Web Survey Bibliography
This paper reports two studies investigating the impact of online survey sponsorship on dropout rates. In Study 1, 498 participants were randomised to one of four 78-item online surveys. All four surveys were identical in content, but differed in presentation format. The first pair of surveys were hosted on our faculty web-server using LimeSurvey, and preceded by an information page on our school website. Our university logo was featured prominently on every page of these surveys, representing a “high” level of university sponsorship. The remaining pair were entirely hosted on SurveyMonkey.com, and made minimal reference to our university (i.e., they represented a “low” level of university sponsorship). One version of each pair “forced” participants to answer every question on each page before continuing, whereas the other did not (i.e., all questions were “optional”). Overall, 13.9% of participants commenced, but did not complete the surveys. The proportion of participants completing the high sponsorship surveys did not differ from the proportion completing the low sponsorship surveys. Of those who completed the optional format surveys, members of the low sponsorship condition answered significantly more items than high sponsorship condition members. There was no such difference between members of the high and low conditions who did not complete the optional format surveys. However, LimeSurvey and SurveyMonkey differ in terms of basic page formatting, load speeds and several other factors, which could be responsible for these findings. These confounds were addressed in Study 2, in which 159 participants were randomised to one of two 65-item online surveys. Both were identical in content, utilised an optional response format, and were hosted on Qualtrics.com. The first survey represented a high level of university sponsorship, was preceded by an information page on our school website, and had the university name and logo featured prominently on every page, and in the survey URL. The second survey did not possess these characteristics, and represented a low level of university sponsorship. Overall, 23.9% of participants commenced, but did not complete the surveys. The proportion of participants that completed the high sponsorship survey did not differ to the proportion that completed the low sponsorship survey. Furthermore, the numbers of items answered by participants who completed the two surveys were equivalent. Overall, although it is disappointing that dropout rates cannot be reduced simply by enhancing academic survey sponsor visibility, researchers without ready access to university web-servers or logos will appreciate these findings.
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Web survey bibliography (388)
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Fieldwork monitoring and managing with time-related paradata; 2017; Vandenplas, C.
- Push2web or less is more? Experimental evidence from a mixed-mode population survey at the community...; 2017; Neumann, R.; Haeder, M.; Brust, O.; Dittrich, E.; von Hermanni, H.
- Rates, Delays, and Completeness of General Practitioners’ Responses to a Postal Versus Web-Based...; 2017; Sebo, P.; Maisonneuve, H.; Cerutti, B.; Pascal Fournier, J.; Haller, D. M.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.
- Improving survey response rates: The effect of embedded questions in web survey email Invitations; 2017; Liu, M.; Inchausti, N.
- Enhancing survey participation: Facebook advertisements for recruitment in educational research; 2017; Forgasz, H.; Tan, H.; Leder, G.; McLeod, A.
- Overview: Online Surveys; 2017; Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- “Better do not touch” and other superstitions concerning melanoma: the cross-sectional web...; 2016; Gajda, M.; Kamińska-Winciorek, G.; Wydmański, J.; Tukiendorf, A.
- Targeted Appeals for Participation in Letters to Panel Survey Members; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Population Survey Features and Response Rates: A Randomized Experiment; 2016; Guo, Y.; Kopec, J.; Cibere, J.; Li, L. C.; Goldsmith, C. H.
- The Effects of a Delayed Incentive on Response Rates, Response Mode, Data Quality, and Sample Bias in...; 2016; McGonagle, K., Freedman, V. A.
- Can Student Populations in Developing Countries Be Reached by Online Surveys? The Case of the National...; 2016; Langer, A., Meuleman, B., Oshodi, A.-G. T., Schroyens, M.
- How to maximize survey response rates ; 2016; DeVall, R.; Colby, C.
- Impact of Field Period Length and Contact Attempts on Representativeness for Web Survey ; 2016; Bertoni, N.; Turakhia, C.; Magaw, R.; Ackermann, A.
- Have You Taken Your Survey Yet? Optimum Interval for Reminders in Web Panel Surveys ; 2016; Kanitkar, K. N.; Liu, D.
- User Experience and Eye-tracking: Results to Optimize Completion of a Web Survey and Website Design ; 2016; Walton, L.; Ricci, K.; Libman Barry, A.; Eiginger, C.; Christian, L. M.
- A Multi-phase Exploration Into Web-based Panel Respondents: Assessing Differences in Recruitment, Respondents...; 2016; Redlawsk, D.; Rogers, K.; Borie-Holtz, D.
- Exploring the Feasibility of Using Facebook for Surveying Special Interest Populations ; 2016; Lee, C.; Jang, S.
