Web Survey Bibliography
In recent years with the increasingly world-wide introduction of the Internet, the use of online questionnaires has increased dramatically. However in Thailand, there has been only very limited systematic research on web-based design in Thailand, including for Thai undergraduates who are the biggest group of Thai internet users. The particular characteristics of the Thai language (e.g. no capital letters, no break between words, Thai script etc.) present some interesting challenges for online Thai surveys. This experimental study investigated web-based survey design principles based on an English language background trial at a Thai university with individual interviews and focus groups with the use of think aloud and other research techniques. The findings of two types of web usability tests revealed that the scrolling web-based format was the most suitable for conducting survey s and that such surveys are most likely to attract higher response rates when endorsed by a trusted organization, when instructions are short, simple and specific, when closed and dichotomous questions provide sufficient answer options and when matrix and semantic differential questions are limited. Research also indicates that the font, Ms Sans Serif of size "-1" or 14 pixels in Thai, is the most appropriate for the Thai language, as is a simple progression bar, three-point rating scales and an artistically decorated survey form.
The approximate ideal length of an effective on-line survey is about 20 questions, taking about 5 - 10 minutes to complete. The short and potentially sensitive demographic questions are best obtained just before respondents complete the questionnaire. Thai undergraduates adequately understand check boxes, option or radio buttons, and drop-down menus; therefore a help section may only be necessary when the survey is more complex than a general survey.
The study also examined the most attractive invitation method, comparing pop-up windows, message banners and advertising marquees in a 22-day trial on a Thai university website where 3,848 survey forms were completed, representing 22.7 per cent of those who entered the survey web-site. The characteristics did not differ from the actual university web-users profile - 58% were female and 32.8% were university students. The most effective invitation method was a message box when users clicked on any link on the homepage since it is a new method with no restriction from the browser with an effective grasp on the attention of the users. The most significant reasons influencing participants' decisions about the questionnaire were the same factors effecting decisions to participate in surveys generally: topic of survey followed by the importance of the survey content. The third reason influencing users' decisions to participate in this survey was the invitation method. In future, the third factor may become the ben efit accruing to the respondent.
RMIT Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Web survey bibliography (388)
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Fieldwork monitoring and managing with time-related paradata; 2017; Vandenplas, C.
- Push2web or less is more? Experimental evidence from a mixed-mode population survey at the community...; 2017; Neumann, R.; Haeder, M.; Brust, O.; Dittrich, E.; von Hermanni, H.
- Rates, Delays, and Completeness of General Practitioners’ Responses to a Postal Versus Web-Based...; 2017; Sebo, P.; Maisonneuve, H.; Cerutti, B.; Pascal Fournier, J.; Haller, D. M.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.
- Improving survey response rates: The effect of embedded questions in web survey email Invitations; 2017; Liu, M.; Inchausti, N.
- Enhancing survey participation: Facebook advertisements for recruitment in educational research; 2017; Forgasz, H.; Tan, H.; Leder, G.; McLeod, A.
- Overview: Online Surveys; 2017; Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- “Better do not touch” and other superstitions concerning melanoma: the cross-sectional web...; 2016; Gajda, M.; Kamińska-Winciorek, G.; Wydmański, J.; Tukiendorf, A.
- Targeted Appeals for Participation in Letters to Panel Survey Members; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Population Survey Features and Response Rates: A Randomized Experiment; 2016; Guo, Y.; Kopec, J.; Cibere, J.; Li, L. C.; Goldsmith, C. H.
- The Effects of a Delayed Incentive on Response Rates, Response Mode, Data Quality, and Sample Bias in...; 2016; McGonagle, K., Freedman, V. A.
- Can Student Populations in Developing Countries Be Reached by Online Surveys? The Case of the National...; 2016; Langer, A., Meuleman, B., Oshodi, A.-G. T., Schroyens, M.
- How to maximize survey response rates ; 2016; DeVall, R.; Colby, C.
- Impact of Field Period Length and Contact Attempts on Representativeness for Web Survey ; 2016; Bertoni, N.; Turakhia, C.; Magaw, R.; Ackermann, A.
- Have You Taken Your Survey Yet? Optimum Interval for Reminders in Web Panel Surveys ; 2016; Kanitkar, K. N.; Liu, D.
- User Experience and Eye-tracking: Results to Optimize Completion of a Web Survey and Website Design ; 2016; Walton, L.; Ricci, K.; Libman Barry, A.; Eiginger, C.; Christian, L. M.
- A Multi-phase Exploration Into Web-based Panel Respondents: Assessing Differences in Recruitment, Respondents...; 2016; Redlawsk, D.; Rogers, K.; Borie-Holtz, D.
- Exploring the Feasibility of Using Facebook for Surveying Special Interest Populations ; 2016; Lee, C.; Jang, S.
