Web Survey Bibliography
Relevance & Research Question: Nonresponse in online panel surveys is problematic since it may lead to a bias. An important measure to secure respondent cooperation and the quality of responses is the use of monetary incentives. The purpose of this paper is to find out which incentive strategy is efficient for long term participation of respondents. Efficiency implies both low recruitment costs combined with high response rate after entrance in the panel.
Methods & Data: An experiment was carried out in the LISS panel (Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences, an online panel based on a true probability sample of households) in 2007 to determine the optimal recruitment strategy for a new online household panel. The monetary incentives varied during the recruitment. The incentives were either promised or prepaid and the amount varied (10, 20 or 50 euros). More than 500 respondents were randomly selected in the different incentive conditions. This paper takes a different approach to model the time-to-event of nonparticipation: survival analysis. The event in this case is nonparticipation. This method has two important advantages: 1) incorporates the timing of the event and 2) allows for censoring. This research will provide new evidence on the timing of nonparticipation and the influence of different incentive strategies on this timing.
Results: A pilot study was performed to evaluate the effect of the incentive strategies on the recruitment of respondents for the online panel. The highest response rate was found for the lowest prepaid incentive. Section incomplete, see remarks.
Added Value: The willingness of respondents to participate for a long term in the panel for different incentive strategies is an important topic in the literature on survey nonresponse. The innovative aspects of this study are as follows. First, the recruitment incentives are investigated to determine which strategy is optimal for both recruitment and retention of respondents for a longer term. Second, this paper will use a different method of analysis in order to look at the timing of nonparticipation in relation to incentive strategies. This helps us to define an efficient incentive strategy for an online panel.
GOR Homepage (abstract)
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Testing a single mode vs a mixed mode design; 2011; Laaksonen, S.
- Germans' segregation preferences and immigrant group size: A factorial survey approach; 2011; Schlueter, E., Ullrich, J., Schmidt, P.
- Errors within web-based surveys: a comparison between two different tools for the analysis of tourist...; 2011; Polizzi, G., Oliveri, A. M.
- Benefits of Structured DDI Metadata across the Data Lifecycle: The STARDAT Project at the GESIS Data...; 2011; Linne, M., Brislinger, E., Zenk-Moeltgen, W.
- Microdata Information System MISSY; 2011; Bohr, J.,
- The Use of Structured Survey Instrument Metadata throughout the Data Lifecycle; 2011; Hansen, S. E.
- DDI and the Lifecycle of Longitudinal Surveys; 2011; Hoyle, L., Wackerow, J.
- Dissemination of survey (meta)data in the LISS data archive; 2011; Streefkerk, M., Elshout, S.
- Underreporting in Interleafed Questionnaires: Evidence from Two Web Surveys; 2011; Medway, R., Viera Jr., L., Turner, S., Marsh, S. M.
- The use of cognitive interviewing methods to evaluate mode effects in survey questions; 2011; Gray, M., Blake, M., Campanelli, P., Hope, S.
- Does the direction of Likert-type scales influence response behavior in web surveys?; 2011; Keusch, F.
- Cross-country Comparisons: Effects of Scale Type and Response Style Differences; 2011; Thomas, R. K.
- Explaining more variance with visual analogue scales: A Web experiment; 2011; Funke, F.
- A Comparison of Branching Response Formats with Single Response Formats; 2011; Thomas, R. K.
- Different functioning of rating scale formats – results from psychometric and physiological experiments...; 2011; Koller, M., Salzberger, T.
- Cognitive process in answering questions: Are verbal labels in rating scales attended to?; 2011; Menold, N., Kaczmirek, L., Lenzner, T.
- Experiments on the Design of the Left-Right Self-Assessment Scale; 2011; Zuell, C., Scholz, E., Behr, D.
- Is it a good idea to optimise question format for mode of data collection? Results from a mixed modes...; 2011; Nicolaas, G., Campanelli, P., Hope, S., Lynn, P., Nandi, A.
- Separating selection from mode effects when switching from single (CATI) to mixed mode design (CATI /...; 2011; Carstensen, J., Kriwy, P., Krug, G., Lange, C.
