Web Survey Bibliography
Relevance & Research Question: Optimizing online questionnaires for certain browsers not only raises the risk of loosing respondents but also may bias the sample composition. In their GOR paper on the low-tech principle, Buchanan and Reips (2001) found that more educated users were more likely to turn JavaScript off. Furthermore, respondents using Mac OS scored higher on the personality trait Openness to Experience than users of Windows OS. This study focuses on the question if these differences still hold, ten years later and with a sample of experienced Internet users.
Methods & Data: The questionnaire was a Big Five personality inventory. Following the low-tech principle, participation was possible with any Web browser.
Results: Overall, 2.6% of all participants (N = 358) had JavaScript disabled. Male respondents were more likely to have JavaScript disabled than female respondents, chi^2(1, N = 344) = 11.64, p = .001, odds ratio = 15.6. Mac users scored higher on Openness (e.g., “I enjoy hearing new ideas”) than Windows users, F(1, 294) = 12.14, p = .001, eta^2 = .040. Furthermore, respondents using Macs scored lower on Agreeableness (e.g., “I am interested in other people”) than users of Windows, F(1, 294) = 9,02, p = .003, eta^2 = .030. Within respondents running Windows Extraversion (e.g., “I am the life of the party”) was slightly higher for users of the Internet Explorer in comparison to users of Firefox, F(1, 277) = 4.13, p = .043, eta^2 = .015. Finally, there was a tendency that respondents with JavaScript deactivated scored lower on Openness than respondents with this technology activated, F(1, 312) = 3.05, p = .082, eta^2 = .010.
Added Value: The present study confirms and extends the results from Buchanan and Reips (2001). A questionnaire exclusively optimized for certain OSs or browsers can seriously bias the psychological and demographical sample composition. In the present study restricting participation to respondents with JavaScript enabled would have reduced the number of male participants. Overall, it is recommended either to refrain from using complex technologies or to implement alternative low-tech versions of questionnaires as fallback.
GOR Homepage (abstract)
Web Survey Bibliography - Measurement (1937)
- Effects of Lotteries on Response Behavior in Online Panels; 2013; Goeritz, A., Luthe, S. C.
- Lotteries and study results in market research online panels; 2013; Goeritz, A., Luthe, S. C.
- The Effects of Errors in Paradata on Weighting Class Adjustments: A Simulation Study; 2013; West, B. T.
- Using Paradata to Study Response to Within-Survey Requests; 2013; Sakshaug, J. W.
- Paradata for Coverage Research ; 2013; Eckman, S.
- Improving Surveys with Paradata: Analytic Uses of Process Information; 2013; Kreuter, F.
- Theory of adaptation or survival of the fittest?; 2013; Cavallaro, K.
- Online Fundraising Essentials, Second Edition; 2013; Stevenson, S. C.
- Tips for Evaluating Online Effectiveness; 2013; Stevenson, S. C.
- The Digital Divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective; 2013; Ragnedda, M., Muschert, G.
- Ten questions to ask your online survey provider; 2013; Williams, D.
- Survey quality prediction system 2.0; 2013
- Practical tools for designing and weighting survey samples; 2013; Valliant, R. L., Daver, J. A., Kreuter, F.
- Paradata in web surveys; 2013; Callegaro, M.
- Report Of The AAPOR Task Force On Non-probability sampling; 2013; Baker, R. P., Brick, J. M., Bates, N., Battaglia, M. P., Couper, M. P., Dever, J. A., Gile, K. J., Tourangeau...
- Incentive effects; 2013; Goeritz, A.
- A nationwide web-based freight data collection; 2013; Samimi, A., Mohammadian, A., Kawamura, K.
- Mode Matters: Evaluating Response Comparability in a Mixed-Mode Survey; 2013; Bowyer, B. T., Rogowski, J. C.
- Comparing Survey Results Obtained via Mobile Devices and Computers: An Experiment With a Mobile Web...; 2013; de Bruijne, M., Wijnant, A.
- Cognitive Probes in Web Surveys: On the Effect of Different Text Box Size and Probing Exposure on Response...; 2013; Behr, D., Bandilla, W., Kaczmirek, L., Braun, M.
