Web Survey Bibliography
Attitude measurement in web surveys mostly relies on requiring respondents to indicate their agreement or disagreement with each of several items under the same Likert-type scale in a grid format. As it is known that respondents do not only attend to the words that convey the questions but also to the visual language of a questionnaire (i.e., format and shape of response scales, verbal and numerical labels of scale points, spacing, positioning, and order of response options) it is essential to understand how this effects the response process. Although there is no conclusive evidence about the influence of the direction of extreme point labelling (e.g., Belson, 1966; Friedman et al., 1993; Salzberger & Koller, 2010; Weng & Cheng, 2000), applying the “near means related” heuristic (Tourangeau et al., 2004; 2007) to horizontal Likert-type scales would suggest that the proximity between the item and the positive anchor of the scale in a agree-to-disagree format would lead to different results than a reversed scale (disagree-to-agree format).
This study aims to bring forward how the direction of Likert-type scales in grid formats influences the response behavior of different respondent groups. In two independent web surveys with online panel members and professionals respondents were assigned to one of four treatment groups. The direction of Likert-type scales as well as the use of numerical labelling of scale points was experimentally varied in a full-factorial 2 (agree-to-disagree vs. disagree-to-agree) x 2 (with numerical labels vs. without numerical labels) design. The influence of scale presentation was measured on different indicators of data quality (response latency, item omission, non-differentiation in grids, response sets).
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Web Survey Bibliography - Online qualitative research (759)
- Developing an Online GIS-based Survey Instrument to Elicit Perceived Neighborhood Information for Environmental...; 2012; Carr, J., Johnson, I., Keene, R., Landry, P., Gradeck, R., Lucht, J., Beach, S., Clougherty, J.
- Studying Migrants with the Help of the Internet: Methods from Psychology; 2012; Reips, U. -D., Buffardi, L.
- Panel Conditioning in Online Survey Panels: Problems of Increased Sophistication and Decreased Engagemeent...; 2012; Adams, A. N., Atkeson, L. R., Karp, J. A.
- Efficiency of Different Recruitment Strategies for Web Panels; 2012; Hansen, K. M., Pedersen, R. T.
- Improving Representativeness In Online Surveys Using A Combined Internet/Postal Approach: Evidence From...; 2012; Atorough, P., Donaldson, B., Harris, A.
- Surveying Rare Populations Using a Probabilitybased Online Panel; 2012; Peugh, J., Wright, G.
- Nonresponse and Online Student Evaluations of Teaching: Understanding the Influence of Salience...; 2012; Adams, M. J. D., Umbach, P. D.
- Innovation der Online-Datenerhebung für wissenschaftliche Forschungen. Das niederländische MESS-Projekt...; 2012; Das, M.
- Do Questions about Watching Internet Pornography Make People Watch Internet Pornography? A Comparison...; 2012; Peter, J., Valkenburg, P. M.
- “I think I know what you did last summer” Improving data quality in panel surveys; 2012; Lugtig, P. J.
- Understanding Society Innovation Panel Wave 4: Results from Methodological Experiments; 2012; Burton, J., Budd, S., Gilbert, E., Jaeckle, A., Kaminska, O., Uhrig, S.C. N., Brown, M., Calderwood,...
- The Propensity of Older Respondents to Participate in a General Purpose Survey; 2012; Lynn, P.
- Mode-Switch Protocols: How a Seemingly Small Design Difference can affect Attrition Rates and Attrition...; 2012; Lynn, P.
- Deep Data: Qualitative Approaches to E-Research in the Digital Age; 2012; Salmons, J.
- Going online with a face-to-face household panel: Initial results from an experiment on the UK Household...; 2012; Jaeckle, A., Lynn, P., Burton, J.
- The use of new technologies on the British Birth Cohort Studies; 2012; Calderwood, L.
- Online Data Collection in the Agro-Food Sector; 2012; Biffignandi, S., Artaz, R.
