Web Survey Bibliography
Background: Internet research may raise older ethical issues in new forms or pose new issues. It has been recommended that debriefing information online be kept very short, with further information including study results made available if requested by participants. There are no empirical studies that compare possible alternative methods of debriefing in online studies.
Objective: To undertake a randomized controlled trial evaluating how to implement the recommended approach by assessing the effects of two different approaches on accessing of additional information.
Methods: All 11,943 participants in the Effects of Study Design and Allocation (ESDA) study, which employed deception, were randomly assigned to one of two methods of debriefing: Group A received the debriefing information in the body of an email with links to protocol and results pages; Group B was presented with these links after clicking on an initial link in the body of the email to view the debriefing information on a website. Outcomes assessed were the proportions clicking on the links to the protocol and results summary and the time spent on these pages by those accessing them.
Results: The group who were presented with no debriefing information in the body of the email and went to a website for this information (Group B) were approximately twice as likely to subsequently access the protocol and the results summary. These differences between the two groups were highly statistically significant. Although these differences are clear, the overall proportions accessing such information were low, and there were no differences in mean time spent reading these pages. Only one quarter of Group B actually accessed debriefing information.
Conclusions: In circumstances where the uptake of fuller information on study design, methods, and findings is deemed important, debriefing information may be better provided via a link and not included in the body of an email. Doing so may, however, reduce the extent of receiving any debriefing information at all. There is a wider need for high quality empirical studies to inform ethical evaluations.
Journal Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Boosting Web pick-up Rates by referring to Compliance Principles ; 2012; Falnes-Dalheim, E., Haraldsen, G., Sundvoll, A.
- Choosing a Data Collection Approach: Mixed Mode Design Experiences in Statistics Finland; 2012; Taskinen, P., Kiianmaa, N.
- Ebook readings jumps, print book reading declines; 2012; Rainie, L., Duggan, M.
- Digital Divides: A connectivity continuum for the United States. Data from the 2011 Current Population...; 2012; File, T.
- How Should Debriefing Be Undertaken in Web-Based Studies? Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial...; 2012; McCambridge, J., Kypri, K., Wilson, A.
- Better customer in sight in real time; 2012; Macdonald, E., Wilson, H. N., Konus, H.
- Best practices in data cleaning: A complete guide to everything you need to do before and after collecting...; 2012; Osborne, J. W.
- Benchmarking for better surveys; 2012; Nallan, S.
- Adult gadget ownership over time (2006-2012); 2012
- Subjective Well-being Of Spanish Workers: Continuous Voluntary Web Survey Examination; 2012; de Pedraza, P., Guzi, M.
- Specific mixed-mode methodology to reach sensory disabled people in quantitative surveys; 2012; Fontaine, S.
- Response Mode Choice and the Hard-to-Interview in the American Community Survey; 2012; Nichols, E. M., Horwitz, R., Guarino Tancreto, J.
- Recruiting in an Internet panel using respondent driven sampling; 2012; Schonlau, M.
- A Choice in Mode: A Solution for Increasing Response Rates of Hard-to-Survey Populations?; 2012; Haan, M., Ongena, Y. P.
- The Feasibility of Conducting a Web Survey Using Respondent Driven Sampling among Transgenders in the...; 2012; Kappelhof, J.
- Multi-Language Multi-Continent B2B Community Panel: How B2B research can effectively span the world; 2012; Morden, M., Accomando, E.
- Can Survey Gaming Techniques Cross Continents? Examining cross cultural reactions to creative questioning...; 2012; Puleston, J.
- Facing The Future Webcams as a survey tool in China; 2012; Gordon, A., Llewellyn, T., Gu, E.
- Device Diversity: Understanding the complexity of varied devices for taking surveys – Case study...; 2012; Pearson, C., Backlund, K., Veling, L., Tsvelik, M., Jehoel, S.
- Research Goes Mobile: Findings from initial smartphone application research; 2012; Dubreuil, C., Joubert, S.
- Better Answers to Basic Questions: Enhancing the accuracy of online reach and audience metrics; 2012; van Dam, P. H., van Ossenbruggen, R., Voorend, R.
- Rules of engagement: The war against poorly engaged respondents - guidelines for elimination; 2012; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Reality check in the digital age: The relationship between what we ask and what people actually do; 2012; Hofmeyr, J., Louw, A.
- Dimensions of Online Survey Data Quality What really matters?; 2012; Puleston, J., Eggers, M.
- WEBDATANET: web-based data-collection methodological challenges, solutions and implementations. Action...; 2012; de Pedraza, P.
- WebSM Study: Survey software features overview ; 2012; Vehovar, V., Cehovin, G., Kavcic, L., Lenar, J.
- Examining Contexts-of-Use for Web-Based and Paper-Based Questionnaires; 2012; Hardré, P. L., Crowson, H. M., Xie, K.
- Probabilistic survey questions and incorrect answers: Retirement income replacement rates; 2012; van Santen, P., Alessie, R., Kalwij, A.
- Survey Quality; 2012; Lyberg, L. E.
- Prenotification, Incentives, and Survey Modality: An Experimental Test of Methods to Increase Survey...; 2012; Tepper, J. R., Jacob, B.
- Using Free Online Survey Software in Your Teaching; 2012; Chippindall, J.
- Comparability of Survey Measurements; 2012; Oberski, D.
- Why People Agree to Participate in Surveys; 2012; Albaum, G., Smith, S. M.
- Unit Non-Response Due to Refusal; 2012; Stoop, I.
- Classification of Surveys; 2012; Stoop, I., Harrison, E.
- What Survey Modes are Most Effective in Eliciting Self-Reports of Criminal or Delinquent Behavior?; 2012; Kleck, G., Roberts, K.
- Non-Response and Measurement Error; 2012; Billiet, J., Matsuo, H.
- An Overlooked Approach in Survey Research: Total Survey Error; 2012; Bautista, R.
- An assessment of equivalence between Internet and paper-based surveys: evidence from collectivistic...; 2012; Fang, J., Wen, C., Prybutok, V.
- Effects of Incentives in Surveys; 2012; Toepoel, V.
- Respondents Cooperation: Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents and Its Implication; 2012; Glaser, P.
- Costs and Errors in Fixed and Mobile Phone Surveys; 2012; Vehovar, V., Slavec, A., Berzelak, N.
- E-Mail Surveys; 2012; Mesch, G.
- Does survey experience affect respondents’ reported level of satisfaction?; 2012; Schultz Christensen, A., Ladenburg, J.
- Building Your Own Online Panel Via E-Mail and Other Digital Media; 2012; Toepoel, V.
- Data Quality in HIV/AIDS Web-Based Surveys: Handling Invalid and Suspicious Data; 2012; Bauermeister, J. A., Pingel, E., Zimmerman, M., Couper, M. P., Carballo-Diéguez, A., Strecher, V. J.
- Use of Web 2.0 to Recruit Australian Gay Men to an Online HIV/AIDS Survey; 2012; Theriault, N., Bi, P., Hiller, J. E., Nor, M.
- Web and Mail Surveys: An Experimental Comparison of Methods for Nonprofit Research; 2012; Lin, W., Van Ryzin, G. G.
- Evaluation of an online (opt-in) panel for public participation geographic information systems surveys...; 2012; Brown, G., Weber, D., Zanon, D., de Bie, K.
- Survey Data Collection and Integration; 2012; Davino, C., Fabbris, L.