Web Survey Bibliography
Questionnaire instruments are frequently administered in digital formats, largely web-based, without much systematic investigation of possible effects from these administration methods. Furthermore, little attention has been given to the contextual lack of control for extraneous factors that may influence user responses. In this study, 263 university students were randomly assigned to one of two administration formats, web-based (WBA) or paper-based (PBA), to complete a set of questionnaires in an environment of their choice. Data collection included reporting context characteristics along three parameters: location, companions, and concurrent activities (including help-seeking). Outcomes of interest included location and conditions of user-chosen contexts, instrument performance, generative data quantity and quality, independence of completion, administrative efficiency, and participant affect. Participants did choose and allow distracters in their contexts-of-use, completing the questionnaires while engaged in multiple social and asocial concurrent activities. There were generally small but significant differences in instrument performance and user response characteristics by administration method and contexts-of-use. Participant comfort and data returned were both higher in PBA than WBA. Quantity return of generative data was higher in WBA while overall quality (completeness, coherence, correctness) of generative data was not significantly different. These findings present implications of administrative methods and contextual influences that inform measurement professionals’ selection and design of administrative systems and conditions for research and evaluation data collection.
Journal Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Boosting Web pick-up Rates by referring to Compliance Principles ; 2012; Falnes-Dalheim, E., Haraldsen, G., Sundvoll, A.
- Choosing a Data Collection Approach: Mixed Mode Design Experiences in Statistics Finland; 2012; Taskinen, P., Kiianmaa, N.
- Ebook readings jumps, print book reading declines; 2012; Rainie, L., Duggan, M.
- Digital Divides: A connectivity continuum for the United States. Data from the 2011 Current Population...; 2012; File, T.
- How Should Debriefing Be Undertaken in Web-Based Studies? Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial...; 2012; McCambridge, J., Kypri, K., Wilson, A.
- Better customer in sight in real time; 2012; Macdonald, E., Wilson, H. N., Konus, H.
- Best practices in data cleaning: A complete guide to everything you need to do before and after collecting...; 2012; Osborne, J. W.
- Benchmarking for better surveys; 2012; Nallan, S.
- Adult gadget ownership over time (2006-2012); 2012
- Subjective Well-being Of Spanish Workers: Continuous Voluntary Web Survey Examination; 2012; de Pedraza, P., Guzi, M.
- Specific mixed-mode methodology to reach sensory disabled people in quantitative surveys; 2012; Fontaine, S.
- Response Mode Choice and the Hard-to-Interview in the American Community Survey; 2012; Nichols, E. M., Horwitz, R., Guarino Tancreto, J.
- Recruiting in an Internet panel using respondent driven sampling; 2012; Schonlau, M.
- A Choice in Mode: A Solution for Increasing Response Rates of Hard-to-Survey Populations?; 2012; Haan, M., Ongena, Y. P.
- The Feasibility of Conducting a Web Survey Using Respondent Driven Sampling among Transgenders in the...; 2012; Kappelhof, J.
- Multi-Language Multi-Continent B2B Community Panel: How B2B research can effectively span the world; 2012; Morden, M., Accomando, E.
- Can Survey Gaming Techniques Cross Continents? Examining cross cultural reactions to creative questioning...; 2012; Puleston, J.
- Facing The Future Webcams as a survey tool in China; 2012; Gordon, A., Llewellyn, T., Gu, E.
- Device Diversity: Understanding the complexity of varied devices for taking surveys – Case study...; 2012; Pearson, C., Backlund, K., Veling, L., Tsvelik, M., Jehoel, S.
- Research Goes Mobile: Findings from initial smartphone application research; 2012; Dubreuil, C., Joubert, S.
- Better Answers to Basic Questions: Enhancing the accuracy of online reach and audience metrics; 2012; van Dam, P. H., van Ossenbruggen, R., Voorend, R.
- Rules of engagement: The war against poorly engaged respondents - guidelines for elimination; 2012; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Reality check in the digital age: The relationship between what we ask and what people actually do; 2012; Hofmeyr, J., Louw, A.
- Dimensions of Online Survey Data Quality What really matters?; 2012; Puleston, J., Eggers, M.
- WEBDATANET: web-based data-collection methodological challenges, solutions and implementations. Action...; 2012; de Pedraza, P.
- WebSM Study: Survey software features overview ; 2012; Vehovar, V., Cehovin, G., Kavcic, L., Lenar, J.
- Examining Contexts-of-Use for Web-Based and Paper-Based Questionnaires; 2012; Hardré, P. L., Crowson, H. M., Xie, K.
- Probabilistic survey questions and incorrect answers: Retirement income replacement rates; 2012; van Santen, P., Alessie, R., Kalwij, A.
- Survey Quality; 2012; Lyberg, L. E.
- Prenotification, Incentives, and Survey Modality: An Experimental Test of Methods to Increase Survey...; 2012; Tepper, J. R., Jacob, B.
- Using Free Online Survey Software in Your Teaching; 2012; Chippindall, J.
- Comparability of Survey Measurements; 2012; Oberski, D.
- Why People Agree to Participate in Surveys; 2012; Albaum, G., Smith, S. M.
- Unit Non-Response Due to Refusal; 2012; Stoop, I.
- Classification of Surveys; 2012; Stoop, I., Harrison, E.
- What Survey Modes are Most Effective in Eliciting Self-Reports of Criminal or Delinquent Behavior?; 2012; Kleck, G., Roberts, K.
- Non-Response and Measurement Error; 2012; Billiet, J., Matsuo, H.
- An Overlooked Approach in Survey Research: Total Survey Error; 2012; Bautista, R.
- An assessment of equivalence between Internet and paper-based surveys: evidence from collectivistic...; 2012; Fang, J., Wen, C., Prybutok, V.
- Effects of Incentives in Surveys; 2012; Toepoel, V.
- Respondents Cooperation: Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents and Its Implication; 2012; Glaser, P.
- Costs and Errors in Fixed and Mobile Phone Surveys; 2012; Vehovar, V., Slavec, A., Berzelak, N.
- E-Mail Surveys; 2012; Mesch, G.
- Does survey experience affect respondents’ reported level of satisfaction?; 2012; Schultz Christensen, A., Ladenburg, J.
- Building Your Own Online Panel Via E-Mail and Other Digital Media; 2012; Toepoel, V.
- Data Quality in HIV/AIDS Web-Based Surveys: Handling Invalid and Suspicious Data; 2012; Bauermeister, J. A., Pingel, E., Zimmerman, M., Couper, M. P., Carballo-Diéguez, A., Strecher, V. J.
- Use of Web 2.0 to Recruit Australian Gay Men to an Online HIV/AIDS Survey; 2012; Theriault, N., Bi, P., Hiller, J. E., Nor, M.
- Web and Mail Surveys: An Experimental Comparison of Methods for Nonprofit Research; 2012; Lin, W., Van Ryzin, G. G.
- Evaluation of an online (opt-in) panel for public participation geographic information systems surveys...; 2012; Brown, G., Weber, D., Zanon, D., de Bie, K.
- Survey Data Collection and Integration; 2012; Davino, C., Fabbris, L.