Web Survey Bibliography
Relevance & Research Question: Response latency measurement and eye tracking are two computer-assisted pretesting methods that may be particularly useful for evaluating Web questionnaires. In contrast to other techniques (e.g., expert reviews, qualitative interviews), both methods produce nonreactive and objective measures of behavior that are neither affected by the researcher (and the ways in which she tests the questions) nor by the research context. While previous studies have shown that longer response latencies and fixation times are indicative of problematic questions (Lenzner et al., 2010, 2011), little is known about the utility of the two methods (or measures) in the practical pretesting context (e.g., in testing draft questions). This study examines whether response latencies and fixation times are discriminative features to distinguish flawed from improved survey questions.
Methods & Data: In a laboratory experiment, respondents’ eye movements and response latencies were recorded while they were answering two versions of a Web questionnaire. One group (n=22) received a questionnaire including poorly worded questions and the other group (n=22) received the same questionnaire with improved question wordings. Given that response latencies and fixation times are highly individual, we computed the baseline fixation rate (eye tracking) and baseline reading rate (response latency) for every respondent from seven additional questions asked in the same Web survey. In the analyses, whenever the response or fixation times for a question exceeded respondents’ baseline by more than 15%, the question was deemed problematic. (The analyses were repeated with 10%, 20%, and 25% thresholds, but all conclusions remained unchanged).
Results: Fixation rate (eye tracking) was consistently more accurate than reading rate (response latency) in classifying the questions as flawed or improved. The overall accuracy of the fixation rate ranged from 60% to 85%, the accuracy of the reading rate from 43% to 70%. Also, the eye tracking measure resulted in considerably fewer misses (failures to detect problems) and fewer false alarms.
Added Value: This study suggests that fixation times and response latencies are potentially useful methods for pretesting (draft) Web questionnaires, albeit the level of accuracy with which they identify problematic questions is not yet satisfactory.
GOR Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Web survey bibliography - Germany (361)
- Metadata on the demographics of online research: Results from a full-range study of available online...; 2013; Burger, C., Stieger, S.
- How the screen-out influence the dropout of a commercial panel; 2013; Bartoli, B.
- Beyond methodology - some ethical implications of "doing research online"; 2013; Heise, N.
- Innovation in Data Collection: the Responsive Design Approach; 2013; Bianchi, A., Biffignandi, S.
- Break-off and attrition in the GIP amongst technologically experienced and inexperienced participants...; 2013; Blom, A. G., Bossert, D., Clark, V., Funke, F., Gebhard, F., Holthausen, A., Krieger, U., Wachenfeld...
- Nonresponse and Nonresponse Bias in a Probability-Based Internet Panel; 2013; Blom, A. G., Bossert, D., Funke, F., Gebhard, F., Holthausen, A., Krieger, U.
- Rewards - Money for Nothing?; 2013; Cape, P. J., Martin, P.
- Effects of incentive reduction after a series of higher incentive waves in a probability-based online...; 2013; Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L., Schaurer, I., Bandilla, W.
- Timing of Nonparticipation in an Online Panel: The effect of incentive strategies; 2013; Douhou, S., Scherpenzeel, A.
- How Do Lotteries and Study Results Influence Response Behavior in Online Panels?; 2013; Goeritz, A., Luthe, S. C.
- Sample composition discrepancies in different stages of a probability-based online panel; 2013; Bosnjak, M., Haas, I., Galesic, M., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W., Couper, M. P.
- Web-based data collection yielded an additional response bias—but had no direct effect on outcome...; 2012; Mayr, A., Gefeller, O., Prokosch, H.-U., Pirkl, A., Froehlich, A. de Zwaan, M.
- Passive measurement of online data in Practice - A White Paper Wakoopa; 2012
- Metering mobile usage. Insights from global Arbitron mobile trends panel; 2012; Verkasalo, H.
- Is „chapterisation“ a viable alternative to traditional progress indicators ?; 2012; Spicer, R., Dowling, Z.
- Online Questionnaires: Development of ‘basic requirements’; 2012; Tries, S., Blanke, K.
- Pros and cons of Internet based User Satisfaction Surveys; 2012; Consoli, A., Matsulevits, L.
- 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.
- WebSM Study: Survey software features overview ; 2012; Vehovar, V., Cehovin, G., Kavcic, L., Lenar, J.
- Challenges of assessing the quality of a prerecruited probability-based panel of internet users in...; 2012; Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L.
- Assessing Cross-National Equivalence of Measures of Xenophobia: Evidence from Probing in Web Surveys; 2012; Behr, D., Braun, M., Kaczmirek, L.
- Comparing Ranking Techniques in Web Surveys; 2012; Blasius, J.
- Design of CAWI Instruments for Social Surveys ; 2012; Blanke, K.
- Enhancing Web Surveys With New HTML5 Input Types; 2012; Funke, F.
- The German Internet Panel: First Results from the Recruitment Phases; 2012; Blom, A. G.
- Assessing the Magnitude of Non-Consent Biases in Linked Survey and Administrative Data; 2012; Sakshaug, J. W., Kreuter, F.
- Marktforschung mit dem iPad-Panel von Axel Springer Media Impact; 2012
- Effects of Personalized Versus Generic Implementation of an Intra-Organizational Online Survey on Psychological...; 2012; Mueller, K., Straatmann, T., Hattrup, K., Jochum, M.
- Exploring New Pathways to Survey Recruitment; 2012; Bilgram, V., Stadler, D.Jawecki, G.
- Does Mode Matter? Initial Evidence from the German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES); 2012; Blumenstiel, J. E., Rossmann, J.
- 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.
- Market research online community (MROC) versus focus group; 2012; Zuber, M.
- Data quality in MAWI and CAWI; 2012; Mavletova, A. M., Blasius, J.
- Scrutinizing Dynamics – Rolling panel waves in theory and practice; 2012; Faas, T., Blumenberg, J. N.
- Little experience with technology as a cause of nonresponse in online surveys; 2012; Struminskaya, B., Schaurer, I., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W.
- 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.
- High potential for mobile Web surveys: Findings from a survey representative for German Internet users...; 2012; Funke, F., Wachenfeld, A.
- 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.
- 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.
- Assessing the Quality of Survey Data ; 2012; Blasius, J.
- Exploring Animated Faces Scales in Web Surveys: Drawbacks and Prospects; 2012; Emde, M., Fuchs, M.
- Reminders in Web-Based Data Collection: Increasing Response at the Price of Retention?; 2012; Goeritz, A., Crutzen, R.
- Effects of speeding on satisficing in Mixed-Mode Surveys; 2011; Bathelt, S., Bauknecht, J.
- Mixing modes in the LFS - Computer-assisted, cost effective and respondent friendly; 2011; Koerner, T., van der Valk, J.
- Establishing Cross-National Equivalence of Measures of Xenophobia: Evidence from Probing in Web Surveys...; 2011; Braun, M., Behr, D., Kaczmirek, L.