Web Survey Bibliography
Household travel surveys response rates are decreasing. Efforts are made to increase response rate for traditional survey by improving the questionnaire, reducing respondent burden, increasing reminders… Even if results are generally positive, it is in most cases not sufficient. Weighting aims at reducing the impact of non response, but it is always necessary to postulate that people with some socio-demographic characteristics who do not respond to a survey have the same behaviour than people with the same socio-demographic characteristics who respond. But evidence seems to indicate that it is not always the case for travel. To reduce this bias of non-response, we have realised a web survey in parallel of the 2006 household travel survey conducted in face to face in Lyon. The idea was to propose to households who refuse to respond in face to face or was not reachable after a certain number of attempts to respond by the web.
This new and interactive mode of data collection offers to the respondents the possibility to choose a nice moment to complete the questionnaire. However, Internet penetration rate is still low, and users’ capabilities and equipment vary a lot. Therefore the generalization of the results to the whole population remains inaccurate. Moreover, the implementation of a Web survey raises specific problems, in terms of design and administration of the questionnaire. Lastly, the danger when databases are merged is that a sample selection bias will be created.
The paper initially discusses web potential for households travel surveys, especially in a mixed modes framework. Then, some thoughts on Lyon on-line questionnaire and the choices operated compared to its paper version are provided. We present the results of the Lyon web travel survey compared to the face-to-face survey, and characterize a selection bias. Finally, we give some perspectives for future households travel surveys.
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Web Survey Bibliography (6476)
- What we can learn from unintentional mobile respondents; 2012; Peterson, G.
- Using paradata to explore item-level response times in surveys; 2012; Couper, M. P., Kreuter, F.
- Using multivariate statistics, 6th Edition; 2012; Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S.
- Unintentional mobile respondents; 2012; Peterson, G.
- Tracking preference expression (DNT); 2012
- The smartphone psychology manifesto; 2012; Miller, G.
- The rise of the "connected viewer"; 2012; Smith, A., Boyles, J. L.
- The practice of social research; 2012; Babbie, E. R.
- The integration of facebook into class management: an exploratory study; 2012; Chou, P. N.
- The effects of item saliency and question design on measurement error in a self-administered survey; 2012; Stern, M. J., Smyth, J. D., Mendez, J.
- The cross platform report. Q2 -2012 - US; 2012
- Speed (necessarily) doesn’t kill: A new way to detect survey satisficing; 2012; Garland, P. et al.
- Smartphone ownership update: September 2012; 2012; Rainie, L.
- Sensitive topics in PC Web and mobile web surveys: Is there a difference?; 2012; Mavletova, A. M., Couper, M. P.
- Selection bias of internet panel surveys: A comparison with a paper-based survey and national governmental...; 2012; Tsuboi, S. et al.
- Screenwise panel: Frequently Asked Questions; 2012
- Research company spotlight - Mobile surveys; 2012
- Redeveloping the research section of Meningitis UK's website — A case study report; 2012; Witt, J. et al.
- Quality in market research. From theory to practice. 2nd Edition; 2012; Harding, D., Jackson, P.
- Participation of mobile users in traditional online studies; 2012; Jue, A.
- Online survey statistics for the mobile future. Updated with Q3 2012 data; 2012
- Ofcom technology tracker Wave 3; 2012
- Ofcom technology tracker Wave 2; 2012
- Not just playing around; 2012; Ewing, T.
- Norme di qualita' Assirm (Assirm quality rules]; 2012
- NBCU enlists Google, ComScore to track multiscreen Olympics viewing; 2012; Spangler, T.
- MRS Guidelines for online reseach; 2012
- More dirty little secrets of online panel research.; 2012
- Mobile usability; 2012; Nielsen, J., Budiu, R.
- Mobile email opens report 2nd half 2011; 2012
- Metering mobile usage. Insights from global Arbitron mobile trends panel; 2012; Verkasalo, H.
- Media tracker; 2012
- Measuring the quality of governmental websites in a controlled versus an online setting with the ‘...; 2012; Elling, S. et al.
- Measuring modern media consumption; 2012; Arini, N.
- ISO 20252. Market, opinion and social research-Vocabulary and service requirements, 2nd Edition; 2012
- Is „chapterisation“ a viable alternative to traditional progress indicators ?; 2012; Spicer, R., Dowling, Z.
- Internet use in households and by individual in 2012. Eurostat Statistics in Focus 50/2012; 2012; Seybert, H.
- Internet access - Households and individuals, 2012 part 2; 2012
- Internet access - Households and individuals, 2012; 2012
- Guide to social science data preparation. Best practice throughout the data life cycle; 2012
- Google et Médiamétrie créent une audience bimédia; 2012; Gonzales, P.
- GMI Pinnacle; 2012
- Global market research 2012; 2012
- Flowing with the mainstream. Is mobile market research finally living up to the hype?; 2012; Townsend, L.
- Explaining rising nonresponse rates in cross-sectional surveys; 2012; Brick, J. M., Williams, D.
- Eurobarometer Special surveys: Special Eurobarometer 381; 2012
- Online Surveys 2.0; 2012; Elferink, R.
- The Impact of Academic Sponsorship on Online Survey Dropout Rates; 2012; Allen, P. J., Roberts, L. D.
- Especially for You: Motivating Respondents in an Internet Panel by Offering Tailored Questions; 2012; Oudejans, M.
- Social media as a data collection tool: the impact of Facebook in behavioural research; 2012; Zoppos, E.