Web Survey Bibliography
Even if respondents do not ask for help and advice when answering a survey question, they might misunderstand its intended meaning. Providing definitions of key terms may improve validity (Conrad & Schober 2000, Peytchev et al. 2010) and is apart from that the only way of helping respondents in self-administered surveys. In Web Surveys however plain written text is not always recognized and participants seldom use definitions even though it is just one or two clicks away (Conrad et al. 2006). In addition to definitions regarding the concept measured in a survey question, written in-structions regarding the formatting of a response are important features in survey settings where no interviewer is present. Studies concerning this issue mainly deal with the presenta-tion of answer elements (e.g., Christian, Dillman & Smith 2007). However, with the invention of Web 2.0 technologies researchers have the opportunity to make use of dynamic tooltip elements in order to convey crucial information in addition to the question wording. The aim of such strategy would be to increase the proportion of res-pondents who actually take notice of the definition or instruction when answering a survey question which in turn should increase response quality. In 2011 we conducted two field experimental studies among students and employees of the Technical University of Darmstadt as well as among the general public (N1 = 3,268, N2=1,000). As part of the respective questionnaires respondents answered various questions with and without definitions of key terms of the survey question and with and without in-struction on how to fill in the answer. In a between-subjects design respondents were ran-domly assigned to an experimental condition using either tooltip technology to convey defi-nitions or instructions. Controls versions made use of either a static HTML design or pro-vided no definition or instruction at all. In order to assess the effects of the tooltip technology on respondents, we will compare re-sponse distributions in order to determine whether respondents noticed the definition or instruction and whether they considered this additional information when answering the question. Results indicate, that instructions conveyed using tooltip technology seem to be considered by respondents. More than half of the respondents exposed to the tooltip version activated the tooltip for 3 or more seconds indicating that they had enough time to actually read it. Also, compared to the version without instructions and with static instructions in the tooltip version more respondents answered a questions formally correct.
Workshop Homepage (abstract) / (presentation)
Web survey bibliography (457)
- Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; 2017; Liamputtong, P.
- Necessary but Insufficient: Why Measurement Invariance Tests Need Online Probing as a Complementary...; 2017; Meitinger, K.
- Device and Internet Use among Spanish-dominant Hispanics: Implications for Web Survey Design and Testing...; 2017; Trejo, Y. A. G.; Schoua-Glusberg, A.
- Role of online survey tools in creating temporally accurate Environmental Product Declarations (EPD)...; 2017; Ganguly, I.; Bowers, T.; Pierobon, F.; Eastin, I.
- CAQDAS at a Crossroads: Affordances of Technology in an Online Environment; 2017; Silver, C.; Bulloch, L. S.
- Development and Pilot Test of a Mobile Application for Field Data Collection; 2016; Chiappetta, L.; Kerr, M. M.
- A streamlined approach to online linguistic surveys; 2016; Erlewine, M. Y.; Kotek, H.
- The Effects of Vignette Placement on Attitudes Toward Supporting Family Members; 2016; Lau, C. Q., Seltzer, J. A., Bianchi, S. M.
- Using Web Panels to Quantify the Qualitative: The National Center for Health Statistics Research and...; 2016; Scanlon, P. J.
- Bees to Honey or Flies to Manure? How the Usual Subject Recruitment Exacerbates the Shortcomings of...; 2016; Snell, S. A., Hillygus, D. S.
- The Use of a Nonprobability Internet Panel to Monitor Sexual and Reproductive Health in the General...; 2015; Legleye, S; Charrance, G.; Razafindratsima, N.; Bajos, N.; Bohet, A.; Moreau, C.
- GreenBook Research Industry Trends Report; 2015; Murphy, L. (Ed.)
- Does Sequence Matter in Multimode Surveys: Results from an Experiment; 2014; Wagner, J., Arrieta, J., Guyer, H., Ofstedal, M. B.
- The Use of Cognitive Interviewing Methods to Evaluate Mode Effects in Survey Questions; 2014; Gray, M., Blake, M., Campanelli, P.
- Build your own social network laboratory with Social Lab: a tool for research in social media; 2014; Garaizar, P., Reips, U.-D.
