Web Survey Bibliography
For several years we have been investigating how various ways of communicating disclosure risk and harm to respondents affects their willingness to participate in surveys. These experiments, which used vignettes administered to an online panel as well as a mail survey sent to a national probability sample, have demonstrated that (a) the probability of disclosure alone has no apparent effect on people’s willingness to participate in the survey described, (b) the sensitivity of the survey topic has such an effect, and (c) making explicit the possible harms that might result from disclosure also reduces willingness to participate, in both the vignette and the mail experiments. As a last study in this series we experimented with different ways of talking about disclosure risk in informed consent statements that might more plausibly be used in real surveys, again using vignettes. The study used a 4 (topic) x 6 (confidentiality assurance) design. Two of the topics were sensitive (sex, money) and two were not (work, leisure time). The confidentiality statement assured confidentiality “except as required by law” or “to the fullest extent of the law” or gave an estimated probability of disclosure (one in a million). Three of the statements contained, in addition, the following reassurance: “In our experience at the Survey Research Center, no one, to the best of our knowledge, has ever been harmed through a breach of confidentiality.” Mode (face-to-face), sponsor (National Institutes of Health), length (15 minutes) and incentive ($5) were kept constant across the 24 vignettes. The survey was administered to 7200 members of an online panel by Market Strategies Inc. The presentation analyzes the main and interactive effects of topic sensitivity, type of assurance, and
reassurance on the basis of experience on subjects’ willingness to participate in the survey described.
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.