Web Survey Bibliography
Relevance & Research Question: Contemporary empirical research is increasingly supported with information-communication technologies. Despite playing an extremely important role, online software tools receive only little attention in literature; rare examples include Macer (2002), Crafword (2002, 2006), Vehovar et. al. (2005), Berzelak (2006), Kazcmirek (2006, 2008) and Zuckerberg (2006).
Methods & Data: We used the public WebSM database of 400 online survey tools, where key characteristics were observed for each tool: pricing, code availability, languages, countries, support, website characteristics, promotion etc. The analysis enables studying trends in historical context within CASIC developments. Next, software tools were tested and evaluated according to 50 differentiating features related to questionnaire design, appearance, routing, sample management, multi-mode support, data security, paradata, data export, and reporting. A clustering of existing software was performed based on these characteristics. In addition, as results confirm various customer studies showing that lack of integration (e.g. support to early stages of questionnaire development) is the key deficiency of contemporary web software tools, an experiment was conducted. One group developed a questionnaire the usual way (drafts in a word processor, exchanged via e-mail and only the finalized version converted to the online tool), while the other group developed the same questionnaire using a prototype software which supports full integration from the earliest stage.
Results: Web software tools can be classified into three large groups. However, all three suffer from a relatively weak support for post-survey activities (editing, coding, weighting, analysis), in particular the lack of an integrated support for questionnaire development (on-line collaboration, drafting, archiving, commenting, versioning, editing). Namely, all software assumes a pre-existing questionnaire version, which was already extensively pre-communicated in some external software (e.g. e-mail). The results of the experiment reconfirm the problem: the users clearly prefer the integrated online tool.
Added Value: This is the first comprehensive study of all available web survey software on the market ever. Besides the insight into the status and trends, the results demonstrate key deficiencies of current web software (i.e. lack of integration), while the experiment performed in the study suggests a possible solution.
Conference Homepage (abstract) / (presentation)
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.
