Web Survey Bibliography
Relevance & Research Question: The use of propensity score weighting to reduce selection bias in nonprobability online panels has increased considerably in recent years. Previous research shows that marginal distributions can quite well be adjusted to a representative reference study using both socio-demographic variables and variables that are closely related to the survey topic. But studies that used propensity score weighting to provide estimates of bivariate and multivariate relationships produced mixed results. Another drawback using survey specific covariates is that the corresponding variables have to be selected anew for each research area. We argue for the use of more basic personality traits as covariates, which are likely to explain the self-selection in nonprobability online panels and that allow the general construction of propensity scores across research areas. In the present study we explore the potential role of ‘Big Five’ personality traits to improve propensity score adjustments.
Methods & Data: We conducted two parallel surveys on voting behavior with identical questions administered via computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) to a probability sample and via internet to a nonprobability sample drawn from a commercial online panel. In a three step adjustment design, we first adjusted the online survey for demographics. In a second and third step we sequentially added personality traits and political attitudes as covariates. After each step we compared univariate, bivariate and multivariate results between the web survey and the representative reference study to test the adjustment performance.
Results: Preliminary analyses suggest that considering the ‘Big Five’ personality dimensions as covariates in calculating propensity scores leads to a significant improvement in adjusting data from nonprobability online panels. Marginal distributions of vote intentions as well as relationships between vote intentions and various determinants of voter decision-making are more similar between the two samples using personality traits as covariates.
Added Value: The present study makes a contribution to the greater problem of biased data through selectivity in nonprobability online panels. Through improvement of the adjustment procedures, disadvantages of nonprobability online panels can be reduced.
GOR Homepage (abstract)
Web survey bibliography (109)
- Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote...; 2017; Breton, C.; Cutler, F.; Lachance, S.; Mierke-Zatwarnicki, A.
- Comparing acquiescent and extreme response styles in face-to-face and web surveys; 2017; Liu, M.; Conrad, F. G.; Lee, S.
- The Failure of the Polls: Lessons Learned from the 2015 UK Polling Disaster; 2017; Sturgis, P.
- Incorporating eye tracking into cognitive interviewing to pretest survey questions; 2016; Neuert, C.; Lenzner, T.
- Are interviews costing £0.08 a waste of money? Reviewing Google Surveys for Wisdom of the Crowd...; 2016; Roughton, G.; MacKay, I.
- The Effects of a Delayed Incentive on Response Rates, Response Mode, Data Quality, and Sample Bias in...; 2016; McGonagle, K., Freedman, V. A.
- Privacy Concerns in Responses to Sensitive Questions. A Survey Experiment on the Influence of Numeric...; 2016; Bader, F., Bauer, J., Kroher, M., Riordan, P.
- Does survey mode matter for studying electoral behaviour? Evidence from the 2009 German Longitudinal...; 2016; Bytzek, E.; Bieber, I. E.
- Forecasting proportional representation elections from non-representative expectation surveys; 2016; Graefe, A.
- Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk; 2016; Berinsky, A.; Huber, G. A.; Lenz, G. S.
- Report of the Inquiry into the 2015 British general election opinion polls; 2016; Sturgis, P., Baker, N., Callegaro, M., Fisher, St., Green, J., Jennings, W., Kuha, J., Lauderdale, B...
- Sample Representation and Substantive Outcomes Using Web With and Without Incentives Compared to Telephone...; 2016; Lipps, O.; Pekari, N.
- Evaluating a New Proposal for Detecting Data Falsification in Surveys; 2016; Simmons, K.; Mercer, A. W.; Schwarzer, S.; Courtney, K.
- Identifying Pertinent Variables for Nonresponse Follow-Up Surveys. Lessons Learned from 4 Cases in Switzerland...; 2016; Vandenplas, C.; Joye, D.; Staehli, M. E.; Pollien, A.
- Methods can matter: Where Web surveys produce different results than phone interviews; 2016; Keeter, S.
- HUFFPOLLSTER: Why Reaching Latinos Is A Challenge For Pollsters; 2016; Jackson, N. M.; Edwards-Levy, A.; Velencia, J.
- Moderators of Candidate Name-Order Effects in Elections: An Experiment; 2016; Kim, Nu.; Krosnick, J. A.; Casasanto, D.
