Web Survey Bibliography
Relevance & Research Question: To date, there exist only a small number of articles which have set out to review and evaluate existing online survey software packages and their features (e.g. Gordon, 2002; Wright, 2005). Furthermore, many of the available reviews do not engage in detailed testing of specific packages within a social/behavioural research framework. Few reviews actually engage in any depth with the extant literature outlining guidelines and principles of good practice for online survey research (for exceptions see Crawford, 2002; Kaczmirek, 2008). The present research adds to and extends these existing review/evaluation studies by carrying out an in-depth testing and evaluation of three popular, low cost, packages, within a context of good design practice and principles in social and behavioural online research.
Methods & Data: First, a large number of online survey software packages were sourced (using resources such as: http://www.websm.org/), and their features assessed against an initial screening list of 'essential criteria', derived with reference to literature on guidelines for good design practice in online survey/research methods. Emphasis was placed on features which support procedures that help maximise data integrity and adherence to ethical guidelines, as well as evidence of longevity, affordability and ongoing development. Second, three packages were selected and each used to implement a) a simple survey design, and b) a simple experimental design. Extensive testing was carried out in order to provide a detailed list of features, functionalities, strengths and weaknesses of each package.
Results: It was concluded that each package reviewed had it's own strengths and weaknesses, research design contexts in which it may be more or less useful, and caveats concerning where it may prove most problematic. Conclusions on which of the packages would prove most suitable for different researcher's needs in different design contexts are offered.
Added Value: The present research fills a gap in the literature by presenting the first (to the best of the author's knowledge) attempt to situate evaluation of online survey software packages firmly within a context of social/behavioural research, by using three such packages to implement actual research study designs.
GOR Homepage (abstract) / (presentation)
Web Survey Bibliography - Usability, HCI (413)
- One Drink or Two: Does Quantity Depicted in an Image Affect Web Survey Responses?; 2013; Charoenruk, N., Stange, M.
- The Effects of Pushing Web in a Mixed-Mode Establishment Data Collection; 2013; Ellis, C.
- Using Web Ex to Conduct Usability Testing of an On-Line Survey Instrument; 2013; Stettler, K.
- Tips for Evaluating Online Effectiveness; 2013; Stevenson, S. C.
- 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.
- 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.
- By the Numbers: Theory of adaptation or survival of the fittest?; 2013; Cavallaro, K.
- 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.
- Optimizing Surveys for Smartphones: Maximizing Response Rates While Minimizing Bias; 2013; Lattery, K., Park Bartolone, G., Saunders, T.
- Shorter Isn't Always Better; 2013; Burdein, I.
- 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.
- A standard for test reliability in group research; 2013; Ellis, J. L.
- The comparison of road safety survey answers between web-panel and face-to-face; Dutch results of SARTRE...; 2013; Goldenbeld, C., de Craen, S.
- Addressing Disclosure Concerns and Analysis Demands in a Real-Time Online Analytic System; 2013; Krenzke, T., Gentleman, J. F., Li, J., Moriarity, C.
- Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and internet data collection...; 2013; Weigold, A., Weigold, I. K., Russell, E. J.
- Using Online and Paper Surveys - The Effectiveness of Mixed-Mode Methodology for Populations Over 50; 2013; De Bernardo, D. H., Curtis, A.
- Who responds to website visitor satisfaction surveys?; 2013; Andreadis, I.
- Comparison of psychometric properties of internet versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability...; 2013; Vesteinsdottir, V., Reips, U. -D., Joinson, A. N., Porsdottir, F.
- Seducing the respondent – how to optimise invitations in on-site online research?; 2013; Póltorak, M., Kowalski, J.
- Influence of mobile devices in online surveys; 2013; Maxl, E., Baumgartner, T.
- The ONS Beyond 2011 Programme & possible implications for social surveys; 2013; Morris, L.
- Survey Research; 2013; Abbott, M. L., McKinney, J.
- The Use of E-Questionnaires in Organizational Surveys; 2013; Brender-Ilan, Y., Vinitzky, G.
- Online Survey Software; 2013; Baker, J. D.
- The effect of short formative diagnostic web quizzes with minimal feedback; 2013; Baelter, O., Enstroem, E., Klingenberg, B.
- Up Means Good: The Impact of Screen Position on Evaluative Ratings in Web Surveys.; 2013; Tourangeau, R., Conrad, F. G., Couper, M. P.
- WebSM Study: Speed and efficiency of online survey tools; 2012; Cehovin, G.; Vehovar, V.
- What we can learn from unintentional mobile respondents; 2012; Peterson, G.
- The integration of facebook into class management: an exploratory study; 2012; Chou, P. N.
- The cross platform report. Q2 -2012 - US; 2012
- Mobile usability; 2012; Nielsen, J., Budiu, R.
- Smartphone Apps and User Engagement: Collecting Data in the Digital Era; 2012; Link, M. W.
- How Often Do You Use the App with a Bird on It? Exploring Differences in Survey Completion Times, Primacy...; 2012; Buskirk, T. D.
- Data quality of questions sensitive to social-desirability bias in web surveys; 2012; Lozar Manfreda, K., Zajc, N., Berzelak, N., Vehovar, V.
- Online Questionnaires: Development of ‘basic requirements’; 2012; Tries, S., Blanke, K.
- Social research in online context: methodological reflections on web surveys from a case study; 2012; Pandolfini, V.
- Improving Survey Website Usability ; 2012; Vannette, D.
- How accurate are surveys of objective phenomena?; 2012; Chang, L. C., Krosnick, J. A.
- Pros and cons of Internet based User Satisfaction Surveys; 2012; Consoli, A., Matsulevits, L.
- The re-engineering of the Structural Earnings survey process: Mixed - Mode data collection and new E...; 2012; Cardinaleschi, S., De Santis, S., Rocci, F., Spinelli, V.
- Between demand and reality: Ensuring efficiency and quality in pretesting questionnaires; 2012; Sattelberger, S., Blanke, K.
- How to provide high data quality in online-questionnaires: Setting guidelines in design; 2012; Tries, S., Nebel, S., Blanke, K.