Web Survey Bibliography
We will shortly present our WebSM study on survey software (Vehovar et al 2012) which is an overview based on the list of survey software. At the 5th ISM workshop we presented some preliminary results of our research which are now supplemented with new findings. The result show that the number of software is in steady decline. Newcomers are increasingly rare, while the solutions which could not adopt slowly disappear. Open source solutions are almost non-existing.
Service prices are becoming more and more competitive, development costs are increasing, requests for new features is expanding. This is particularly true for support for mobile surveys, mixed modes, multilanguage support and panel. These are also the features which separate advanced solutions from the simple one. Other survey software features basically converge much more easily. So to keep the pace, considerable team of developers needs to be there. Consequently, market segmentation, concentration and takeovers have been in full progress in recent years, particularly in 2011 (see WebSM 2011) and continues in 2012.
Although there still exist a clear separation between high-end and low-end solution (with few segments between), we can observe the convergence: cheap and low-end SaaS solutions are becoming increasing powerful, while high-end complex software are often stuck in old architecture and awkward interfaces. There is a trend towards vendor based (SaaS), GUI interface and Web2.0 approach (the latter appeared very late in this industry), which is the trend also for most complex solutions. The customer support (documentation, help) is also increasing, as well as aggressive marketing.
Approximate visitation statistics for SaaS solution show that among 365 software included in our report are around ten solutions with more than 100,000 visit per day (few millions is the maximum), and around 40 with daily visits above 10,000.
The majority of software focuses on web surveys, while some are specialized solely on forms, polls, quizzed or events. On the other hand, the web software is increasingly integrated - and thus losing its separate identity- into (email) marketing research, human resource management, enterprise feedback management, voice of the customer and business intelligence. Major suppliers also seek business in the integration with their own panel of respondents.
In this respect, we will discuss the development trends of web survey software; evaluate which are the preferable solutions and what are our needs and expectations as users.
Workshop Homepage (abstract)
Web survey bibliography - 2012 (371)
- “I think I know what you did last summer” Improving data quality in panel surveys; 2012; Lugtig, P. J.
- An Initial Look at Non-Response and Attrition in Understanding Society; 2012; Lynn, P., Burton, J., Kaminska, O., Knies, G., Nandi, A.
- Understanding Society Innovation Panel Wave 4: Results from Methodological Experiments; 2012; Burton, J., Budd, S., Kaminska, O., Uhrig, S. C. N., Brown, M., Calderwood, L.
- The Propensity of Older Respondents to Participate in a General Purpose Survey; 2012; Lynn, P.
- Mode-Switch Protocols: How a Seemingly Small Design Difference can affect Attrition Rates and Attrition...; 2012; Lynn, P.
- Does Giving People Their Preferred Survey Mode Actually Increase Survey Participation Rates?; 2012; Olson, K., Smyth, J. D., Wood, H.
- Adaptive web sampling in ecology; 2012; Thompson, S. K.
- Deep Data: Qualitative Approaches to E-Research in the Digital Age; 2012; Salmons, J.
- Going online with a face-to-face household panel: Initial results from an experiment on the UK Household...; 2012; Jaeckle, A., Lynn, P., Burton, J.
- Opportunities and Challenges for the Digital Researcher; 2012; Blank, G., Morey, Y.
- Measures of Data Quality Across the RDD Frames; 2012; Lavrakas, P. J.
- Reliable Online Social Network Data Collection; 2012; Abdesslem, F. B., Parris, I., Henderson, T.
- Statisticians don’t like non-probability; 2012; Murphy, J.
- Diasporas on the web: new networks, new methodologies; 2012; Crush, J., Eberhardt, C., Caesar, M., Chikanda, A., Pendleton, W., Hill, A.
- Not by the Book: Facebook as a Sampling Frame; 2012; Brickman Bhutta, C.
- Survey Quality Evaluation for Business Surveys; 2012; Biemer, P. P.
