Web Survey Bibliography
At the last ESRA conference, we presented the results of a vignette-based study in the Netherlands exploring how best to inform respondents about the capture of paradata in Web surveys. We found that any disclosure of paradata capture reduced willingness to participate.
In an attempt to improve willingness to allow the use of paradata, we carried out two further experiments in the U.S., one in a probability-based panel (n=5,550) and one in an opt-in panel (n=9,206). We varied a number of factors across the two studies, including the descriptions of paradata capture (e.g., reasons given, amount of information provided), the time of the consent request (at the beginning or end of the survey), the sensitivity of the topic, and (in one condition) directly asked for permission to use the paradata from the current survey (as opposed to using hypothetical vignettes).
Although there is considerable variation in results between the two studies, in general they reinforce the earlier finding that informing respondents of paradata capture is likely to reduce their willingness to participate in Web surveys, especially when they are asked for their consent directly. In the condition where we asked respondents at the end of the survey for permission to use their paradata, 31% declined. We will describe the results of the three studies, consider possible alternatives to the methods of informing respondents we have been using, and discuss implications for practice.
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Web survey bibliography - European survey research associaton conference 2011, ESRA, Lausanne (35)
- Effects of speeding on satisficing in Mixed-Mode Surveys; 2011; Bathelt, S., Bauknecht, J.
- Quantifying Open-Ended Responses: Results from an Online Advertising Tracking Survey; 2011; Jacobe, A., Brewer, L., Vakalia, F., Turner, S., Marsh, S. M.
- Quality of responses to an open-ended question on a mixed-mode survey; 2011; Gibson, J., Vakalia, F., Turner, S.
- Open-ended questions in the context of temporary work research; 2011; Siponen, K.
- How do Respondents Perceive a Questionnaire? The Contribution of Open-ended Questions; 2011; Markou, E., Garnier, B.
- The Uses of Open-Ended Questions in Quantitative Surveys; 2011; Singer, E., Couper, M. P.
- Agree-Disagree Response Format versus Importance Judgment; 2011; Krebs, D.
- 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.
- 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.
- Measurement Error in Mixed Mode Surveys: Mode or Question Format?; 2011; de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J.