- Best Practice in Online Survey Research with Sensitive Topics; 2013; Kays, K., Keith, T. L., Broughal, M. T.
- Research Intentions are Nothing without Technology: Mixed-Method Web Surveys and the Coberen Wall of...; 2013; Ganassali, S., Rodriguez-Santos, C.
- Reducing Response Burden for Enterprises Combining Methods for Data Collection on the Internet; 2013; Vik, T.
- Measuring Wages Worldwide: Exploring the Potentials and Constraints of Volunteer Web Surveys; 2013; Steinmetz, S., Raess, D., Tijdens, K., de Pedraza, P.
- Using Web Surveys for Psychology Experiments: A Case Study in New Media Technology for Research; 2013; Peden, B. F., Tiry , A. M.
- The Distinctiveness of Online Research: Descriptive Assemblages, Unobtrusiveness, and Novel Kinds of...; 2013; Lanfrey, D.
- Advancing Research Methods with New Technologies; 2013; Sappleton, N.
- Data Quality in PC and Mobile Web Surveys; 2013; Mavletova, A. M.
- PDAs in socio-economic surveys: instrument bias, surveyor bias or both?; 2013; Escobal, J., Benites, S.
- Virtual research assistants: Replacing human interviewers by automated avatars in virtual worlds; 2013; Hasler, B. S., Tuchman, P., Friedman, D.
- Compared to a small, supervised lab experiment, a large, unsupervised web-based experiment on a previously...; 2013; Ryan, R. S., Wilde, M., Crist, S.
- From mixed-mode to multiple devices. Web surveys, smartphone surveys and apps: has the respondent gone...; 2013; Callegaro, M.
- Moving an established survey online – or not?; 2013; Barber, T., Chilvers, D., Kaul, S.
- Using mobile devices to access the realities of youth: How identification with society influences political...; 2013; Smith, M.
- On the Use of Latent Variable Models to Detect Differences in the Interpretation of Vague Quantifiers...; 2013; Griffin, J.
- Managing mobile research: How it's different and why it matters; 2013; Kachhi-Jiwani, D., Tucker, J., Wilding-Brown, L.
- By the Numbers: Theory of adaptation or survival of the fittest?; 2013; Cavallaro, K.
- Designing and conducting business surveys; 2013; Snijkers, G.,Araldsen, G., , Willimack, D. K.Jones, J.
- Battle of the Scales: Understanding Respondent Scale Usage in the US and Abroad; 2013; Courtright, M., Pashupati, K., Pettit, F. A.
- Modular Survey Design: A Bite Size Proposal; 2013; Kelly, F., Stevens, S., Johnson, A.
- Cyborgs vs. Monsters: Assembling Modular Surveys to Create Complete Datasets; 2013; Johnson, E. P., Siluk, L., Tarraf, S.
- Do I Have Your Full Attention?; 2013; Cape, P. J.
- Does Sample Size Still Matter?; 2013; Bakken, D. G., Bond, M.
- Optimizing Surveys for Smartphones: Maximizing Response Rates While Minimizing Bias; 2013; Lattery, K., Park Bartolone, G., Saunders, T.
- Solving the Unintentional Mobile Challenge; 2013; Peterson, G., Mechling, J., LaFrance, J., Ham, G.
- Mobile Research Risk: What Happens to Data Quality When Respondents Use a Mobile Device for a Survey...; 2013; Baker-Prewitt, J.
- Challenges for Researchers Investigating Contraceptive Use and Pregnancy Intentions of Young Women Living...; 2013; Herbert, D. L., Loxton, D., Bateson, D., Weisberg, E., Lucke, J. C.
- Computer science security research and human subjects: Emerging considerations for research ethics boards...; 2013; Buchanan, E. A., Aycock, J., Dexter, S., Dittrich, D., Hvizdak, E. E.
- A standard for test reliability in group research; 2013; Ellis, J. L.
- Using a web-based survey tool to undertake a Delphi study: Application for nurse education research; 2013; Gill, F. J., Leslie, G. D., Grech, C., Latour, J. M.
