Web Survey Bibliography
Scope: This study focuses on measurement error, one component of error of observation in the framework of the total survey error (Groves et al., 2009). More precisely, this research is about is formatting error that occurs if a rating scale does not provide a perfectly matching response option (see Schwarz & Oyserman, 2001). Therefore data collected with two different closed-ended rating scales – conventional 5-point scales and graphical visual analogue scales (VASs) – were checked against each other. About VASs: The general advantages of VASs are (1) great sensitivity because of a great range, (2) data are less affected by error, leading to more statistical power (see Funke, 2010), and (3) there are far more possibilities for data analysis (e.g., recoding into odd and even number of categories, as well as into any empirical quantile). Study Design: Respondents (N = 460) completed a 40 item Big Five personality test (found at http://ipip.ori.org/ipip/). In a between-subjects design participants were randomly assigned to a questionnaire that was either made of 5-point scales or of VASs. The VASs used in the study were plain, horizontal lines with only the ends verbally anchored. They had a range of 250 values and they were generated with the free Web service VAS Generator (see http://vasgenerator.net).
Results: Overall, higher loadings on predicted factor and lower loadings on unpredicted factors lead to more explained variance with VASs in comparison to 5-point scales. The expected factor structure was considerably clearer with VASs than with 5-point scales.
Conclusion: This study adds further evidence that VASs can have a beneficial effect on data quality and that one should think about the general reluctance to use this rating scale. Overall, VASs’ positive scale characteristics should be taken advantage of in computerized data collection.
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Web survey bibliography - Germany (361)
- Mobile, webmail, desktops: Where are we viewing email now?; 2011
- Assessing personality traits through response latencies using item response theory; 2011; Ranger, J., Ortner, T. M.
- Web-based rating scales: HTML 5 and other innovations; 2011; Funke, F.
- E-dater, Artificial Actors, and German Households; 2011; Hebing, M.
- Seeing Through the Eyes of the Respondent: An Eye-tracking Study on Survey Question Comprehension; 2011; Lenzner, A., Kaczmirek, L., Galesic, M.
- Eye Tracking in testing questionnaires: What’s the added value?; 2011; Tries, S.
- Improving validity in web surveys with hard‐to‐reach targets: Online Respondent Driven Sampling...; 2011; Mavletova, A. M.
- Ignoring the compatibility of online questionnaires may bias the psychological composition of your sample...; 2011; Funke, F.
- Video enhanced web survey; 2011; Fuchs, M., Kunz, T., Gebhard, F.
- Scrolling or paging - it depends; 2011; Blanke, K.
- The German Access Panel and the Impact of Response Propensities; 2011; Amarov, B., Enderle, T., Muennich, R., Rendtel, U., Zins, S.
- A new approach to the analysis of survey drop-out. Results from Follow-up Surveys in the German Longitudinal...; 2011; Rossmann, J., Blumenstiel, J. E., Steinbrecher, M.
- Tracking the decision-making process – Findings from an Online Rolling Cross-Section Panel Study...; 2011; Faas, T.
- From "Web Questions" to "Propensity Score Weighting": An Evaluation of Topics and...; 2011; Welker, M., Taddicken, M.
- Rich Profiles – Or: What's the problem with self-disclosure data?; 2011; Tress, F.
- Mobile Research Apps – Adding New Capabilities to Market Research; 2011; Rieber, D.
- The influence of personality traits and motives for joining on participation behavior in online panels...; 2011; Keusch, F.
- Asking sensitive questions in a recruitment interview for an online panel: the income question; 2011; Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W.
- Speeders in Online Value Research: Cross-checking results of fast and slow respondents in two separate...; 2011; Beckers, T., Siegers, P., Kuntz, A.
- Effects of survey question clarity on data quality; 2011; Lenzner, T.
- Lösungsansätze gegen den Allgemeinarztmangel auf dem Land - Ergebnisse einer Online-Befragung unter Ä...; 2011; Steinhäuser, J., Annan, N. F., Roos, M., Szecsenyi, J., Joos, S.
- Question Comprehensibility and Satisficing Behavior in Web Surveys; 2011; Lenzner, T.
- Agree-Disagree Response Format versus Importance Judgment; 2011; Krebs, D.
- Germans' segregation preferences and immigrant group size: A factorial survey approach; 2011; Schlueter, E., Ullrich, J., Schmidt, P.
- 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.,
- Explaining more variance with visual analogue scales: A Web experiment; 2011; Funke, F.
- 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.
- Asking Sensitive Questions: Do They Affect Participation In Follow-Up Surveys?; 2011; Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W.
- Does social desirability compromise self-reports of physical activity in web-based research?; 2011; Crutzen, R., Goeritz, A.
- Testing for measurement equivalence of human values across online and paper-and-pencil surveys; 2011; Davidov, E., Depner, F.
- The use of paradata to monitor and manage survey data collection; 2010; Kreuter, F., Couper, M. P., Lyberg, L. E.
- Optimizing response rates in online surveys; 2010; Kaczmirek, L.
- There is an app for that! A review of smartphone apps for marketing research; 2010; Michelson, M.
- Innovative mobile research in developing countries; 2010; Bellity, E.
- Mobile location based research: Cross cultural examination of coffee culture; 2010; Morden, M., Ferneyhough, C., Grenville, A.
- Online research….and all that Jazz!; 2010; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Why are we trying to create new communities for market research purposes?; 2010; Pearson, C., Kateley, V.
- Internet-Based Measurement With Visual Analogue Scales: An Experimental Investigation; 2010; Funke, F.
- Managing the knowledge base - the DUVA system, from data entry to output tools; 2010; Then, R., Bangert, D.
- Recruiting Online Panel Members from a Mail survey in the General Population: Results from an Exploratory...; 2010; Reuband, K. H.
- Testing the Applicability of Respondent Driven Sampling as an Online Research Method to Sample Hidden...; 2010; Pajak, D.
- Seriousness Checks are Useful to Improve Data Validity in Online Research; 2010; Diedenhofen, D., Aust, F., Ullrich, S., Musch, J.
- Enrichment of Qualitative Research through Online Approaches: New Insights due to Online CoCreation...; 2010; Krischke-Ramaswamy, M., Knorr, H.
- Eye Tracking and Cognitive Interviewing: Steps to improve online questionnaires; 2010; Tries, S., Sattelberger, S.
- How new engagement techniques and question approaches are revolutionizing online research data gathering...; 2010; Puleston, J.
- Social Networking Sites: New approaches for Online-Panels?; 2010; Drosdow, M., Geißler, H.
- The Impact of Visual and Functional Design Elements in Online Survey Research; 2010; Hammen, K.