Web Survey Bibliography
Characteristics of response scales are important factors in guiding cognitive processes underlying the choice of a response category in responding to the request for an answer on an attitude item. This paper deals with two different requests and two different response formats as well, yet addressing the same topic. For example, assessing the importance of an item to respondents one can ask directly for importance judgments (on a scale ranging from very important to unimportant) or one can formulate an item containing already the statement of importance and then offer a response scale ranging from agree to disagree. In both cases responses express respondents’ subjective importance of identical items and therefore responses can be expected to be similar on both response formats.
Compared are first, judgments of how important a job characteristic is to a respondent by offering a scale ranging from important to unimportant (f.e. high income is “very important”). Second, items expressing the importance of a job characteristic are presented by offering a response scale ranging from agree to disagree (f.e. Item: high income is very important to me; response category: scale from agree to disagree). Scale direction starting with either the negative or the positive response option can also be taken into account.
For all questions on both response formats a 7-point response scale was used. Respondents were students answering to an online questionnaire. Reported are results on questions about job motivation.
Based on repeated measures quality of measurement regarding reliability and validity of indicators is presented.
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Web Survey Bibliography (6390)
- 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.
- Smartphone Apps and User Engagement: Collecting Data in the Digital Era; 2012; Link, M. W.
- Snowball Sampling in Online Social Networks; 2012; Raissi, M., Ackland, R.
- The Use of Facebook as a Locating and Contacting Tool; 2012; McCarthy, T.
- How Often Do You Use the App with a Bird on It? Exploring Differences in Survey Completion Times, Primacy...; 2012; Buskirk, T. D.
- Data quality of questions sensitive to social-desirability bias in web surveys; 2012; Lozar Manfreda, K., Zajc, N., Berzelak, N., Vehovar, V.
- Online Questionnaires: Development of ‘basic requirements’; 2012; Tries, S., Blanke, K.
- Social research in online context: methodological reflections on web surveys from a case study; 2012; Pandolfini, V.
- Efficacy of a health-related Facebook social network site on health-seeking behaviors; 2012; Woolley, P., Peterson, M.
- Methods for eliminating skip statements from questionnaire logic; 2012; Canvanough Spencer, S.
- The war against unengaged online respondents; 2012; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Qualitatively Speaking: The five absolute, no-excuse must-dos for online qualitative researchers; 2012; Rossow, A.
- By the Numbers: Lessons for using online panels in B2B research; 2012; Elsner, N.
- Improving Survey Website Usability ; 2012; Vannette, D.
- Specialized Tools for Measuring Past Events ; 2012; Belli, R. F.
- Transparency, Access and the Credibility of Survey Research; 2012; Lupia, A.
- Experience Sampling and Ecological Momentary Assessment; 2012; Stone, A.
- Can Microtargeting Improve Survey Sampling? An Assessment of Accuracy and Bias in Consumer File Marketing...; 2012; Pasek, J.
- Anonymity and Confidentiality; 2012; Tourangeau, R.
- Cognitive Evaluation of Survey Instruments: State of the Science (Art?) and Future Directions; 2012; Willis, G. B.
- Oh, Just One More Thing … Leveraging “Leave-Behinds” in Data Collection; 2012; Link, M. W.
- Can Official Records Correct Errors in Turnout Self-reports?; 2012; Berent, M., Krosnick, J. A., Lupia, A.
- Paradata; 2012; Kreuter, F.
- Computation of Survey Weights: Bridging Theory and Practice; 2012; Debell, M.
- Optimizing Response Rates; 2012; Brick, J. M.
- Modes of Data Collection; 2012; Tourangeau, R.
- The Use and Effects of Incentives in Surveys; 2012; Singer, E.
- Probability vs. Non-probability Methods; 2012; Langer, G,
- Improving Question Design to Maximize Reliability and Validity; 2012; Krosnick, J. A.
- Respondent Attrition vs Data Attrition and Their Reduction; 2012; Olsen, R. J.
- Survey Interviewing: Deviations from the Script; 2012; Schaeffer, N. C.
- Sampling for Single and Multi-Mode Surveys using Address-Based Sampling; 2012; O'Muircheartaigh, C.
- What Human Language Technology can do for you (and vice versa); 2012; Liberman, M.
- Proxy Reporting; 2012; Cobb, C. L.
- The Impact of Survery Nonresponse on Survey Accuracy; 2012; Keeter, S.
- How accurate are surveys of objective phenomena?; 2012; Chang, L. C., Krosnick, J. A.

