Web Survey Bibliography
It wasn't too long ago that we relied on probabilistic models for collecting our data. Telephone facilities were quite adept at the pursuit of respondents. Studies with 70 percent recovery rates from duly harassed respondents were accomplished with considerable effort. Recovery rate itself was an important metric in evaluating the utility of research data. Those days are go ne. Telephone has lost its luster,but this is becoming an old story now. Most practitioners only remotely recall those halcyon days when accurately representing a population through appropriate data collection methods was our calling. As online research gained traction we held on to the high bar that a representative sample frame implied. Our claim to a representative sample frame became our weak point. Academics assailed us mercilessly that our samples were not properly grounded in theory to achieve anything that might be representative. As we recoiled off the ropes some of us called for a retreat from claims that were indefensible.Instead,we advocated that the industry pursue consistency in its research. A consistent sample has now become the substitute for a representative one. Well,not really. That dirty little "r" word continues to haunt us. Consistency would seem easy to measure.If your data remains constant then you are consistent. But what if the world is changing? Should our data remain constant? Clients need to know if the change that they see in data is real or the artifact of changes in the sample frame. If the sample frame changes without warning, then there can be little assurance that the shifts we see are real. To confound things, there ha s bee n a considerable amount of data that has demonstrated differences between panel sources. There is much for us to fear as panels change their sourcing,merge with one another, change incenting models and go from high to low usage periods. With all these drivers of variability, why should we expect online panels to be capable of consistency in the data that they collect? In fact,convenience sampling is a prescription for instability,a warning that things might change. The maintenance of a stable sample frame requires effort. We ask ourselves, are online panels capable of sustaining consistency? After all,they seem to be standing on shifting sands.
CASRO Journal Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Web survey bibliography - Gittelman, S. H. (10)
- Quota Controls in Survey Research.; 2016; Gittelman, S. H.; Thomas, R. K.; Lavrakas, P. J.; Lange, V.
- The Measurement of Consistency in Online Research; 2012; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- The war against unengaged online respondents; 2012; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Rules of engagement: The war against poorly engaged respondents - guidelines for elimination; 2012; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- The Impact of Open-Ended Questions: A Multivariate Study of Respondent Engagement; 2011; Gittelman, S. H.
- A new representative standard for online research: Conquering the challenge of the dirty little "...; 2011; Gittelman, S., Trimarchi, E., Fawson, B.
- Real ID. State of The Art Representative and Repeatable Online Samples. Behaviorally Profiled Respondents...; 2010; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Online research….and all that Jazz!; 2010; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Time Related Inconsistencies in Global Online Panels; 2010; Gittelman, S. H., Trimarchi, E.
- Metrics for panel contribution: a non probabilistic platform; 2009; Gittelmam, S. H., Trimarchi, E.