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 (183)
- Using experts’ consensus (the Delphi method) to evaluate weighting techniques in web surveys not...; 2017; Toepoel, V.; Emerson, H.
- A Partially Successful Attempt to Integrate a Web-Recruited Cohort into an Address-Based Sample; 2017; Kott, P. S., Farrelly, M., Kamyab, K.
- Overview: Online Surveys; 2017; Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Inferences from Internet Panel Studies and Comparisons with Probability Samples; 2016; Lachan, R.; Boyle, J.; Harding, R.
- Integration of a phone-based household travel survey and a web-based student travel survey; 2016; Verreault, H.; Morency, C.
- Estimation and Adjustment of Self-Selection Bias in Volunteer Panel Web Surveys ; 2016; Niu, Ch.
- Calculating Standard Errors for Nonprobability Samples when Matching to Probability Samples ; 2016; Lee, Ad.; ZuWallack, R. S.
- Establishing the accuracy of online panels for survey research; 2016; Bruggen, E.; van den Brakel, J.; Krosnick, J. A.
- Evaluating Three Approaches to Statistically Adjust for Mode Effects; 2016; Kolenikov, S.; Kennedy, C.
- Linearization Variance Estimators for Mixed ‒ mode Survey Data when Response Indicators are Modeled...; 2016; Demnati, A.
- Options for Fielding and Analyzing Web Surveys; 2016; Schonlau, M.; Couper, M. P.
- 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...
- Solving the Nonresponse Problem With Sample Matching?; 2016
- Online and Social Media Data As an Imperfect Continuous Panel Survey; 2016; Diaz, F.; Garmon, F.; Hofman, J. K.; Kiciman, E.; Rothschild, D.
- Quota Controls in Survey Research.; 2016; Gittelman, S. H.; Thomas, R. K.; Lavrakas, P. J.; Lange, V.
- Scientific Surveys Based on Incomplete Sampling Frames and High Rates of Nonresponse; 2016; Fahimi, M.; Barlas, F. M.; Thomas, R. K.; Buttermore, N. R.
- Doing Surveys Online ; 2016; Toepoel, V.
- Using Mobile Phones for High-Frequency Data Collection; 2015; Azevedo, J. P.; Ballivian, A.; Durbin, W.
- On Bias Adjustments for Web Surveys; 2015; Fan, L.; Lou, W.; Landsman, V.
- The quality of data collected using online panels: a decade of research ; 2015; Callegaro, M.
- Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour...; 2015; Liebe, U., Glenk, K., Oehlmann, M., Meyerhoff, J.
- Web-based survey, calibration, and economic impact assessment of spending in nature based recreation; 2015; Paudel, K. P., Devkota, N., Gyawali, B.
- Using Web Panels for Official Statistics; 2014; Bethlehem, J.
- Self-reported cheating in web surveys on political knowledge; 2014; Jensen, C., Thomsen, J. P. F.
- Keeping Surveys Valid, Reliable, and Useful: A Tutorial; 2014; Greenberg, M. R., Weiner, M. D.
- Prioritisation of alternatives with analytical hierarchy process plus response latency and web survey...; 2014; Barone, S. Errore, A., Lombardo, A.
- 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.
- Using Paradata to Predict and to Correct for Panel Attrition in a Web-based Panel Survey; 2014; Rossmann, J., Gummer, T.
- Improving cheater detection in web-based randomized response using client-side paradata; 2014; Dombrowski, K., Becker, C.
- Modelling ”don’t know” responses in rating scales; 2014; Manisera, M., Zuccolotto, P.
- User Modeling via Machine Learning and Rule-Based Reasoning to Understand and Predict Errors in Survey...; 2013; Stuart, L. C.
- Comparison of Three Modes for a Crime Victimization Survey; 2013; Laaksonen, S., Heiskanen, M.
- The Short-term Campaign Panel of the German Longitudinal Election Study 2009. Design, Implementation...; 2013; Steinbrecher, M., Rossmann, J.
- Too Fast, Too Straight, Too Weird: Post Hoc Identification of Meaningless Data in Internet ; 2013; Leiner, D. J.
- Assessing Nonresponse Bias in the Green Technologies and Practices Survey; 2013; Meekins, B., Sverchkov, M., Stang, S.
- Web Panel Representativeness; 2013; Bianchi, A., Biffignandi, S.
- On the Impact of Response Patterns on Survey Estimates from Access Panels; 2013; Enderle, T., Muennich, R., Bruch, C.
- Unit Nonresponse and Weighting Adjustments: A Critical Review; 2013; Brick, J. M.
- Adjusting for bias in a mixed-mode CAWI survey on University students ; 2013; Clerici, R., Giraldo, A.
- A probability-based web panel for the UK: What could it look like?; 2013; Nicolaas, G.
- Panel Attrition: Separating Stayers, Sleepers and Other Types of Drop-Out in an Internet Panel; 2013; Lugtig, P. J.
- Speeding and Non-Differentiation in Web Surveys: Evidence of Correlation and Strategies for Reduction...; 2013; Zhang, Che.
- Web Versus Outbound: A Mode Face-Off Following the Presidential Debate; 2013; Marlar, J.
- The Effects of Errors in Paradata on Weighting Class Adjustments: A Simulation Study; 2013; West, B. T.
- Practical tools for designing and weighting survey samples; 2013; Valliant, R. L., Daver, J. A., Kreuter, F.
- Moving an established survey online – or not?; 2013; Barber, T., Chilvers, D., Kaul, S.
- Measuring working conditions in a volunteer web survey; 2013; de Pedraza, P., Villacampa, A.
- Propensity Score Weighting – Can Personality Adjust for Selectivity?; 2013; Glantz, A., Greszki, R.
- Eurobarometer Special surveys: Special Eurobarometer 381; 2012