Web Survey Bibliography
a) Relevance & Research question: Although the use of progress bar seems to be standard in many online surveys, there is no consensus in the literature regarding its effect on survey drop-off rates. Researchers hope that using a progress bar helps reducing drop-off rates by providing respondents with a sense of survey length and allowing them to monitor their progress through it.
b) Methods & Data: In this meta-analysis we analyzed 27 randomized experiments that compared drop-off rates of an experimental group who completed an online survey where a progress bar was shown, to drop-off rates of a control group to whom the progress bar was not shown. In all the studies drop-offs were defined as any respondent who did not fully complete the survey. Three types of bars were analyzed: a) linear or constant, b) fast first then slow, and c) slow first then fast.
c) Results: Random effects analysis was used to compute odds ratios (OR) for each study. Because the dependent variable was drop-off rate, an OR greater than 1 indicates that the progress bar group had a higher drop-off rate while an OR lower than 1 indicates that the progress bar group had a lower drop-off rate. The OR for the 13 studies using a constant progress bar is 1.065 (p=0.304). The OR for the 7 studies using fast-to-slow progress bar is 0.835 (p=0.131), whereas the OR for the 7 studies presenting the slow-to-fast progress bar is 1.564 (p=0.002). These preliminary results suggest that, contrary to widespread expectations, the progress indicator does not help reduce drop-off rates for the constant progress indicator while there is some indication that the fast to slow does. Furthermore, the slow-to-fast bar increases drop-off rates as compared to not showing the progress bar. We do not suggest using the fast to slow progress indicator because ethically questionable and against AAPOR and ESOMAR codes.
d) Added value: To our knowledge this is the first meta-analysis study on the topic. Additional literature search will be performed and we are awaiting from some authors to send us data to add to the study.
Conference Homepage (abstract) / (presentation)
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Should we use the progress bar in online surveys? A meta-analysis of experiments manipulating progress...; 2011; Callegaro, M., Yang, Y., Villar, A.
- 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.
- Who are leaving our panel: panel attrition and personality traits; 2011; Marchand, M.
- 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.
- Respondent Characteristics as Explanations for Uninformative Survey Response: Sources of Nondifferentiation...; 2011; Van Meurs, L., Klausch, L. T., Schoenbach, K.
- Snap judgement polling; 2011; Anderson, K., Wright, M., Wheeler, M.
- Individual differences in motivation to participate in online panels; 2011; Bruggen, E., Wetzels, M., de Ruyter, K., Schillewaert, N.
- Data Use: A systematic method for checking online questionnaires; 2011; Arbittier, J.
- Understanding the pros and cons of mixed-mode research; 2011; Mora, M.
- Visiting item non-responses in internet survey data collection; 2011; Albaum, G., Roster, C. A., Smith, S. M., Wiley, J. B.
- Why Web-assisted TDIs are a cost-effective qualitative methodology ; 2011; Donnelly, T.
- Capturing affective experiences using the SMS Experience Sampling (SMS-ES) method.; 2011; Andrews, L., Russell-Bennett, R., Drennan, J.
- Successful Prompting Methods on a Web-Based Survey; 2011; Venkataraman, L.
- Multi-Mode Survey Administration; 2011; Holder, T.
- Do’s and Don’ts of Developing Mixed Mode Surveys; 2011; Sanders, Ti.
- Mobile Survey Development Toolkit/Survey Framework; 2011; Rauch, M.
- Web based CATI on Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud and VirtualBox using queXS; 2011; Zammit, A.
- Survey Suite: Our "LOGIN & GO" Solution to Survey Research Needs; 2011; Lowden, M.
- A Dinosaur That Just Won't Die: A Return to Paper Surveys; 2011; Crandall, S., Crisafulli, T.
- Responses to Mail-Internet Mixed Mode Surveys: When Can we do Away with Paper Questionnaires?; 2011; Krebill-Prather, R.
- Web/Cloud Based CATI Using queXS; 2011; Zammit, A.
- When Referring to Mode, Is Expressed Preference the Same as Reality?; 2011; Denk, K.
- Developing Paradata Tools to Maximize Call Center Conversion Rates; 2011; Heinrich, T., Pittman, J., Abu, K.
- Incentives, Research-based Best Practices; 2011; Dykema, J.
- "But This is My Cell Phone!": A Qualitative Look at Practical Techniques for Gaining the...; 2011; George, J., Balok, T., Frasier, A. M.
- Developing and Implementing Adaptive Total Design (ATD); 2011; Carley-Baxter, L. R., Mitchell, S., Peytchev, A., Day, O.
- Three Era's of Survey Research; 2011; Groves, R. M.
- Creating Effective Designs for Mixed-Mode Surveys; 2011; Dillman, D. A.
- Research on Internet survey errors and control methods; 2011; Mingyue, F., Xicang, Z.
- 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.
- Partnership-Driven Resources to Improve and Enhance Research (PRIMER): A Survey of Community-Engaged...; 2011; Dolor, R. J., Greene, S. M., Thompson, E., Baldwin, L.-M., Neale, A. V.
- Question Comprehensibility and Satisficing Behavior in Web Surveys; 2011; Lenzner, T.
- Examination of a ’Web Mode Effect’. An Experimental Comparison of Web and Paper Based Surveys...; 2011; Shamshiri-Petersen, D., Clement, S. L.
- Conceptualizing Trust in Digital Environments: Health-e Skepticism: Trust in the Age of the Internet; 2011; Harris, A., Wyatt, S., Kelly, S.
- Some Researchers Do, Some Researchers Don’t: Reflections on Interdisciplinarity and Digital Social...; 2011; Pangbourne, K., Philip, L., Pignotti, E., Edwards, P.
- Internet & Learning: A Decade of Transformation in Learning Practices; 2011; Haythornthwaite, C., Andrews, R., Jones, C., de Castell, S., Goodfellow, R., Jewitt, C., Barton, D.
- Social Science Research Methods in Internet Time; 2011; Karpf, D. A.
- Quantifying Open-Ended Responses: Results from an Online Advertising Tracking Survey; 2011; Jacobe, A., Brewer, L., Vakalia, F., Turner, S., Marsh, S. M.
- Quality of responses to an open-ended question on a mixed-mode survey; 2011; Gibson, J., Vakalia, F., Turner, S.
- Open-ended questions in the context of temporary work research; 2011; Siponen, K.
- How do Respondents Perceive a Questionnaire? The Contribution of Open-ended Questions; 2011; Markou, E., Garnier, B.
- The Uses of Open-Ended Questions in Quantitative Surveys; 2011; Singer, E., Couper, M. P.
- Implementation, implementation, implementation: old and new options for putting surveys and experiments...; 2011; MacKerron, G.
- Weaving the Web into Personal Communication Networks: A Mobile Phone Based Study of Smartphone Users; 2011; Kobayashi, T., Boase, J.
- Agree-Disagree Response Format versus Importance Judgment; 2011; Krebs, D.