Web Survey Bibliography
Response latencies answering to attitude questions can be used as a measure of chronic attitude accessibility. But depending on the theoretical interest, several determinants of response latencies have to be treated as bias effects and should be statistically controlled to adequately interpret response latencies. Main bias factors are the individual baseline speed of respondents reflecting a constant individual characteristic of mental speed of information processing, effects of the measurement instrument and situational effects. In this study using response latency data of a nation-wide German survey (CATI), four statistical transformation methods to control the individual baseline speed are empirically evaluated and compared: Z-Score, Difference Score, Ratio Index, and Rate-Amount Index. The empirical findings support the assumption of an increased data quality transforming "raw" reaction times into indices controlling the baseline speed. Additionally, the data quality increases if additional systematic bias effects are controlled (here: question order, effect of extremity). 1 INTRODUCTION In attitude theory, response latencies answering to attitude questions are regarded as an indicator of attitude strength. Defining an attitude as the association between an object and its evaluation (Fazio 1986, 1989, 1990b), the strength of an attitude is the strength of this association. Response latencies are often used to measure the chronic accessibility of attitudes. This accessibility points directly to the mental process during the activation of an attitude and is regarded as a measure of the associative strength. Therefore, an attitude is assumed to be stronger if it is easily accessible, measured by a shorter response latency, and to be weaker if it is less or not accessible, measured by a longer response latency. In recent decades, the development of modern techniques of computer assisted interviewing has made it possible to measure response latencies to attitude questions in the context of large scale survey studies (Bassili/Fletcher 1991, Bassili 1993, 1996b). In contrast to the laboratory context, the measurement of mental information processing in a relatively uncontrolled survey context is much more biased. For example, different interviewers may measure the reaction time with different accuracy (raw response latencies implicate the latency of the interviewer to press the appropriate key), or the respondent may be distracted by the presence of others or unforeseen events. Additional problems appear if the respondent fails to answer 'correctly' if he or she has difficulties to understand the question or to generate an answer and translate it into the given categories or scale (see next chapter).
Homepage (abstract ) / (full text)
ResearchGate (abstract) / (full text)
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Is it Possible to Obtain Equivalent Answers to Scalar Questions in Web and Telephone Surveys?; 2006; Christian, L. M., Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D.
- Mail vs. Internet Surveys among Older Persons; 2006; Montenegro, X.
- Open-Ended Questions in Web and Telephone Surveys; 2006; Smyth, J. D., Dillman, D. A., Christian, L. M., McBride, M.
- Experiments in Producing Nonresponse Bias ; 2006; Groves, R. M., Couper, M. P., Presser, S., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R., Piani Acosta, G., Nelson, Li.
- Perceptions of News Credibility about the War in Iraq: Why War Opponents Perceived the Internet as the...; 2006; Choi, J. H., Watt, J. H., Lynch, M.
- The Internet and Anti-War Activism: A Case Study of Information, Expression, and Action; 2006; Nah, S., Veenstra, A. S., Shah, D. V.
- Weighting an Internet Panel Survey on Drug Use and Abuse; 2006; Gordek, H., Williams, Ri. L., Dai, L.
- The Social Science Web Survey System: Moving from 2.0 to 3.0; 2006; Crawford, S. D.
- Dual Frame Web-Telephone Sampling for Rare Groups; 2006; Blair, E., Blair, J.
- Merely Incidental?: Effects of Response Format on Self-reported Behavior; 2006; Thomas, R. K., Klein, J. D.
- The Influence of Web-based Questionnaire Presentation Variations on Survey Cooperation and Perceptions...; 2006; Walston, J. T., Lissitz, R. W., Rudner, L. M.
- Can Web and Mail Survey Modes Improve Participation in an RDD-based National Health Surveillance?; 2006; Link, M. W., Mokdad, A.
- Dropouts on the Web: Effects of Interest and Burden Experienced During an Online Survey; 2006; Galesic, M.
- Web-based methods; 2006; Reips, U.-D.
- Collecting data on alcohol use and alcohol-related victimization: a comparison of telephone and Web-...; 2006; Parks, K. A., Pardi, A. M., Bradizza, C. M.