- National Estimates of Sexual Minority Women Alcohol Use through Web Based Respondent Driven Sampling...; 2016; Farrell Middleton, D.; Iachan, R.; Freedner-Maguire, N.; Trocki, K.; Evans, C.
- User Experience Considerations for Contextual Product Surveys on Smartphones ; 2016; Sedley, A.; Mueller, H.
- Web Probing for Question Evaluation: The Effects of Probe Placement ; 2016; Fowler, S.; Willis, G. B.; Moser, R. P.; Townsend, R. L. M.; Maitland, A.; Sun, H.; Berrigan, D.
- Early-bird Incentives: Results From an Experiment to Determine Response Rate and Cost Effects ; 2016; De Santis, J.; Callahan, R.; Marsh, S.; Perez-Johnson, I.
- Effects of an Initial Offering of Multiple Survey Response Options on Response Rates; 2016; Steele, E. A.; Marlar, J.; Allen, L.; Kanitkar, K. N.
- How to Invite? Methods for Increasing Internet Surv ey Response Rate ; 2016; Huang, A. R.; Noel, H.; Hargraves, L.
- Reaching the Mobile Generation: Reducing Web Survey Non-response through SMS Reminders ; 2016; Kanitkar, K. N.; Marlar, J.
- "Don't be Afraid ... We're Researchers!": The Impact of Informal Contact Language...; 2016; Foster, K. N.; Hagemeier, N. E.; Alamain, A. A.; Pack, R.; Sevak, R. J.
- Does Embedding a Survey Question in the Survey Invi tation E-mail Affect Response Rates? Evidence from...; 2016; Vannette, D.
- Communication Channels that Predict and Mediate Self-response ; 2016; Walejko, G. K.
- Ballpoint Pens as Incentives with Mail Questionnaires – Results of a Survey Experiment; 2016; Heise, M.
- Non-Observation Bias in an Address-Register-Based CATI/CAPI Mixed Mode Survey; 2016; Lipps, O.
- Pre-Survey Text Messages (SMS) Improve Participation Rate in an Australian Mobile Telephone Survey:...; 2016; Dal Grande, E.; Chittleborough, C. R.; Campostrini, S.; Dollard, M.; Taylor, A. W.
- Effects of Personalization and Invitation Email Length on Web-Based Survey Response Rates; 2016; Trespalacios, J. H.; Perkins, R. A.
- Assessing targeted approach letters: effects in different modes on response rates, response speed and...; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Refining the Web Response Option in the Multiple Mode Collection of the American Community Survey; 2016; Hughes, T.; Tancreto, J.
- Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population The German Internet Panel; 2016; Blom, A. G.; Gathmann, C.; Krieger, U.
- Sample Representation and Substantive Outcomes Using Web With and Without Incentives Compared to Telephone...; 2016; Lipps, O.; Pekari, N.
- Collecting Data from mHealth Users via SMS Surveys: A Case Study in Kenya; 2016; Johnson, D.
- “Money Will Solve the Problem”: Testing the Effectiveness of Conditional Incentives for...; 2016; DeCamp, W.; Manierre, M. J.
- Effects of Incentive Amount and Type of Web Survey Response Rates; 2016; Coopersmith, J.; Vogel, L. K.; Bruursema, T.; Feeney, K.
- Effect of a Post-paid Incentive on Response to a Web-based Survey; 2016; Brown, J. A.; Serrato, C. A.; Hugh, M.; Kanter, M. H.; A.; Spritzer, K. L.; Hays, R. D.
- Reminder Effect and Data Usability on Web Questionnaire Survey for University Students; 2016; Oishi, T.; Mori, M.; Takata, E.
- Is One More Reminder Worth It? If So, Pick Up the Phone: Findings from a Web Survey; 2016; Lin-Freeman, L.
- Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey. ; 2016; Chen, J. S.; Sprague, B. L.; Klabunde, C. N.; Tosteson, A. N. A.; Bitton, A.; Onega, T.; MacLean, C....
- The effect of email invitation elements on response rate in a web survey within an online community; 2016; Petrovcic, A.; Petric, G.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data; 2016; Rouse, S. V.
- Doing Surveys Online ; 2016; Toepoel, V.
- A Privacy-Friendly Method to Reward Participants of Online-Surveys; 2015; Herfert, M.; Lange, B.; Selzer, A.; Waldmann, U.
- Incentive Types and Amounts in a Web-based Survey of College Students; 2015; Krebs, C.; Planty, M.; Stroop, J.; Berzofsky, M.; Lindquist, C.
- Using Mobile Phones for High-Frequency Data Collection; 2015; Azevedo, J. P.; Ballivian, A.; Durbin, W.