Web Survey Bibliography
Relevance & Research Question: Asking sensitive questions in online surveys is a difficult task as respondents might not always tell the truth and answer in a socially desirable manner. As a consequence, the prevalence of sensitive behaviors is likely to be underestimated and correlations between individual characteristics and sensitive behaviors might be biased if subgroups of the surveyed population differ in their probability to answer truthfully. The Randomized Response Technique (RRT; Warner 1965), a method proposed to face this challenge, achieved mixed results so far in providing more valid estimates than direct questioning. A related approach called the Crosswise Model (CM; Yu, Tian and Tang 2008) seems more promising. However, empirical evidence on the performance of these methods is still sparse and inconclusive, especially in the case of online surveys.
Methods & Data: In the context of an online survey on plagiarism and cheating on exams among students of two Swiss universities (N = 6494), we tested different implementations of the RRT and the CM and compared them to direct questioning using a randomized experimental design. To evaluate the different methods, we analyzed differences in prevalence estimates, breakoff rates and respondents’ impression of the techniques.
Results: Results reveal a poor performance of the RRT, which failed to elicit higher prevalence estimates than direct questioning. Using the CM, however, significantly higher prevalence estimates could be achieved.
Added Value: Our study provides a thorough experimental comparison of the RRT and the CM, which to date is missing in the literature. Furthermore, we present different implementations of the RRT and the CM, specifically tailored for use in online surveys. Implications of our findings for the future use of sensitive questions techniques such as the RRT and the CM are discussed.
GOR Homepage (abstract) / (presentation)
Web Survey Bibliography - General Online Research Conference (GOR) 2012 (40)
- Is „chapterisation“ a viable alternative to traditional progress indicators ?; 2012; Spicer, R., Dowling, Z.
- Exploring New Pathways to Survey Recruitment; 2012; Bilgram, V., Stadler, D.Jawecki, G.
- Understanding selection bias in a worldwide, volunteer web-survey; 2012; Tijdens, K., Steinmetz, S.
- Does Mode Matter? Initial Evidence from the German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES); 2012; Blumenstiel, J. E., Rossmann, J.
- The Representativity of Web Surveys of the General Population compared to Traditional Modes and Mixed...; 2012; Klausch, L. T., Schouten, B., Hox, J.
- Global market of web survey software: Status, trends and issues; 2012; Vehovar, V., Slavec, A., Berzelak, N., Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Best of both worlds – The INSA study 50plus; 2012; Geissler, H., Blome, C.
- The “MediaLiveTracker” – A New Online-Tool for Real-Time-Response-Measurement; 2012; Kercher, J., Bachl, M., Voegele, C., Vohle, F.
- Surveytainment 2.0: Why investing 10 more minutes more in constructing your questionnaire is worth considering...; 2012; Muehle, A., Tress, F., Schmidt, S., Winkler, T.
- Paradata insight into survey response behaviour: An analysis of a set of hosted web surveys; 2012; Lozar Manfreda, K., Berzelak, N., Vehovar, V.
- Market research online community (MROC) versus focus group; 2012; Zuber, M.
- Data quality in MAWI and CAWI; 2012; Mavletova, A. M., Blasius, J.
- Can mobile-web surveys substitute classic web-surveys? Results from an exploratory, comparative method...; 2012; Bohn, A., Doering, N., Maxl, E.
- Time use data collection using Smartphones: Results of a pilot study among experienced and inexperienced...; 2012; Scherpenzeel, A., Sonck, N., Fernee, H., Morren, M.
- Scrutinizing Dynamics – Rolling panel waves in theory and practice; 2012; Faas, T., Blumenberg, J. N.
- The German Internet Panel: Design of a Probability-Based Online Survey; 2012; Blom, A. G., Gathmann, C., Holthausen, A., Riepe, C.
- The price we have to pay: Incentive experiments in the recruitment process for a probability-based online...; 2012; Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W.
- Effects of number of response options in web surveys: The role of verbal labels; 2012; Thorsdottir, F., Fuchs, M., Jonsdottir, J.
- Little experience with technology as a cause of nonresponse in online surveys; 2012; Struminskaya, B., Schaurer, I., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W.
- Comparing Item-Non-Response and Open Questions within different Web Survey Types; 2012; Silber, H., Lischewski, J., Leibold, J.
- Automatic Forwarding on Web Surveys – Some Outlines and Remarks; 2012; Selkaelae, A.
- Thinking, Planning & Operationalizing Empirical Mixed Methods Research Design; 2012; Ruhi, U.
- Online research for general populations: whether and how results could be extrapolated?; 2012; Póltorak, M., Kowalski, J.
- WAGE INDICATOR, web surveys methodology, WEBDATANET and Life satisfaction determinants as an example...; 2012; de Pedraza, P.
- Continuous large-scale volunteer web-surveys: The experience of Lohnspiegel and WageIndicator; 2012; Oez, F.
- Is Pretesting Established Among Online Survey Tool Users?; 2012
- An Evaluation of Two Non-Reactive Web Questionnaire Pretesting Methods; 2012; Lenzner, T.
- Recommendations for implementing online surveys and simple experiments in social and behavioural research...; 2012; Hewson, C. M.
- High potential for mobile Web surveys: Findings from a survey representative for German Internet users...; 2012; Funke, F., Wachenfeld, A.
- Better low-tech than sorry: How technophile questionnaires may affect psychological representativeness...; 2012; Funke, F., Reips, U. -D.
- A taxonomy of paradata for web surveys and computer assisted self interviewing (Casi); 2012; Callegaro, M.
- Can Social Media Research replace traditional research methods?; 2012; Faber, T., Einhorn, M., Hofmann, O., Loeffler, M.
- Bad Boy Matrix Question – Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?; 2012; Tress, F.
- Matrix vs. Single Question Formats in Web Surveys: Results from a large scale experiment; 2012; Klausch, L. T., de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J., de Jongh, A., Roberts , A.
- Effects of Static versus Dynamic Formatting Instructions for Open-Ended Numerical Questions in Web Surveys...; 2012; Kunz, T., Fuchs, M.
- FamilyVote – Conducting online surveys with children and families; 2012; Geissler, H., Peeters, H.
- New Insights about market research with an iPad-panel; 2012; Manouchehri, A., Rieber, D., Moughrabi, C.
- The influence of social desirability on data quality in face-to-face and web surveys; 2012; Keusch, F.
- Reducing the Threat of Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys; 2012; Couper, M. P.
- Asking Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: An Experimental Comparison of the Randomized Response...; 2012; Diekmann, A., Hoeglinger, M., Jann, B.