Web Survey Bibliography
During the past 15 years, in an effort to improve survey data quality, survey practitioners have significantly increased their use of an evolving set of questionnaire pretesting methods. Several researchers have addressed issues related to questionnaire evaluation, and have attempted to determine the potential strengths and weaknesses of each (Campanelli, 1997; DeMaio, Mathiowetz, Rothgeb, Beach, and Durant,1993; Oksenberg Cannell, and Kalton, 1991; Presser and Blair,1994; Willis, 2001). Further, several empirical investigations have evaluated the effectiveness of core features of these techniques, especially the use of verbal probing within cognitive interviewing (Davis and DeMaio 1992; Foddy, 1996) and several evaluative studies have attempted to assess the effectiveness of cognitive interviews in ameliorating questionnaire problems (Fowler and Cosenza, 2000; Lessler, Tourangeau, and Salter, 1989; Presser and Blair; Willis and Schechter, 1996; Willis, Schechter, and Whitaker, 1999); these are reviewed in detail by Willis (2001). Increasingly, evaluations have focused on the side-by-side comparison of survey pretesting techniques, in order to determine the degree to which the results obtained through use of these techniques agree, even if they cannot be directly validated. However, this research is complex, as evaluation in practice must take into account the multi-faceted nature of each of the pretesting techniques, and of questionnaire design in general (see Willis, DeMaio, and Harris-Kojetin, 1999). Although two studies (Presser and Blair, 1994; Willis, 2001) have specifically compared the results of cognitive interviewing, expert evaluation, and behavior coding, when these have been applied to the same questionnaire, this research has generally not been conducted in a way that allows for the separation of the effects of pretesting method from those of the organization applying these methods. The overall objective of this study was to rectify this limitation. Overall the selected design balanced technique with organization, for the same set of questionnaires (see Lessler and Rothgeb, 1999; Rothgeb and Willis, 1999), to determine level of agreement among three pretesting techniques, when applied by each of three survey research organizations. For this research, multiple researchers within each of the organizations used three pretesting methods: Informal expert review, Formal cognitive appraisal, and Cognitive Interviewing. A classification scheme was developed to code problems identified through any of the methods, and by each organization.
Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Using the Internet for surveys and health research; 2002; Eysenbach, G., Wyatt, J. C.
- Internet-Based Psychological Experimenting: Five Dos and Five Don'ts; 2002; Reips, U.-D.
- Self-administered questions by telephone: Evaluating interactive voice response; 2002; Tourangeau, R., Steiger, D. M.,
- The Kid's Experimental Psychology Lab: A Web Site for Internet Research with Children; 2002; Frick, A., Reips, U.-D.
- Assessing Internet Questionnaires: The online pretest lab; 2002; Graef, L.
- Understanding the Willingness to Participate in Online-Surveys - The case of E-mail questionnaires; 2002; Bosnjak, M., Batinic, B.
- Conducting Research Surveys via E-mail and the Web; 2002; Schonlau, M., Elliot, M. N., Fricker, R. D.
- From Mail to Web: Improving Response Rates and Data Collection Efficiencies; 2002; Crawford, S. D., McCabe, S. E., Couper, M. P., Boyd, C. J.
- A Comparison Between Mail and Web Surveys: Response Pattern, Respondent Profile, and Data Quality; 2002; Kwak, N., Radler, B. T.
- Have Telephone Surveys a Future in the 21-th century?; 2002; de Leeuw, E. D., Lepkowski, J. M., Kim, S.-W.
- Do it yourself, Web-style; 2002; Glowa, T.
- Using phone methods in a digital age; 2002; Fitzgerald, A.
- Designing a Strategy for Reducing "No Opinion" Responses in Web-Based Surveys; 2002; de Rouvray, C., Couper, M. P.
- Effect of trust on customer acceptance of Internet banking; 2002; Suh, B., Han, I.
- Establishing data validity in conjoint: Experiences with Internet-based ‘mega-studies’; 2002; Moskowitz, H., Moskowitz, J., Beckley, J., Mascuch, T., Adams, Ju., Sendros, A., Keeling, C.
- Work-life balance among Croatian employees: role time commitment, work-home interference and well-being...; 2002; Sverko, B. B., Araasic, L., Galesic, M.
- Data collection through web-based technology; 2002; Swartz, R. W., Hancock, C.
- Online Data Collection; 2002; Topp, N. W., Pawloski, B.
- Electronic data collection in Statistic Norway; 2002; Sæbø, H. V., Gloersen, R., Sve, D.
- Citizen Perceptions of Community Policing: Comparing Internet and Mail Survey Responses; 2002; Ballard, C., Prine, R.
- An evaluation of the effect of response formats on data quality in Web surveys; 2002; Heerwegh, D., Loosveldt, G.
- Testing Web Questionnaires; 2002; Crawford, S. D., Baker, R. P.
- Web Surveys: The Effect of Controlling Survey Access using PIN Numbers; 2002; Heerwegh, D., Loosveldt, G.
- (Non)Response bei Web-Befragungen; 2002; Bosnjak, M.
- A Nonresponse Analysis of a Mail-Web Mode Comparison; 2002; Boyd, C. J., Crawford, S. D., McCabe, S. E., Couper, M. P.
- Usability Testing of Web Data Collection Instruments; 2002; Thalji, L., Antunes, M. J., Wiebe, E. F.
- Mode Effect in Web Surveys; 2002; Vehovar, V., Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Nonresponse in Web Surveys; 2002; Vehovar, V., Lozar Manfreda, K., , Batagelj, Z.
- Generalizability Issues in Internet-Based Survey Research: Implications for the Internet Addiction Controversy...; 2002; Bremer, J.
- Collective action in the age of the Internet: Mass communication and online mobilization; 2002; Brunsting, S., Postmes, T.
- Cognitive processes in Web Surveys; 2002; Fuchs, M.
- Computer-assisted Self-interviewing over the Web: Criteria for Evaluating Survey Software with Reference...; 2001; Flatley, J.
- Creating a Web research guide: Collaboration between liaisons, faculty and students; 2001; Sugarman, T. S., Demetracopoulos, C.
- Questionnaire Pretesting Methods: Do Different Techniques and Different Organizations Produce Similar...; 2001; Rothgeb, J. M., Willis, G. B., Forsyth, B. H.
- Practical methods for sampling rare and mobile populations; 2001; Kalton, G.
- Recommended Standard Final Outcome Categories and Standard Definitions of Response Rate for Social Surveys...; 2001; Lynn, P., Beerten, R., Laiho, J., Martin, J.
- Visual Analog Scales: Do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states?; 2001; Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D., Furlong, W.
- Trends in household survey nonresponse: A longitudinal and international comparison; 2001; de Leeuw, E. D., de Heer, W.
- The construction of attitudes; 2001; Schwarz, N., Bohnerd, G.
- Subscale distance and item clustering effects in self-administered surveys: A new metric; 2001; Bradlow, E. T., Fitzsimons, G. J.
- On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second‐order meta...; 2001; Peterson, R. A.
- Introduction to behavioral research on the internet; 2001; Birnbaum, M. H.
- Experiments on column width spacing in the University of Michigan Student Life Survey; 2001; Boyd, C. J., McCabe, S. E., