Web Survey Bibliography
There is very little that is known about breakoffs as a form of nonresponse. Without understanding the mechanisms generating them, breakoffs tend to be treated together with unitnonresponse. Understanding the unique and the common causes of breakoffs would allow for reduction of breakoffs through survey design, as well as for better informed imputation and weighting adjustment models. Studying breakoffs could also provide insight into factors affecting cooperation decisions in a manner that could not be done before – in mail surveys, for example, only a priori hypotheses have been possible due to a single binary outcome being observed. A framework for breakoff and associated response behaviors in web surveys is proposed. The framework incorporates respondent and survey related factors, the multiple response decisions that are possible in web surveys, and presents survey breakoff as a participation decision that is continuously reevaluated throughout the survey. An empirical test was conducted on two similar large scale web survey experiments with 6,000 completed surveys and a 12% overall breakoff rate. A discrete hazard survival model with page-varying and page-invariant covariates was used to estimate the risk of breakoff. The size of the task indicated by the number of questions in a page, comprehension (long questions), mapping (open-end response format), and topic & commitment (introductory screens) led to higher risk of breakoff. There was some indication that questions requiring more judgment processes to cause breakoffs, and no effect was found of retrieval-intensive and editing-intensive (sensitive or threatening) questions. The effect of respondent education was consistent with a hypothesis of cognitive ability. Contrary to previous beliefs, those who break off tend to be more careful respondents who may be finding various tasks too difficult, rather than being careless respondents who haphazardly break off.
Web survey bibliography - 2006 (98)
- Adult gadget ownership over time (2006-2012); 2012
- Dutch Online Panel Comparison Study (NOPVO); 2006; R. van Ossenbruggen; T. Vonk; P. Willems
- Migration Watch: an Internet survey to monitor spring migration in Britain and Ireland; 2006; Baillie, S. R., Balmer, D. E., Downie, I. S., Wright, K. H. M.
- Substance use and sexual behaviours of Japanese men who have sex with men: A nationwide internet survey...; 2006; Hidaka, Y., Ichikawa, S., Koyano, J., Urao, M., Yasuo, T., Kimura, H., Kihara, M., Ono-Kihara, M.
- Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing: Mode Effects on Data Quality and Likely Causes. Report...; 2006; Jaeckle, A., Lynn, P., Roberts, C.,
- DADOS-Survey: an open-source application for CHERRIES-compliant Web surveys; 2006; Shah, A., Jacobs, D. O., Martins, H., Harker, M., Menezes, A., Harker, M., McCready, M., Pietrobon,...
- Snowball Sampling ; 2006; Berg, S.
- Introduction nonresponse bias in household surveys ; 2006; Singer, E.
- Essential Steps for Web Surveys: A Guide to Designing, Administering and Utilizing Web Surveys for University...; 2006; Cheskis-Gold, R., Loescher, R., Shepard-Rabadam, E., Carroll, B.
- Don't make me think: a common sense approach to web usability; 2006; Krug, S.
- The use of an Internet-based Ask the Doctor Service involving family physicians: evaluation by a web...; 2006; Umefjord, G., Hamberg, K., Malker, H., Petersson, G.
- A short introduction to usability in online surveys; 2006; Kaczmirek, L.
- Measuring task-specific perceptions of the world wide web ; 2006; Page-Thomas, K.
- Oversurveying: Causes, Consequences, and Cures; 2006; Weiner, S. P., Dalessio, A. T.
- Online Reporting: Real Time, Real Impact, Real Opportunities ; 2006; Barbera, K. M., Young, S.
- Online Surveys: Critical Issues in Using the Web to Conduct Surveys; 2006; Fenlason, K., Suckow-Zimberg, K.
- Getting Action from Organizational Surveys: New Concepts, Technologies, and Applications; 2006; Kraut, A. I.
- Survey Methodology; 2006; Nusser, S. M.
- Web-based survey techniques. A synthesis of Transit practice; 2006
- Web 2.0 & panels. The shift from lectures to conversations; 2006; Cook, M., Buckley, N.
- Understanding people. Sample matching; 2006; Rivers, D.
- The power of the visible: Visual design for Web surveys; 2006; Couper, M. P.
- The internet response method: Impact on the Canadian Census of population data; 2006; Roy, L., Laroche, D.
- The effect of conditioning when re-interviewing; 2006; Cartwright, T., Nancarrow, C.
- The anonymous elect. Market research through online access panels; 2006; Postoaca, A.
- Statistics for real-life sample surveys: non-simple-random samples and weighted data; 2006; Dorofeev, S., Grant, P.
- Sample matching. Representative sampling from Internet panels; 2006; Rivers, D.
- Research quality: The next MR industry challenge; 2006; Dedeker, K.
- Optimizing quality in the use of web-based and computer based testing for personnel selection; 2006; Hornke, L. F., Kersting, M.
- Online marketing research; 2006; Miller, J.
- Need for high quality auxiliary data service for improving the quality of editing and imputation...; 2006; Laaksonen, S.
- Microsoft sues testing material vendors; 2006; Johnston, S. J.
- Introduction to the Special Issue on the ITC - Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet-Delivered Testing...; 2006; Coyne, I., Bartram, D.
- International Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet-Delivered Testing; 2006
- How successful I am depends on what number I get: The effects of numerical scale labels and need for...; 2006; Yan, T.
- Greenfield unveils real-time sampling; 2006
- Global market research 2006; 2006
- F-Shaped pattern for reading web content; 2006; Nielsen, J.
- Blocked versus randomized format of questionnaires. A confirmatory multigroup analysis; 2006; Sparfeldt, J. R., Schilling, S. R., Rost, D. H., Rost, D. H., Thiel, A.
- Benefits and challenges of multi-sourcing. Understanding differences between sample sources; 2006; de Gaudemar, O.
- Behavioral self-report measures. International extensions; 2006; Thomas, R. K., Klein, J. D.
- Attitudinal differences. Comparing people who belong to multiple versus single panels; 2006; Casdas, D., Fine, B., Menictas, C.
- Assessing individual respondents' quality. An innovative scoring system; 2006; Loeb, C.,Hartmann, A.
- Assessing Panel Bias in the Knowledge Networks Panel: Updated Results from 2005 Research ; 2006; Pineau, V., Nukulkij, P., Tang, X.
- A Critical Assessment of Online Survey Tools; 2006; Marra, R. M., Bogue, B.
- A dynamic technique for conducting online survey-based research; 2006; Bonometti, R. J., Tang, J.
- The 2006 Confirmit Annual MR Software Survey; 2006; Macer, T., Wilson, S.
- Online community survey: an effectiveness measure for revealing citizen preferences in their role as...; 2006; Martin Juanil, D., Ismail, M.
- Blaise – Alive and kicking for 20 years; 2006; Bethlehem, J., Hofman, L.
- Physical or Virtual Presence of the Experimenter: Psychological Online-Experiments in Different Settings...; 2006; Ollesch, H., Heineken, E., Schulte, F. P.