- Reaching Under/Never Screened Populations Using an Online Survey; 2012; Filsinger, B., Gesink, D., Mihic, A., Kreiger, N.
- Comparing Ranking Techniques in Web Surveys; 2012; Blasius, J.
- Surveying general population: What types of experiments are further needed?; 2012; Vehovar, V., Berzelak, N.
- Psychometric properties of an internet administered version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability...; 2012; Vesteinsdottir, V., Reips, U. -D., Joinson, A. N., Porsdottir, F.
- Research design for studying online communities with web surveys; 2012; Petrovcic, A., Petric, G., Lozar Manfreda, K.
- “What a waste of time!” vs “Why not participate?” On sentiments by business...; 2012; Torres van Grinsven, V., Snijkers, G., Daas, P.
- Effect of different stimulus on data quality in online panels; 2012; Zagar, S., Lozar Manfreda, K.
- GESIS Online Access Panel Pilot Study: Recruitment and Panel Maintenance; 2012; Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W., Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Weyandt, K.
- The German Internet Panel: First Results from the Recruitment Phases; 2012; Blom, A. G.
- Panel retention rate and data quality: experimental results drawing on Reciprocity design; 2012; Biffignandi, S., Artaz, R.
- Analysis of coverage bias for the implementation of web surveys in Spain; 2012; de Pedraza, P., Serrano, F.
- Web panels in Slovenia; 2012; Lenar, J., Vehovar, V.
- Adaptation of Cognitive Interviews for Web; 2012; Mohorko, A., Hlebec, V.
- Database Lookup in Web Surveys; 2012; Couper, M. P., Zhang, C., Conrad, F. G., Tourangeau, R.
- Solving the Mode Mystery The Cost, Coverage and Quality Tradeoffs of Picking (and Mixing) Online and...; 2012; Cape, P. J., Phillips, K.
- A report on the Confirmit Market Research Software Survey ; 2012; Macer, T., Wilson, S.Wilson, Sheila
- A beginner's guide to DIY research ; 2012; Cates, T.
- Why "mobile" (as we know it) is the wrong focus ; 2012; Smithee, B.
- Qualitatively Speaking: Mobile qualitative finally hits its stride; 2012; Bryson, J.
- Comfortable in the new medium: How online qual can benefit from our share-happy culture ; 2012; Rubenstein, P.
- Don't rush through the qualitative screening process ; 2012; Dodson, D.
- Appreciating the value of traditional research in a digital world; 2012; Turner, S.
- Mixing old and new qualitative methods ; 2012; Kaisner, C., Lindley , K.
- For winning qualitative, make it high-touch + high-tech; 2012; Barber, E., McIlrath, M.
- Sample Survey on Sensitive Topics: Investigating Respondents’ Understanding and Trust in Alternative...; 2012; De Schrijver, A.
- Preventative care to extend panelist’s lifetime: A driver analysis on panelist engagement; 2012; Johnson, E. P., Schiers, J.
- Consistency in Global Non-Probabilistic Online Samples; 2012; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- How Online Technology May Open The Door to More Integrated Qual/Quant Research; 2012; Brandt, D., Markowitz, L.
- Innovation in online data collection for scientific research: the Dutch MESS project; 2012; Das, M.
- Clinicians’ Perspectives on a Web-Based System for Routine Outcome Monitoring in Old-Age Psychiatry...; 2012; Veerbeek, M. A., Voshaar, R. C. O., Pot, A. M.
- The Effectiveness of Survey Recruitment Methods in Second Life; 2012; Dean, E., Cook, S., Murphy, J., Keating, M.
- Using Collaborative Web Technology to Construct the Health Information National Trends Survey; 2012; Moser, R. P., Beckjord, E. B., Finney Rutten, L. J., Blake, K., Hesse, B. W.
- Panel Conditioning: Results from Two Experiments in a Probability-based Online Panel; 2012; Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L., Schaurer, I., Bandilla, W.

