Web Survey Bibliography
Recent studies have revealed a relation between the given response and the response latency for personality questionnaire items in the form of an inverted-U effect, which has been interpreted in light of schema-driven behavior. In general, more probable responses are given faster. In the present study, the relationship between the probability of the given response and the response latency was investigated. First, a probabilistic model was introduced describing the relationship between response latencies and a latent trait. Second, the model was applied in an empirical study: Employing items from a personality questionnaire and using data from 170 men, the probability of responses were estimated based on the Rasch model. Assuming log-normally distributed response latencies, a linear regression model was fit to the logarithmized response latencies, including the response probability as a predictor. Findings suggested that the quantities are negatively related. This relation can be used to incorporate the response latency into the estimation of trait levels. For the scales used in the study, the results showed that test information could be increased by 13% to 17% when considering response latencies.
Homepage (Abstract)
Web survey bibliography - 2011 (358)
- Mass informed consent: Evidence on upgrading democracy with polls and new media; 2011; Simon, A. F.
- Latent class analysis of survey error; 2011; Biemer, P. P.
- Just published: Forrester Wave™ of enterprise feedback management satisfaction and loyalty solutions...; 2011; McInnes, A.
- ISER working paper 2011-31. Is it a good idea to optimise question format for mode of data collection...; 2011; Nicolaas, G., Campanelli, P., Hope, S., Jaeckle, A., Lynn, P.
- Involve while you evolve. How to make mobile research work for everyone; 2011; Luck, K.
- Internet access quarterly update 2011 Q1; 2011
- Households with Computers, Telephone Subscriptions, and Internet Access, Selected Years, 1997 - 2010; 2011
- Harvard research data security policy; 2011
- GRE® program announces big benefits and big savings for GRE® test takers worldwide; 2011
- Google and Kantar develop measurement panel; 2011
- Going online with assessment; 2011; Burke, E., Mahoney-Phillips, J., Bowler, W., Downey, K.
- Global market research 2011; 2011
- Focus Group Methodology: Principle and Practice; 2011; Liamputtong, P.
- External preference mapping of commercial antiaging creams based on consumers' responses to a check...; 2011; Parente, M. E., Manzoni, A. V., Ares, G.
- Experiments for evaluating survey questions; 2011; Krosnick, J. A.
- Evaluating the usability of personal digital assistants to collect behavioral data on adolescents with...; 2011; McClamroch, K. J.
- Eurobarometer Special surveys: EB75.1 E-Communications Household Survey. Special Eurobarometer 362; 2011
- Survey Data Quality Provisions in Statistics Canada E-Questionnaire Solution: Retrospective and Perspectives...; 2011; Abiza, Y.
- Developing Electronic Questionnaire Guidelines: Issues and Challenges in a Changing Environment; 2011; Cote, A.-M., Kelly, P., Lawrence, D.
- Triton: a general tool for data collection and micro editing; 2011; Erikson, J.
- A Generalized System for Aided Development and Monitoring of Web Surveys; 2011; Torelli, R.
- Ethical issues in Internet research; 2011; Hoerger, M., Currell, C.
- Using survey data collection as a tool for improving the survey process; 2011; Biffignandi, S., Perani, G., Laureti, A.
- Essential methods for design based sample surveys; 2011; Pfeffermann, D., Rao, C. R.
- A picnic in the field; negotiating the presentation of the self in researcher/respondent relationships...; 2011; Parsons, J.
- The benefits and constraints of e-mail interviews and discussions as methods of accessing valid data; 2011; Roberts, An.
- Is There a Quick Fix for Open-ended Questions? A Comparison of Qualitative Analysis Techniques; 2011; Langer Tesfaye, C.
- The Impact of Open-Ended Questions: A Multivariate Study of Respondent Engagement; 2011; Gittelman, S. H.
- “You are Invited to Participate”: Challenges of Applying Mixed Survey Methods to Assess...; 2011; Chew, F.
- Literacy and Data Quality in Self-Administered Surveys; 2011; Smyth, J. D., Olson, K.
- Catch Them When You Can: Speeders and Their Role in Online Data Quality; 2011; Gutierrez, C., Wells, T., Rao, K., Kurzynski, D.
- Observed Differences in the Placement and Wording of Neutral Response Options in Web Surveys: An Experiment...; 2011; Walton, L., Cobb, C. L., DiSogra, C.
- Does mentioning "some people" and "other people" in a survey question increase the...; 2011; Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A.
- Do not track gathers momentum; 2011; Stark, D.
- “Don’t know” the difference - An experimental comparison between Web and CATI; 2011; Schielicke, A.-M., Degen, M.
- Display resolution; 2011
- A Survey Stopping Rule Based on Weighting for Unit Nonresponse; 2011; Lewis, T.
- Classic Inspirations for Social Research Methodology in the time of Online Access Panels ; 2011; Jerabek, H.
- Five Things You Should Know About Mobile Data Collection; 2011; Pingitore, G.
- Mixed Methods - Analyzing Open-Ended Comments in a Quantitative Employee Survey; 2011; Lawton, L., Broege, N.
- Changing Survey Methods (Discussion); 2011; Lavrakas, P. J.
- Causes of survey incompletes: Why panelists say they abandon surveys; 2011; Henning, J.
- Canadian online panels: Similar or different?; 2011; Chan, P., Ambrose, D.
- Blend, balance, and stabilize respondent sources; 2011; Eggers, M., Drake, E.
- Beyond data stability: Rising above quality concerns; 2011
- Background - QSOAP; 2011
- Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences; 2011; Napoli, P. M.
- Assessing personality traits through response latencies using item response theory; 2011; Ranger, J., Ortner, T. M.
- American public opinion: Its origins, content, and impact (8th Edition); 2011; Erikson, R. S., Tedin, K. L.
- Clarifying Survey Questions; 2011; Redline, C. D.