- Testing between-mode measurement invariance under controlled selectivity conditions; 2011; Klausch, L. T.
- Using propensity score matching to separate mode- and selection effects; 2011; Lugtig, P. J., Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J.
- A mixed mode pilot on consumer barometer; 2011; Taskinen, P., Simpanen, M.
- Separation of selection bias and mode effect in mixed-mode survey – Application to the face-to...; 2011; Bayart, C., Bonnel, P.
- Optimization of dual frame telephone survey designs; 2011; Slavec, A., Vehovar, V.
- A Comparison of CAPI and PAPI through a Randomized Field Experiment; 2011; De Weerdt, J.
- Flexibility of Web Surveys: Probing 'do-not-know' over the Phone and on the Web; 2011; Hox, J., de Leeuw, E. D.
- Changing research methods in Ukraine: CATI or Mixed-Mode Surveys?; 2011; Paniotto, V., Kharchenko, N.
- The effects of mixed mode designs on simple and complex analyses; 2011; Martin, P., Lynn, P.
- In the Face of Declining Budgets: The Student Experience at Washington State University ; 2011; Allen, T., Dillman, D. A., Garza, B., Millar, M. M.
- Use of Cognitive Shortcuts in Landline and Cell Phone Surveys; 2011; Everett, S. E., Kennedy, C.
- Mode Effect or Question Wording? Measurement Error in Mixed Mode Surveys; 2011; de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J., Scherpenzeel, A.
- Conducting Respondent Driven Sampling on the Web: An Experimental Approach to Recruiting Challenges; 2011; Kapteyn, A., Schonlau, M.
- Discussion of Melanie Revilla's presentation on "Impact of the mode of data collection on...; 2011; Blom, A. G.
- Comments on the paper - Geetha Garib: Perceived diversity among employees; 2011; Vehovar, V.
- Framing Effects and Expected Social Security Claiming Behavior; 2011; Brown, Je., Kapteyn, A., Mitchell, O. S.
- Building an Online Immigrant Panel: Response and Representativity; 2011; Scherpenzeel, A.
- Effects of Incentives and Prenotification on Response Rates and Costs in a National Web Survey of Physicians...; 2011; Bonham, V., Day, B., Dykema, J., Sellers, S., Stevenson, J.
- Nonsampling errors in dual frame telephone surveys ; 2011; Brick, J. M., Flores Cervantes, I., Lee, S., Norman, G.
- Measurement invariance in training evaluation: Old question, new context; 2011; P., Gissel, A., Stoughton, J. W., Whelan, T. J.Clark, A. P.
- Towards Usage of Avatar Interviewers in Web Surveys; 2011; Jans, M., Malakhoff, L.
- Measurement Error in Mixed Mode Surveys: Mode or Question Format?; 2011; de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J.
- Toward a Benefit-Cost Theory of Survey Participation: Evidence, Further Tests, and Implications; 2011; Singer, E.
- Using Community Information and Survey Methodology for Bias Reduction to Enhance the Quality of the...; 2011; Harvey, J., Prabhakaran, J., Spera, C., Zhang, Zh.
- Response Quantity, Response Quality, and Costs of Building an Online Panel via Social Contacts.; 2011; Toepoel, V.
- The Influence Of The Direction Of Likert-Type Scales In Web Surveys On Response Behavior In Different...; 2011; Keusch, F.
- An Injured Party?: A Comparison of Political Party Response Formats in Party Identification.; 2011; Schwarz, S., Barlas, F. M., Thomas, R. K., Corso, R. A., Szoc, R.
- Asking Sensitive Questions: Do They Affect Participation In Follow-Up Surveys?; 2011; Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W.
- Designing Questions for Web Surveys: Effects of Check-List, Check-All, and Stand-Alone Response Formats...; 2011; Dykema, J., Schaeffer, N. C., Beach, J., Lein, V., Day, B.
- Differential Sampling Based on Historical Individual-Level Data in Online Panels.; 2011; Kelly, R. H.
- Web Survey Live Validations - What Are They Doing?; 2011; Crawford, S. D., McClain, C.