Web Survey Bibliography
The annual Social Climate Survey of Tobacco Control utilizes random samples of the US population. From 2001-2008, annual samples were obtained using Random Digit Dialing methods. This study examines the utility of a mixed-mode approach, used in 2009-10, and examines the validity of overall and subpopulation findings.The RDD frame included US households with landline telephones. Knowledge Networks provided the internet panel. Members were randomly recruited by telephone and mail surveys, and households were provided with access to the Internet and hardware if needed. Weights were computed in two steps. First, both frames were weighted based upon 2009 US Census estimates. Second, adjustments to these initial weights were computed to account for the overlap in the two samples. Comparisons to the Census demonstrated that the KN panel provided better representation of adults with low education and young adults. Age and education are correlated with smoking. Predictably, KN panel estimates for tobacco control indicators were marginally lower than RDD frame estimates.
Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, administered via household interviews, were used to examine the validity of the mixed-mode approach. Both surveys use the same protocol to assess smoking status. The RDD frame produced the lowest estimate (14.8%) and the the KN frame produced the highest estimate (20.3%) for smoking, whereas the mixed-mode dataset produced an estimate of 18.3%, which is within the sampling error of the NHIS estimate (19.9%). Subpopulation comparisons demonstrated that estimates for current smoking from the mixed-mode dataset closely matched those from the NHIS for young adults, adults with low education, and Hispanic adults.
These findings suggest that the mixed-mode approach used significantly reduced our
undercoverage sample bias. Mixed mode samples and weighting may help researchers select methods that will provide more representative samples and increase validity for tobacco use and other health behaviors.
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Web Survey Bibliography (264)
- The Effects of Errors in Paradata on Weighting Class Adjustments: A Simulation Study; 2013; West, B. T.
- Improving Surveys with Paradata: Analytic Uses of Process Information; 2013; Kreuter, F.
- Ten questions to ask your online survey provider; 2013; Williams, D.
- Practical tools for designing and weighting survey samples; 2013; Valliant, R. L., Daver, J. A., Kreuter, F.
- Measuring Wages Worldwide: Exploring the Potentials and Constraints of Volunteer Web Surveys; 2013; Steinmetz, S., Raess, D., Tijdens, K., de Pedraza, P.
- Moving an established survey online – or not?; 2013; Barber, T., Chilvers, D., Kaul, S.
- The comparison of road safety survey answers between web-panel and face-to-face; Dutch results of SARTRE...; 2013; Goldenbeld, C., de Craen, S.
- Measuring working conditions in a volunteer web survey; 2013; de Pedraza, P., Villacampa, A.
- Propensity Score Weighting – Can Personality Adjust for Selectivity?; 2013; Glantz, A., Greszki, R.
- The rise of the "connected viewer"; 2012; Smith, A., Boyles, J. L.
- Eurobarometer Special surveys: Special Eurobarometer 381; 2012
- Computation of Survey Weights: Bridging Theory and Practice; 2012; Debell, M.
- Modes of Data Collection; 2012; Tourangeau, R.
- An experimental investigation of the effects of noncontingent and contingent incentives in recruiting...; 2012; Lavrakas, P. J., Dennis, J. M., Peugh, J., Shand-Lubbers, J., Lee, E., Peugh, J., Charlebois, O., Murakami...
- Rules of engagement: The war against poorly engaged respondents - guidelines for elimination; 2012; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Web Panels; 2012; Bethlehem, J., Biffignandi, S.
- Use of Response Propensities; 2012; Bethlehem, J., Biffignandi, S.
- Weighting Adjustment Techniques; 2012; Bethlehem, J., Biffignandi, S.
- The Problem of Self-Selection; 2012; Bethlehem, J.,Biffignandi, S.
- The Problem of Undercoverage; 2012; Bethlehem, J., Biffignandi, S.
- Respondent-driven sampling; 2012; Schonlau, M., Liebau, E.
- A Structural Analysis Based on Similarity between Fuzzy Clusters and Its Application to Evaluation Data...; 2012; Chiba, R., Furutani, T., Sato-Ilic, M.
- Why one should incorporate the design weights when adjusting for unit nonresponse using response homogeneity...; 2012; Kott, P. S.
- Cell Sample Demographics under Alternative Dual-Frame Sample Designs; 2012; Montgomery, R., Morrison, H., Zeng, W., Wolter, K., Blumberg, S. J., O'Connor, K.
- Data Quality from Low Cost Data Collection Methodologies; 2012; Traugott, M. W.
- To Weight, or Not to Weight, That is the Question: Survey Weights and Multivariate Analysis; 2012; Young, R., Johnson, D. R.
- Multiple Imputation for Unit Nonresponse and Measurement Error; 2012; Peytchev, A.
- Assessing the Quality of Survey Data ; 2012; Blasius, J.
- Collecting, Managing, and Assessing Data Using Sample Surveys; 2012; Stopher, P.
- Online survey research: Findings, best practices, and future research. Report prepared for the Advertising...; 2011; Vannette, D.
- Online survey research: Findings, Best practices, and future research; 2011
- Just published: Forrester Wave™ of enterprise feedback management satisfaction and loyalty solutions...; 2011; McInnes, A.
- In search of a new approach to measure newspaper audiences in Canada: The journey continues; 2011; Crassweller, A., Rogers, J., Graves, F., Gauthier, E., Charlebois, O.
- Households with Computers, Telephone Subscriptions, and Internet Access, Selected Years, 1997 - 2010; 2011
- Eurobarometer Special surveys: EB75.1 E-Communications Household Survey. Special Eurobarometer 362; 2011
- A meta-analysis of experiments manipulating progress indicators in Web surveys; 2011; Callegaro, M., Villar, A., Yang, Y.
- The Evolution of Edits in the Canadian Census of Population Online Questionnaires; 2011; Laroche, D.
- Current Projects at University of Ljubljana; 2011; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Maintaining Cross-Sectional Representativeness in a Longitudinal General Population Survey ; 2011; Lynn, P.
- The German Access Panel and the Impact of Response Propensities; 2011; Amarov, B., Enderle, T., Muennich, R., Rendtel, U., Zins, S.
- A Bayesian analysis of small area probabilities under a constraint; 2011; Nandram, B., Sayit, H.
- The Impact of Non-Response Treatments on the Stability of Blockmodels; 2011; Znidarsic, A., Ferligoj, A., Doreian, P.
- test; 2011; Aadland, D.; Øverlien, C.; Abbott, R. D.; Abels, E. G.
- Research on Internet survey errors and control methods; 2011; Mingyue, F., Xicang, Z.
- Separation of selection bias and mode effect in mixed-mode survey – Application to the face-to...; 2011; Bayart, C., Bonnel, P.
- Social Climate Survey of Tobacco Control: A mixed-mode approach; 2011; Klein, J. D., McMillen, R.
- Exploring use of information in paradata through calibration method to detect and adjust non-response...; 2011; Billiet, J. Matsuo, H.
- Assessment of propensity score methods on nonresponse bias adjustment; 2011; Alanya, A., Billiet, J., Matsuo, H.
- Nonsampling errors in dual frame telephone surveys ; 2011; Brick, J. M., Flores Cervantes, I., Lee, S., Norman, G.
- Handbook of Nonresponse in Household Surveys ; 2011; Bethlehem, J., Cobben, F., Schouten, B.