Web Survey Bibliography
We provide one of the first detailed assessments of smartphone applications as potential replacements for more traditional survey methods. Smartphone applications (or “apps”) provide researchers with a range of ready-made tools to collect both customary and new forms of data in a more reliable manner than self-reports, such as location, visual data, barcode scanning, in the moment surveys, and the like. Yet unlike traditional surveys, respondents have greater experience with and expectations of smartphone apps, such as ease of use, speed, and functionality. Researchers need, therefore, to pay more attention to user engagement. Techniques such as “gamification” (the application of sociological and psychological principles that drive successful game interaction to measurement) and “social sharing” (allowing respondents to interact with others during the course of measurement) are two examples, which have only recently begun to be applied to data collection.
Examining these and related issues, we report on a study in which a smartphone app was developed to capture television viewing behaviors and to serve as a replacement for a current paper-and-pencil (PAPI) diary survey approach. The app captures the critical data elements collected in the PAPI version, but also allows users to express their views on current shows via a rating scale, comments, and “likes.” The app also contains additional features designed to enhance user engagement, including a points & status system and allowing respondents to share their viewing and comments with others using the app or with their Facebook network.
We discuss some of the challenges encountered in developing a smartphone application to replace a long-standing PAPI approach, and provide empirical data tracking data entry, feature use and overall compliance by respondents. Additionally, using a split-sample design, with one set of respondents utilizing a “basic” app with no gamification and social sharing features and another set of respondents using a “full feature” app, we assess the impact of these techniques for enhancing user engagement in terms of increased participation and any changes in television viewing behaviors (a potentially negative consequence). The findings are of interest not only to those developing other forms of smartphone applications or leveraging ready-made app utilities, but more broadly to the survey field in terms of our understanding of how to engage with respondents in a technology-driven world.
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Media tracker; 2012
- Measuring the quality of governmental websites in a controlled versus an online setting with the ‘...; 2012; Elling, S., Lentz, L., de Jong , M., van den Bergh, H.
- Measuring modern media consumption; 2012; Arini, N.
- ISO 20252. Market, opinion and social research-Vocabulary and service requirements, 2nd Edition; 2012
- Is „chapterisation“ a viable alternative to traditional progress indicators ?; 2012; Spicer, R., Dowling, Z.
- Internet use in households and by individual in 2012. Eurostat Statistics in Focus 50/2012; 2012; Seybert, H.
- Internet access - Households and individuals, 2012 part 2; 2012
- Internet access - Households and individuals, 2012; 2012
- Google et Médiamétrie créent une audience bimédia; 2012; Gonzales, P.
- GMI Pinnacle; 2012
- Global market research 2012; 2012
- Explaining rising nonresponse rates in cross-sectional surveys; 2012; Brick, J. M., Williams, Do.
- Eurobarometer Special surveys: Special Eurobarometer 381; 2012
- Online Surveys 2.0; 2012; Elferink, R.
- The Impact of Academic Sponsorship on Online Survey Dropout Rates; 2012; Allen, P. J., Roberts, L. D.
- Especially for You: Motivating Respondents in an Internet Panel by Offering Tailored Questions; 2012; Oudejans, M.
- Social media as a data collection tool: the impact of Facebook in behavioural research; 2012; Zoppos, E.
- Smartphone Apps and User Engagement: Collecting Data in the Digital Era; 2012; Link, M. W.
- Snowball Sampling in Online Social Networks; 2012; Raissi, M., Ackland, R.
- The Use of Facebook as a Locating and Contacting Tool; 2012; McCarthy, T.
- How Often Do You Use the App with a Bird on It? Exploring Differences in Survey Completion Times, Primacy...; 2012; Buskirk, T. D.
- Data quality of questions sensitive to social-desirability bias in web surveys; 2012; Lozar Manfreda, K., Zajc, N., Berzelak, N., Vehovar, V.
- Online Questionnaires: Development of ‘basic requirements’; 2012; Tries, S., Blanke, K.
- Social research in online context: methodological reflections on web surveys from a case study; 2012; Pandolfini, V.
- Efficacy of a health-related Facebook social network site on health-seeking behaviors; 2012; Woolley, P., Peterson, M.
- The war against unengaged online respondents; 2012; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Qualitatively Speaking: The five absolute, no-excuse must-dos for online qualitative researchers; 2012; Rossow, A.
- By the Numbers: Lessons for using online panels in B2B research; 2012; Elsner, N.
- Specialized Tools for Measuring Past Events ; 2012; Belli, R. F.
- Transparency, Access and the Credibility of Survey Research; 2012; Lupia, A.
- Can Microtargeting Improve Survey Sampling? An Assessment of Accuracy and Bias in Consumer File Marketing...; 2012; Pasek, J.
- Anonymity and Confidentiality; 2012; Tourangeau, R.
- Cognitive Evaluation of Survey Instruments: State of the Science (Art?) and Future Directions; 2012; Willis, G. B.
- Oh, Just One More Thing … Leveraging “Leave-Behinds” in Data Collection; 2012; Link, M. W.
- Paradata; 2012; Kreuter, F.
- Computation of Survey Weights: Bridging Theory and Practice; 2012; DeBell, M.
- Optimizing Response Rates; 2012; Brick, J. M.
- Modes of Data Collection; 2012; Tourangeau, R.
- The Use and Effects of Incentives in Surveys; 2012; Singer, E.
- Improving Question Design to Maximize Reliability and Validity; 2012; Krosnick, J. A.
- Respondent Attrition vs Data Attrition and Their Reduction; 2012; Olsen, R. J.
- Survey Interviewing: Deviations from the Script; 2012; Schaeffer, N. C.
- How accurate are surveys of objective phenomena?; 2012; Chang, L. C., Krosnick, J. A.
- Measure the response burden in the Swedish Intrastat system; 2012; Weideskog, F.
- Mode and non-response effects and their treatment; 2012; Chrysanthopoulos, S., Georgostathi, A.
- What can be said about quality in the Central Population Register based on a self-completion survey...; 2012; Falnes-Dalheim, E., Pedersen, H. E.
- Improving the quality of complex surveys: The case of the EU Labour Force Survey ; 2012; van der Valk, J.
- Pros and cons of Internet based User Satisfaction Surveys; 2012; Consoli, A., Matsulevits, L.
- Between demand and reality: Ensuring efficiency and quality in pretesting questionnaires; 2012; Sattelberger, S., Blanke, K.
- How to provide high data quality in online-questionnaires: Setting guidelines in design; 2012; Tries, S., Nebel, S., Blanke, K.