- Using Eye Tracking to Evaluate Email Notifications of Surveys and Online Surveys Collecting Address...; 2014; Olmsted, E. L., Nichols, E. M.
- Correlates of Attrition in the German Internet Panel: Drop-Outs and Sleepers; 2014; Blom, A. G., Beissel-Durrant, G.
- Survey Breakoff in Online Panels; 2014; McCutcheon, A. L.
- Inside the Turk Understanding Mechanical Turk as a Participant Pool; 2014; Paolacci, G., Chandler, J.
- Nonresponse and measurement error in an online panel; 2014; Roberts, C., Allum, N., Sturgis, P.
- Estimating the effects of nonresponses in online panels through imputation; 2014; Zhang, W.
- Professional respondents in nonprobability online panels; 2014; Hillygus, D. S., Jackson, N. M., Young, M.
- Informing panel members about study results; 2014; Scherpenzeel, A., Toepoel, V.
- Determinants of the starting rate and the completion rate in online panel studies; 2014; Goeritz, A.
- The untold story of multi-mode (online and mail) consumer panels; 2014; McCutcheon, A. L., Rao, K., Kaminska, O.
- Online panels and validity; 2014; Groenlund, K., Strandberg, K.
- Assessing representativeness of a probability-based online panel in Germany; 2014; Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L., Schaurer, I., Bandilla, W.
- A critical review of studies investigating the quality of data obtained with online panels based on...; 2014; Callegaro, M., Villar, A., Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A.
- Online panel research: History, concepts, applications and a look at the future; 2014; Callegaro, M., Baker, R., Bethlehem, J., Goeritz, A., Krosnick, J. A., Lavrakas, P. J.
- Motives for joining nonprobability online panels and their association with survey participation behavior...; 2014; Keusch, F., Batinic, B., Mayerhofer, W.
- Targeting the bias – the impact of mass media attention on sample composition and representativeness...; 2014; Steinmetz, S., Oez, F., Tijdens, K. G.
- Exploring selection biases for developing countries - is the web a promising tool for data collection...; 2014; Tijdens, K. G., Steinmetz, S.
- The quality of ego-centered social network data in web surveys: experiments with a visual elicitation...; 2014; Marcin, B., Matzat, U., Snijders, C.
- Switching the polarity of answer options within the questionnaire and using various numbering schemes...; 2014; Struminskaya, B., Schaurer, I., Bosnjak, M.
- Measuring the very long, fuzzy tail in the occupational distribution in web-surveys; 2014; Tijdens, K. G.
- Interest Bias – An Extreme Form of Self-Selection?; 2014; Cape, P. J., Reichert, K.
- Online Qualitative Research – Personality Matters ; 2014; Tress, F., Doessel, C.
- Recent Books and Journals in Public Opinion, Survey Methods, and Survey Statistics; 2014; Callegaro, M.
- Does Gamification Work? - A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification ; 2014; Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Sarsa, H.
- The Use of Paradata to Predict Future Cooperation in a Panel Study; 2014; Funke, F., Goeritz, A.
- Pret met panels [Fun online]; 2013; Roberts, A., de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J., Klausch, L. T., de Jongh, A.
- The Short-term Campaign Panel of the German Longitudinal Election Study 2009. Design, Implementation...; 2013; Steinbrecher, M., Rossmann, J.
- The Future of Social Media, Sociality, and Survey Research; 2013; Hill, C., Dever, J. A.
- Second Life as a Survey Lab: Exploring the Randomized Response Technique in a Virtual Setting; 2013; Richards, A., Dean, E.
- Virtual Cognitive Interviewing Using Skype and Second Life; 2013; Dean, E., Head, B., Swicegood, J. E.
- Social Media, Sociality, and Survey Research; 2013; Hill, C., Dean, E., Murphy, J.
- Investigation of background acoustical effect on online surveys: A case study of a farmers' market...; 2013; Tang, Xi.
- Should the third reminder be sent? The role of survey response timing on web survey results; 2013; Rao, K., Pennington, J.
- Web panel surveys – can they be designed and used in a scientifically sound way?; 2013; Svensson, J.
- Using an Item Response Theory Approach to Measure Survey Mode of Administration Effects: Analysis of...; 2013; Mariano, L. T., Elliott, M. N.