., Spera, C., Leach, L. M., Foster, R.
- Assessing Cell Phone Noncoverage Bias Across Different Topics and Subgroups; 2010; Christian, L. M., Keeter, S., Purcell, K., Smith, A.
- Using a Simulation Study to Examine Strategies for Combining Cell and Landline Survey Samples; 2010; Duffy, T., Bausch, S., Iachan, R., Lu, B.
- Representing Seniors in an Online National Probability Panel Survey: Measuring Technology Attitudes...; 2010; Peugh, J., Mansfield, W., Wells, T., Semans, K.
- Communicating Disclosure Risk in Informed Consent Statements; 2010; Singer, E., Couper, M. P.
- Meeting the Challenges of Converting a Large Establishment Survey from Paper to Electronic Administration...; 2010; Roe, D. J., Thalji, L., Loft, J., Flicker, L., Stockdale, J., Stagnitti, M.
- Assessing the Accuracy of the Face-to-Face Recruited Internet Survey Platform: A Comparison of Behavioral...; 2010; Villar, A., Malka, A., Krosnick, J. A.
- Internet Panels and Health Research: Findings from National RDD Surveys.; 2010; Boyle, J.
- Item Nonresponse Analysis for a Mixed-Mode Survey.; 2010; Lorenc, B., Olsson, K.
- Significant Factors Governing the Use of Auditory Stimuli in Web Questionnaires; 2010; Utami, S. S., Dawood, R., Navvab, M.
- The Subject Lines of Web Survey Invitations and Participation Rates; 2010; Titiz, H., Ziniel, S.
- Experimental Trial of Benefit Appeals on Completion Rates for the Agricultural Screening Survey; 2010; Atkinson, D., Moore, D., McCarthy, J. S.
- Using Overt and Covert Survey Traps to Maximize Data Quality; 2010; Cardador, J., Wayman, M., Sheridan, M.
- Professional Web Respondents and Data Quality; 2010; Conrad, F. G., Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P., Zhang, C.
- Does Making The Survey Topic More Salient Lead To An Expert Bias? – The Influence of Announcing...; 2010; Keusch, F., Mayerhofer, W., Weilbuchner, N., Jungreithmaier, S.
- Time Related Inconsistencies in Global Online Panels; 2010; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Study of Non-Probability Sample Internet Surveys' Estimates of Consumer Product Usage and Demographic...; 2010; Yeager, D. S., Carter, A., Tewoldemedhin, H., Krosnick, J. A.
- An Experiment to Test the Feasibility and Quality of a Web-Based Questionnaire of Teachers; 2010; Jacob, R., Scott, L., Rowan, B.
- Impact of Monetary Incentives and Web Survey Option in the 2008 National Survey of Recent College Graduates...; 2010; Heaviside, S., Jang, D., Mooney, G., Barrett, K., Kang, K. H.
- Response Mode and Bias Analysis in the IRS' Individual Taxpayer Burden Survey; 2010; Masken, K., Contos, G., Nord, R., Brick, J. M.
- Diversity of Methods: Assessment of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Multiplier Effects.; 2010; Ballou, J., Roff, B., Anderson, M.
- Does Providing a Choice of Survey Modes Influence Response?; 2010; Lesser, V. M., Newton, L., Yang, D.
- Improving Response to Mail and Web Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Effects of Offering Choice on Survey Response...; 2010; Millar, M. M., Dillman, D. A.
- Potentials and Constraints of Propensity Score Weighting to Improve Web Survey Quality; 2010; Steinmetz, S., Tijdens, K.
- KnowledgePanel®: Processes & Procedures Contributing to Sample Representativeness & Tests for Self...; 2010; Dennis, J. M.
- The Effects of Different Incentives on Data Quantity and Data Quality in Online Panels; 2010; Singh, R. K., Voggeser, B. J., Goeritz, A.
- Maximizing a stratified ABS frame for nation-wide mail recruitment of a probability-based online panel...; 2010; DiSogra, C., Hendarwan, E.