- Propensity Score Adjustment as a Weighting Scheme for Volunteer Panel Web Surveys; 2006; Lee, Su.
- A study of the suitability of videophones for psychometric assessment; 2006; Demiris, G., Oliver, D., Courtney, K.
- Cash Lotteries as Incentives in Online Panels; 2006; Goeritz, A.
- Privacy, Trust, Disclosure and the Internet; 2006; Paine, C., , Buchanan, T., Reips, U. -D.
- Web Survey Design: Paging versus Scrolling; 2006; Peytchev, A., Couper, M. P., McCabe, S. E., Crawford, S. D.
- The Pass-Along Effect: Investigating Word-of-Mouth Effects on Online Survey Procedures; 2006; Norman, A. T., de Rouvray, C. A., Russell, C. A.
- Putting a Questionnaire on the Web is not Enough # A Comparison of Online and Offline Surveys Conducted...; 2006; Faas, T., Schoen, H.
- Beyond response rates: Effects of different (Web-) survey implementation procedures on sample composition...; 2006; Bosnjak, M., Marcus, B., Schuetz, A., Lindner, S., Pilischenko, S.
- The Transition from University to Work: Web Survey Process Quality; 2006; Quintano, C., Castellano, R., D'Agostino, A.
- Color, Labels, and Interpretive Heuristics for Response Scales; 2006; Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P., Conrad, F. G.
- The impact of persuasion strategies on the response rate in online surveys: Incentives, foot-in-the-...; 2006; Verheyen, C., Schuebel, C., Moser, K.
- Ethical issues in longitudinal surveys; 2006; Lessof, C.
- An investigation of the effect of lotteries on web survey response rates; 2006; Heerwegh, D.
- Computer-assisted questionnaires may facilitate collection of quality-of-life (QOL) data: At a cost; 2006; Smith, Ad. B., Velikova, G., Wright, E. P., Lynch, P., Selby, P. J.
- Validity of the SDS-17 measure of social desirability in the American context; 2006; Blake, B. F., Valdiserri, J., Neuendorf, K., Nemeth, J.
- Comparing the Generalizability of Online and Mail Surveys in Cross-National Service Quality Research; 2006; Deutskens, E., de Jong, K., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M.
- The ethics of research using electronic mail discussion groups; 2005; Kralik, D., Warren, J., Koch, T., Pignone, G., Price, K.
- The Analyses of Domestic Study about Internet Survey; 2005; Rui, L., Tie-ying, S.
- Controlling the Baseline Speed of Respondents: An Empirical Evaluation of Data Treatment Methods of...; 2005; Mayerl, J.
- Determinanten der Rücklaufquote in Online-Panels; 2005; Batanic, B., Moser, K.
- On the cost-efficiency of probability sampling based mail surveys with a Web response option; 2005; Werner, P.
- Expert workshop on mixed mode data collection in comparative social surveys; 2005; Roberts, C.
- The Effect Of A Simultaneous Mixed-Mode (Mail And Web) Survey On Respondent Characteristics And Survey...; 2005; Brennan, M.
- The total survey error approach. A guide to the new science of survey research; 2005; Weisberg, H. F.
- The professional respondent problem in online panel surveys today; 2005; Fulgoni, G.
- Satisficing behavior in online panelists; 2005; Downes-Le Guin, T.
- Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years; 2005; Liu, Z.
- Rating versus comparative trade-off measures. Trending changes in political issues across time and predictive...; 2005; Thomas, R. K., Behnke, S., Johnson, Al., Sanders, M.
- Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm; 2005; Dickersin, K.
- Panel proliferation and quality concerns; 2005; Faasse, J.
- Gricean effects in self-administered survey. Ph.D. Dissertation; 2005; Yan, T.
- Drop-down boxes, radio buttons, or fill-in-the-blank? Web survey scale-type effects; 2005
- Does weighting for nonresponse increase the variance of survey means?; 2005; Little, R. J., Vartivarian, S.
- Big scale observations gathered with the help of client side paradata; 2005; Haraldsen, G., Kleven, O., Sundvoll, A.
- User Interface Design and Evaluation ; 2005; Stone, D., Jarrett, C., Woodroffe, M., Minocha, S.