Web Survey Bibliography
It is a well-known finding that sensitive survey questions such as the income question show an increased item nonresponse compared to other questions. Less is known about how and whether such questions affect the decision process of respondents to participate in follow-up surveys. The analysis of a previous survey of the general population in Germany where respondents were asked to take part in a follow-up survey shows that 47% of those who answer the income question are willing to participate in a follow-up survey. In contrast, this figure plunges to only 22% for those who decline to provide income information (total n=818). There are different possible explanations for this finding. Firstly those respondents with a lower extent of trust might have a higher probability for item nonresponse and likewise a higher probability to reject the follow-up survey participation. Secondly, asking the sensitive question itself could influence the later decision (especially for those people who are not totally convinced). The current study uses an experimental design to disentangle these two possible processes and explanations. The random split experiment was conducted during a telephone survey which included a request for participation in online follow-up surveys. Half of the respondents received a question about their net household income, while the other half was not asked any income information. At the end of the interview all respondents were asked whether they are willing to join an online panel. The study tests the causal relationship of sensitive questions and subsequent survey participation. We also discuss the connection between item nonresponse on sensitive questions and the decision to participate in subsequent surveys. Finally, we give recommendations concerning the tradeoff of asking such questions in the first interview compared to later follow-up surveys.
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Testing a single mode vs a mixed mode design; 2011; Laaksonen, S.
- Germans' segregation preferences and immigrant group size: A factorial survey approach; 2011; Schlueter, E., Ullrich, J., Schmidt, P.
- Errors within web-based surveys: a comparison between two different tools for the analysis of tourist...; 2011; Polizzi, G., Oliveri, A. M.
- Benefits of Structured DDI Metadata across the Data Lifecycle: The STARDAT Project at the GESIS Data...; 2011; Linne, M., Brislinger, E., Zenk-Moeltgen, W.
- Microdata Information System MISSY; 2011; Bohr, J.,
- The Use of Structured Survey Instrument Metadata throughout the Data Lifecycle; 2011; Hansen, S. E.
- DDI and the Lifecycle of Longitudinal Surveys; 2011; Hoyle, L., Wackerow, J.
- Dissemination of survey (meta)data in the LISS data archive; 2011; Streefkerk, M., Elshout, S.
- Underreporting in Interleafed Questionnaires: Evidence from Two Web Surveys; 2011; Medway, R., Viera Jr., L., Turner, S., Marsh, S. M.
- The use of cognitive interviewing methods to evaluate mode effects in survey questions; 2011; Gray, M., Blake, M., Campanelli, P., Hope, S.
- Does the direction of Likert-type scales influence response behavior in web surveys?; 2011; Keusch, F.
- Cross-country Comparisons: Effects of Scale Type and Response Style Differences; 2011; Thomas, R. K.
- Explaining more variance with visual analogue scales: A Web experiment; 2011; Funke, F.
- A Comparison of Branching Response Formats with Single Response Formats; 2011; Thomas, R. K.
- Different functioning of rating scale formats – results from psychometric and physiological experiments...; 2011; Koller, M., Salzberger, T.
- Cognitive process in answering questions: Are verbal labels in rating scales attended to?; 2011; Menold, N., Kaczmirek, L., Lenzner, T.
- Experiments on the Design of the Left-Right Self-Assessment Scale; 2011; Zuell, C., Scholz, E., Behr, D.
- Is it a good idea to optimise question format for mode of data collection? Results from a mixed modes...; 2011; Nicolaas, G., Campanelli, P., Hope, S., Lynn, P., Nandi, A.
- Separating selection from mode effects when switching from single (CATI) to mixed mode design (CATI /...; 2011; Carstensen, J., Kriwy, P., Krug, G., Lange, C.
- Testing between-mode measurement invariance under controlled selectivity conditions; 2011; Klausch, L. T.
- Using propensity score matching to separate mode- and selection effects; 2011; Lugtig, P. J., Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J.
