Web Survey Bibliography
(a) Relevance & Research Question: The proposed paper builds on findings presented by the authors at the GOR 10. High drop-out rates are considered a major shortcoming of web surveys and considerably threaten data quality. However, despite growing scholarly attention the knowledge on survey drop-out is still fractional. Previous research mainly addresses the impact of survey design, question wording, and characteristics of the respondents on survey drop-out via ex-post statistical methods. The research presented here is innovative in that the respondents are asked directly about the reasons for dropping out, the interview situation, and psychological predispositions in a follow-up survey.
(b) Methods & Data: Based on our previous research regarding survey drop-out, the principal investigators of the GLES granted funding for a series of short follow-up surveys of drops-outs. These surveys will be conducted subsequently to three consecutive online trackings of the GLES, beginning in December 2010. According to experience, a gross sample size of about 400 drop-outs per survey can be expected. Given an estimated response rate of 60 percent a net sample size of 210 to 240 per tracking is anticipated, thus providing a unique database of more than 600 interviews with drop-outs. Since the most essential items are also included in the tracking surveys, the design allows for comparisons between drop-outs and complete responders. Due to the explorative character of the research, the presentation will mainly focus on descriptive statistics as well as multivariate models illustrating our major findings.
(c) Results: First results will be available by mid-January 2011.
(d) Added Value: Follow-up surveys of respondents who dropped-out allow for an enhanced understanding of the complex processes underlying the phenomenon, especially with respect to the subjective reasons of the respondents as well as the situational influences and psychological predispositions, which cannot be studied applying ex-post statistical procedures. In this regard, our research will add to the knowledge on the reasons for drop-out in web surveys and amend both the theoretical explanations of and the prospects for reducing drop-outs.
Conference Homepage (abstract) / (presentation)
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.