- National Estimates of Sexual Minority Women Alcohol Use through Web Based Respondent Driven Sampling...; 2016; Farrell Middleton, D.; Iachan, R.; Freedner-Maguire, N.; Trocki, K.; Evans, C.
- User Experience Considerations for Contextual Product Surveys on Smartphones ; 2016; Sedley, A.; Mueller, H.
- Web Probing for Question Evaluation: The Effects of Probe Placement ; 2016; Fowler, S.; Willis, G. B.; Moser, R. P.; Townsend, R. L. M.; Maitland, A.; Sun, H.; Berrigan, D.
- Early-bird Incentives: Results From an Experiment to Determine Response Rate and Cost Effects ; 2016; De Santis, J.; Callahan, R.; Marsh, S.; Perez-Johnson, I.
- Effects of an Initial Offering of Multiple Survey Response Options on Response Rates; 2016; Steele, E. A.; Marlar, J.; Allen, L.; Kanitkar, K. N.
- How to Invite? Methods for Increasing Internet Surv ey Response Rate ; 2016; Huang, A. R.; Noel, H.; Hargraves, L.
- Reaching the Mobile Generation: Reducing Web Survey Non-response through SMS Reminders ; 2016; Kanitkar, K. N.; Marlar, J.
- "Don't be Afraid ... We're Researchers!": The Impact of Informal Contact Language...; 2016; Foster, K. N.; Hagemeier, N. E.; Alamain, A. A.; Pack, R.; Sevak, R. J.
- Does Embedding a Survey Question in the Survey Invi tation E-mail Affect Response Rates? Evidence from...; 2016; Vannette, D.
- Communication Channels that Predict and Mediate Self-response ; 2016; Walejko, G. K.
- Ballpoint Pens as Incentives with Mail Questionnaires – Results of a Survey Experiment; 2016; Heise, M.
- Non-Observation Bias in an Address-Register-Based CATI/CAPI Mixed Mode Survey; 2016; Lipps, O.
- Pre-Survey Text Messages (SMS) Improve Participation Rate in an Australian Mobile Telephone Survey:...; 2016; Dal Grande, E.; Chittleborough, C. R.; Campostrini, S.; Dollard, M.; Taylor, A. W.
- Effects of Personalization and Invitation Email Length on Web-Based Survey Response Rates; 2016; Trespalacios, J. H.; Perkins, R. A.
- Assessing targeted approach letters: effects in different modes on response rates, response speed and...; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Refining the Web Response Option in the Multiple Mode Collection of the American Community Survey; 2016; Hughes, T.; Tancreto, J.
- Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population The German Internet Panel; 2016; Blom, A. G.; Gathmann, C.; Krieger, U.
- Sample Representation and Substantive Outcomes Using Web With and Without Incentives Compared to Telephone...; 2016; Lipps, O.; Pekari, N.
- Collecting Data from mHealth Users via SMS Surveys: A Case Study in Kenya; 2016; Johnson, D.
- “Money Will Solve the Problem”: Testing the Effectiveness of Conditional Incentives for...; 2016; DeCamp, W.; Manierre, M. J.
- Effects of Incentive Amount and Type of Web Survey Response Rates; 2016; Coopersmith, J.; Vogel, L. K.; Bruursema, T.; Feeney, K.
- Effect of a Post-paid Incentive on Response to a Web-based Survey; 2016; Brown, J. A.; Serrato, C. A.; Hugh, M.; Kanter, M. H.; A.; Spritzer, K. L.; Hays, R. D.
- Reminder Effect and Data Usability on Web Questionnaire Survey for University Students; 2016; Oishi, T.; Mori, M.; Takata, E.
- Is One More Reminder Worth It? If So, Pick Up the Phone: Findings from a Web Survey; 2016; Lin-Freeman, L.
- Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey. ; 2016; Chen, J. S.; Sprague, B. L.; Klabunde, C. N.; Tosteson, A. N. A.; Bitton, A.; Onega, T.; MacLean, C....
- The effect of email invitation elements on response rate in a web survey within an online community; 2016; Petrovcic, A.; Petric, G.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data; 2016; Rouse, S. V.
- Doing Surveys Online ; 2016; Toepoel, V.
- A Privacy-Friendly Method to Reward Participants of Online-Surveys; 2015; Herfert, M.; Lange, B.; Selzer, A.; Waldmann, U.
- Incentive Types and Amounts in a Web-based Survey of College Students; 2015; Krebs, C.; Planty, M.; Stroop, J.; Berzofsky, M.; Lindquist, C.
- Using Mobile Phones for High-Frequency Data Collection; 2015; Azevedo, J. P.; Ballivian, A.; Durbin, W.