- A mixed mode pilot on consumer barometer; 2011; Taskinen, P., Simpanen, M.
- Separation of selection bias and mode effect in mixed-mode survey – Application to the face-to...; 2011; Bayart, C., Bonnel, P.
- Optimization of dual frame telephone survey designs; 2011; Slavec, A., Vehovar, V.
- A Comparison of CAPI and PAPI through a Randomized Field Experiment; 2011; De Weerdt, J.
- Flexibility of Web Surveys: Probing 'do-not-know' over the Phone and on the Web; 2011; Hox, J., de Leeuw, E. D.
- Changing research methods in Ukraine: CATI or Mixed-Mode Surveys?; 2011; Paniotto, V., Kharchenko, N.
- The effects of mixed mode designs on simple and complex analyses; 2011; Martin, P., Lynn, P.
- In the Face of Declining Budgets: The Student Experience at Washington State University ; 2011; Allen, T., Dillman, D. A., Garza, B., Millar, M. M.
- Use of Cognitive Shortcuts in Landline and Cell Phone Surveys; 2011; Everett, S. E., Kennedy, C.
- Mode Effect or Question Wording? Measurement Error in Mixed Mode Surveys; 2011; de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J., Scherpenzeel, A.
- Conducting Respondent Driven Sampling on the Web: An Experimental Approach to Recruiting Challenges; 2011; Kapteyn, A., Schonlau, M.
- Discussion of Melanie Revilla's presentation on "Impact of the mode of data collection on...; 2011; Blom, A. G.
- Comments on the paper - Geetha Garib: Perceived diversity among employees; 2011; Vehovar, V.
- Framing Effects and Expected Social Security Claiming Behavior; 2011; Brown, Je., Kapteyn, A., Mitchell, O. S.
- Building an Online Immigrant Panel: Response and Representativity; 2011; Scherpenzeel, A.
- Effects of Incentives and Prenotification on Response Rates and Costs in a National Web Survey of Physicians...; 2011; Bonham, V., Day, B., Dykema, J., Sellers, S., Stevenson, J.
- Nonsampling errors in dual frame telephone surveys ; 2011; Brick, J. M., Flores Cervantes, I., Lee, S., Norman, G.
- Measurement invariance in training evaluation: Old question, new context; 2011; P., Gissel, A., Stoughton, J. W., Whelan, T. J.Clark, A. P.
- Towards Usage of Avatar Interviewers in Web Surveys; 2011; Jans, M., Malakhoff, L.
- Measurement Error in Mixed Mode Surveys: Mode or Question Format?; 2011; de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J.
- Toward a Benefit-Cost Theory of Survey Participation: Evidence, Further Tests, and Implications; 2011; Singer, E.
- Using Community Information and Survey Methodology for Bias Reduction to Enhance the Quality of the...; 2011; Harvey, J., Prabhakaran, J., Spera, C., Zhang, Zh.
- Response Quantity, Response Quality, and Costs of Building an Online Panel via Social Contacts.; 2011; Toepoel, V.
- The Influence Of The Direction Of Likert-Type Scales In Web Surveys On Response Behavior In Different...; 2011; Keusch, F.
- An Injured Party?: A Comparison of Political Party Response Formats in Party Identification.; 2011; Schwarz, S., Barlas, F. M., Thomas, R. K., Corso, R. A., Szoc, R.
- Asking Sensitive Questions: Do They Affect Participation In Follow-Up Surveys?; 2011; Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W.
- Designing Questions for Web Surveys: Effects of Check-List, Check-All, and Stand-Alone Response Formats...; 2011; Dykema, J., Schaeffer, N. C., Beach, J., Lein, V., Day, B.
- Differential Sampling Based on Historical Individual-Level Data in Online Panels.; 2011; Kelly, R. H.
- Web Survey Live Validations - What Are They Doing?; 2011; Crawford, S. D., McClain, C.