Web Survey Bibliography
A core tenet of survey research is that the inferences one makes about the population can only be as good as the quality of the respondents in the sample. However, with declines in probability sample response rates and increases in non-probability Internet-based research, researchers have found it increasingly difficult to agree on the quality of a survey sample. Contributing to this difficulty is the variety of research studies that have evaluated the quality of survey data derived from probability-based and non-probability-based sources and the effectiveness of statistical methods to reduce error in data from
these sources. Specifically, some research has documented a greater average error among non-probability samples relative to probability samples (Chang & Krosnick, 2009; Yeager et al., in press), while other research has found few or small differences between the two. Other research has pointed to greater variability in results from surveys non-probability samples of Internet volunteers. For instance, Dedeker (2006) conducted the same study twice on the same Internet survey panel and reached two different business conclusions. An additional study found five to ten times greater variability in error among a sample of seven Internet surveys of non-probability samples versus seven probability sample surveys (Yeager et al., in press). Similarly-sized variability was found in the National Dutch Online Panel Comparison Study. Relatedly, statistical methods such as post-stratification survey weighting have inconsistent effects on non-probability sample surveys, and in some cases increase survey error. It is critically important to synthesize the survey accuracy studies summarized above as well as others. The present study will evaluate the evidence from more than 45 different studies have assessed the accuracy of non-probability sample surveys and the effectiveness of methods to improve their accuracy,
with the aim of helping researchers and consumers to have more informed expectations about data quality in their surveys.
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Web Survey Bibliography (6390)
- 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.
- Mobile Research Risk: What Happens to Data Quality When Respondents Use a Mobile Device for a Survey...; 2013; Baker-Prewitt, J.
- Internet-Based Recruitment to a Depression Prevention Intervention: Lessons From the Mood Memos Study...; 2013; Morgan, A. J., Jorm, A. F., Mackinnon, A. 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.
- 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 Survey Nonresponse Issues: Implications for ATE Principal Investigators, Evaluators, and...; 2013; Welch, W. W., Barlau, A. N.
- Pros and cons of virtual interviewers – vote in the discussion about surveytainment; 2013; Póltorak, M., Kowalski, J.
- Addressing Disclosure Concerns and Analysis Demands in a Real-Time Online Analytic System; 2013; Krenzke, T., Gentleman, J. F., Li, J., Moriarity, C.
- The General Survey System Initiative at RTI International: An Integrated System for the Collection and...; 2013; Thalji, L., Mitchell, S., Hill, C. A., Suresh, R., Speizer, H., Pratt, D.
- Consolidation and Standardization of Survey Operations at a Decentralized Federal Statistical Agency; 2013; Nealon, J., Gleaton, E.
- 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.
- An Assessment of Incentive Versus Survey Length Trade-offs in a Web Survey of Radiologists; 2013; Ziegenfuss, J. Y., Niederhauser, B. D., Kallmes, D., Beebe, T. J.
- Clarifying Categorical Concepts in a Web Survey.; 2013; Redline, C. D.
- Using Online and Paper Surveys - The Effectiveness of Mixed-Mode Methodology for Populations Over 50; 2013; De Bernardo, D. H., Curtis, A.
- The fish model: What factors affect participants while filling in an online questionnaire?; 2013; Mohamed, B., Lorenz, A., Pscheida, D.
- Interview Duration in Web Surveys: Integrating Different Levels of Explanation; 2013; Rossmann, J., Gummer, T.
- The monetary value of good questionnaire design; 2013; Tress, F.
- Technical and methodological meta-information on current practices in online research: A full population...; 2013; Burger, C., Stieger, S.
- Using interactive feedback to enhance response quality in Web surveys. The case of open-ended questions...; 2013; Emde, M., Fuchs, M.
- Reducing Response Order Effects in Check-All-That-Apply Questions by Use of Dynamic Tooltip Instructions...; 2013; Kunz, T., Fuchs, M.
- Slide to ruin data: How slider scales may negatively affect data quality and what to do about it; 2013; Funke, F.
- Measuring wages via a volunteer web survey – a cross-national analysis of item nonresponse; 2013; Steinmetz, S., Annmaria, B.
- Identifying and Mitigating Satisficing in Web Surveys: Some Experimental Evidence; 2013; Blumenstiel, J. E., Rossmann, J.
- Does one really know?: Avoiding noninformative answers in a reliable way.; 2013; de Leeuw, E. D., Boevee, A., Hox, J.
- Online Mixed Mode Surveying using a Responsive Design; 2013; Kissau, K.
- Sensitive Topics in PC and Mobile Web Surveys; 2013; Mavletova, A. M., Couper, M. P.
- Mobile Research Performance: How Mobile Respondents Differ from PC Users Concerning Interview Quality...; 2013; Schmidt, S., Wenzel, O.
- Who responds to website visitor satisfaction surveys?; 2013; Andreadis, I.
- Measuring working conditions in a volunteer web survey; 2013; de Pedraza, P., Villacampa, A.
- Sampling online communities: using triplets as basis for a (semi-) automated hyperlink web crawler.; 2013; Veny, Y.
- Prison break: Releasing offline experiments from methodological constraints by transforming them into...; 2013; Förstel, H., Manthei, K., Mohnen, A., Berger, G.
- Comparison of psychometric properties of internet versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability...; 2013; Vesteinsdottir, V., Reips, U. -D., Joinson, A. N., Porsdottir, F.
- Why are you leaving me?? - Personality predictors of answering drop out in an online-study; 2013; Thielsch, M., Nestler, S., Back, M.
- Propensity Score Weighting – Can Personality Adjust for Selectivity?; 2013; Glantz, A., Greszki, R.

