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 (6332)
- The Feasibility of Conducting a Web Survey Using Respondent Driven Sampling among Transgenders in the...; 2012; Kappelhof, J.
- The role of topic interest and topic salience in online panel web surveys.; 2012; Keusch, F.
- Multi-Language Multi-Continent B2B Community Panel: How B2B research can effectively span the world; 2012; Morden, M., Accomando, E.
- Can Survey Gaming Techniques Cross Continents? Examining cross cultural reactions to creative questioning...; 2012; Puleston, J.
- Facing The Future Webcams as a survey tool in China; 2012; Gordon, A., Llewellyn, T., Gu, E.
- Device Diversity: Understanding the complexity of varied devices for taking surveys – Case study...; 2012; Pearson, C., Backlund, K., Veling, L., Tsvelik, M., Jehoel, S.
- Research Goes Mobile: Findings from initial smartphone application research; 2012; Dubreuil, C., Joubert, S.
- Research in the Mobile Mindset: Exploring the unexplored in the mobile research space; 2012; Willems, A., Veris, E., Verhaeghe, A.
- Better Answers to Basic Questions: Enhancing the accuracy of online reach and audience metrics; 2012; van Dam, P. H., van Ossenbruggen, R., Voorend, R.
- Rules of engagement: The war against poorly engaged respondents - guidelines for elimination; 2012; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Reality check in the digital age: The relationship between what we ask and what people actually do; 2012; Hofmeyr, J., Louw, A.
- Website Versus Traditional Survey Comments: Do they tell the same story?; 2012; Brandt, R., House, M.
- Dimensions of Online Survey Data Quality What really matters?; 2012; Puleston, J., Eggers, M.
- WEBDATANET: web-based data-collection methodological challenges, solutions and implementations. Action...; 2012; de Pedraza, P.
- WebSM Study: Survey software features overview ; 2012; Vehovar, V.; Cehovin, G.; Kavcic, L.; Lenar, J.
- 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.
- Mixed-Mode Surveys; 2012; Bethlehem, J., Biffignandi, S.
- Designing a Web Survey Questionnaire; 2012; Bethlehem, J., Biffignandi, S.
- Examining Contexts-of-Use for Web-Based and Paper-Based Questionnaires; 2012; Hardré, P. L., Crowson, H. M., Xie, K.
- Probabilistic survey questions and incorrect answers: Retirement income replacement rates; 2012; van Santen, P., Alessie, R., Kalwij, A.
- Survey Quality; 2012; Lyberg, L. E.
- Combining Mail and E-Mail Contacts to Facilitate Participation in Mixed-Mode Surveys; 2012; Israel, G. D.
- Effects of E-Mailed Versus Mailed Invitations and Incentives on Response Rates, Data Quality, and Costs...; 2012; Dykema, J., Stevenson, J., Klein, L., Kim, Y., Day, B.
- Prenotification, Incentives, and Survey Modality: An Experimental Test of Methods to Increase Survey...; 2012; Tepper, J. R., Jacob, B.
- Measuring Work Activities and Skill Requirements of Occupations: Experiences from a European Pilot Study...; 2012; Tijdens, K., De Ruijter, E., De Ruijter, J.
- Using Free Online Survey Software in Your Teaching; 2012; Chippindall, J.
- Reaching and Hearing the Invisible: Organizational Research on Invisible Stigmatized Groups via Web...; 2012; Trau, R. N. C., Haertel, C. E. J., Haertel, G. F.
- Comparability of Survey Measurements; 2012; Oberski, D.
- Why People Agree to Participate in Surveys; 2012; Albaum, G., Smith, S. M.
- Unit Non-Response Due to Refusal; 2012; Stoop, I.
- Classification of Surveys; 2012; Stoop, I., Harrison, E.
- What Survey Modes are Most Effective in Eliciting Self-Reports of Criminal or Delinquent Behavior?; 2012; Kleck, G., Roberts, K.
- Non-Response and Measurement Error; 2012; Billiet, J., Matsuo, H.
- An Overlooked Approach in Survey Research: Total Survey Error; 2012; Bautista, R.
- An assessment of equivalence between Internet and paper-based surveys: evidence from collectivistic...; 2012; Fang, J., Wen, C., Prybutok, V.
- Effects of Incentives in Surveys; 2012; Toepoel, V.
- Using screen video capture software to aide and inform cognitive interviewing; 2012; Chaney, B. H., Barry, A. E., Chaney, J. D., Stellefson, M. L., Webb, M. C.
- Respondents Cooperation: Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents and Its Implication; 2012; Glaser, P.
- Costs and Errors in Fixed and Mobile Phone Surveys; 2012; Vehovar, V., Slavec, A., Berzelak, N.
- E-Mail Surveys; 2012; Mesch, G.
- Does survey experience affect respondents’ reported level of satisfaction?; 2012; Schultz Christensen, A., Ladenburg, J.
- Building Your Own Online Panel Via E-Mail and Other Digital Media; 2012; Toepoel, V.
- Data Quality in HIV/AIDS Web-Based Surveys: Handling Invalid and Suspicious Data; 2012; Bauermeister, J. A., Pingel, E., Zimmerman, M., Couper, M. P., Carballo-Diéguez, A., Strecher, V. J.
- Response rates in three opinion surveys performed through online questionnaires in the health setting...; 2012; Aerny Perreten, N., Domínguez-Berjón, M. F., Astray Mochales, J., Esteban-Vasallo, M. D., Blanco Ancos...
- Use of Web 2.0 to Recruit Australian Gay Men to an Online HIV/AIDS Survey; 2012; Theriault, N., Bi, P., Hiller, J. E., Nor, M.
- Web and Mail Surveys: An Experimental Comparison of Methods for Nonprofit Research; 2012; Lin, W., Van Ryzin, G. G.

