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 (6374)
- 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.
- The E-Interview in Qualitative Research; 2013; Bampton, R., Cowton, C., Downs, Y.
- Methodological Considerations of Qualitative Email Interviews; 2013; Nehls, K.
- 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.
- Sampling, Channels, and Contact Strategies in Internet Survey; 2013; Macrì, E., Tessitore, C.
- 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.
- An approach to selecting online respondents; 2013; Terhanian, G.
- 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.
- Shorter Isn't Always Better; 2013; Burdein, I.
- Solving the Unintentional Mobile Challenge; 2013; Peterson, G., Mechling, J., LaFrance, J., Ham, G.