- Respondent-driven sampling; 2012; Schonlau, M., Liebau, E.
- Online Data Collection in the Agro-Food Sector; 2012; Biffignandi, S., Artaz, R.
- Collecting data electronically from enterprises – searching for the right approach; 2012; Keating, J., Portillo, S.
- Tailoring the design of e-questionnaires to the response process: About audit trails and other methods...; 2012; Morren, M., Snijkers, G.
- Predicting potential respondents' decision to participate in web surveys; 2012; Fang, J., Wen, C.
- Comparing Ranking Techniques in Web Surveys; 2012; Blasius, J.
- Design of CAWI Instruments for Social Surveys ; 2012; Blanke, K.
- Web Survey Software; 2012; Berzelak, N., Vehovar, V., Slavec, A.
- Surveying general population: What types of experiments are further needed?; 2012; Vehovar, V., Berzelak, N.
- Psychometric properties of an internet administered version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability...; 2012; Vesteinsdottir, V., Reips, U.-D., Joinson, A. N., Porsdottir, F.
- Enhancing Web Surveys With New HTML5 Input Types; 2012; Funke, F.
- Mobile Survey Participation Rates in Commercial Market Research: A Meta-Analysis; 2012; Bosnjak, M., Poggio, T., Becker, K. R., Funke, F., Wachenfeld, A., Fischer, B.
- Research design for studying online communities with web surveys; 2012; Petrovcic, A., Petric, G., Lozar Manfreda, K.
- “What a waste of time!” vs “Why not participate?” On sentiments by business...; 2012; Torres van Grinsven, V., Snijkers, G., Daas, P.
- Case study: Respondent perspective on survey response; 2012; Jarrett, C.
- Effect of different stimulus on data quality in online panels; 2012; Zagar, S., Lozar Manfreda, K.
- The German Internet Panel: First Results from the Recruitment Phases; 2012; Blom, A. G.
- Panel retention rate and data quality: experimental results drawing on Reciprocity design; 2012; Biffignandi, S., Artaz, R.
- Analysis of coverage bias for the implementation of web surveys in Spain; 2012; de Pedraza, P., Serrano, F.
- Web panels in Slovenia; 2012; Lenar, J., Vehovar, V.
- Presidential Elections in Iceland 2012 – Did online panel surveys give false hope to new candidates...; 2012; Jonsdottir, G. A., Dofradottir, A. G., Bjornsdottir, A. E.
- Website exit surveys. What can we measure with them?; 2012; Andreadis, I.
- Challenges and pitfalls of measuring wages via web surveys - some explorations; 2012; Steinmetz, S., Bianchi, A., Tijdens, K., Biffignandi, S.
- Adaptation of Cognitive Interviews for Web; 2012; Mohorko, A., Hlebec, V.
- The Usage of a Cloud Service as an Effective Way of Sharing Cognitive and Usability Test Information; 2012; Rouhunkoski, J., Godenhjelm, P.
- Database Lookup in Web Surveys; 2012; Couper, M. P., Zhang, C., Conrad, F. G., Tourangeau, R.
- Firefly Online Surveys: A fully featured tool for Web surveys and forums; 2012; Deal, K.
- Analyzing Functionalities for Online Questionnaire System (OQS); 2012; Atown, H. Y.
- Internet Mobility Survey Sampling Biases in Measuring Frequency of Use of Transport Modes ; 2012; Diana, M.
- Why one should incorporate the design weights when adjusting for unit nonresponse using response homogeneity...; 2012; Kott, P. S.
- A beginner's guide to DIY research ; 2012; Cates, T.
- Qualitatively Speaking: Mobile qualitative finally hits its stride; 2012; Bryson, J.
- Comfortable in the new medium: How online qual can benefit from our share-happy culture ; 2012; Rubenstein, P.
- A Smarter Way to Select Respondents for Surveys; 2012; Terhanian, G., Bremer, J.