Web Survey Bibliography
More than 50% of all survey data in the Netherlands are collected via Internet. However, these data may not adequately represent the views of the Dutch people. The majority of the Dutch people are not willing to join a web panel, and from the people that are in a panel the minority (20%) fills out the majority (80%) of the questionnaires (NOPVO, 2006). Therefore, the answers obtained from web panels can differ significantly from the general population. It is well known that panels contain too many (heavy) Internet users and too few ethnic minorities. So how can we get people into a panel that would normally not join and (hopefully) make the results more reliable? An unconventional approach is used for building this panel: via social networks. Traditionally one could make the distinction between probability and volunteer opt-in panels. Although most survey researchers agree that probability panels are needed for representativeness, the majority of web surveys is based on volunteer opt-in panels because of budget restraints. Volunteer opt-in panels are prone to selection bias, however. This new way of recruitment may increase representativeness compared to volunteer opt-in panels (recruitment is on invitation only; respondent driven sampling can be used for difficult to reach groups) while keeping the costs at a minimum. By asking respondents via friends and relatives to join the panel, respondents that are normally not willing to join a panel might be persuaded to join. The starting point of building the panel are administrative records of Breda University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands (about 7000 students with a national spread). I will investigate response quantity, response quality, and costs and give suggestions about when to use this type of recruitment. Note that the Internet penetration rate in the Netherlands is about 90% in 2010.
AAPOR Homepage (abstract)
GOR Homepage (abstract) / (presentation)
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.