- Measuring Generalized Trust: An Examination of Question Wording and the Number of Scale Points; 2016; Lundmark, S.; Giljam, M.; Dahlberg, S.
- Online and Social Media Data As an Imperfect Continuous Panel Survey; 2016; Diaz, F.; Garmon, F.; Hofman, J. K.; Kiciman, E.; Rothschild, D.
- Translating Answers to Open-ended Survey Questions in Cross-cultural Research: A Case Study on the Interplay...; 2015; Behr, D.
- Using Video to Reinvigorate the Open Question; 2015; Cape, P.
- On Bias Adjustments for Web Surveys; 2015; Fan, L.; Lou, W.; Landsman, V.
- Measuring Political Knowledge in Web-Based Surveys: An Experimental Validation of Visual Versus Verbal...; 2015; Munzert, S.; Selb, P.
- Mode System Effects in an Online Panel Study: Comparing a Probability-based Online Panel with two Face...; 2015; Struminskaya, B.; De Leeuw, E. D.; Kaczmirek, L.
- Data collection mode effect on feeling thermometer questions: A comparison of face-to-face and Web surveys...; 2015; Liu, M., Wang, Yi.
- Do Attempts to Improve Respondent Attention Increase Social Desirability Bias?; 2015; Clifford, S.; Jerit, J.
- HUFFPOLLSTER: Pollsters Debate If Modern Surveys Can Be Trusted; 2015; Blumenthal, M.; Edwards-Levy, A.; Velencia, J.
- Can a non-probabilistic online panel achieve question quality similar to that of the European Social...; 2015; Revilla, M.; Saris, W. E.; Loewe, G.; Ochoa, C.
- Data Collection Mode Effects On Political Knowledge; 2014; Liu, M., Wang, Y.
- Self-reported cheating in web surveys on political knowledge; 2014; Jensen, C., Thomsen, J. P. F.
- The Power of Partisanship in Brazil: Evidence from Survey Experiments; 2014; Samuels, D., Zucco, C.
- Online Polls and Registration-Based Sampling: A New Method for Pre-Election Polling; 2014; Barber, M. J., Mann, C. B., Monson, J. Q., Patterson, K. D.
- Does Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings from a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison; 2014; Ansolabehere, S., Schaffner, B. F.
- Measuring Political Participation—Testing Social Desirability Bias in a Web-Survey Experiment; 2014; Persson, M., Solevid, M.
- What Does the Satisfaction with Democracy Measure Mean to Respondents in Different Countries? How Cross...; 2014; Behr, D., Braun, M.
- Professional respondents in nonprobability online panels; 2014; Hillygus, D. S., Jackson, N. M., Young, M.
- Online panels and validity; 2014; Groenlund, K., Strandberg, K.
- Two Are Better Than One: The Use of a Mixed-Mode Data Collection to Improve the Electoral Forecast; 2014; de Rada, V. D., Pasadas del Amo, S.
- The Short-term Campaign Panel of the German Longitudinal Election Study 2009. Design, Implementation...; 2013; Steinbrecher, M., Rossmann, J.
- Relative Mode Effects on Data Quality in Mixed-Mode Surveys by an Instrumental Variable; 2013; Vannieuwenhuyze, J. T. A., Revilla, M.
- Web Versus Outbound: A Mode Face-Off Following the Presidential Debate; 2013; Marlar, J.
- Propensity Score Weighting – Can Personality Adjust for Selectivity?; 2013; Glantz, A., Greszki, R.
- Especially for You: Motivating Respondents in an Internet Panel by Offering Tailored Questions; 2012; Oudejans, M.
- 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.
- Effects of Technical Difficulties on Item Nonresponse and Response Favorability in a Mixed-Mode Survey...; 2012; Gibson, J. L.
- Where is Neutral? Using Negativity Biases to Interpret Thermometer Scores; 2012; Soroka, S., Albaugh, Q.
- I Got a Feeling: Comparison of Feeling Thermometers with Verbally Labeled Scales in Attitude Measurement...; 2012; Thomas, R. K., Bremer, J.
- Scrutinizing Dynamics – Rolling panel waves in theory and practice; 2012; Faas, T., Blumenberg, J. N.
- Toward wiser public judgment; 2011; Yankelovich, D., Friedman, W.
- Mass informed consent: Evidence on upgrading democracy with polls and new media; 2011; Simon, A. F.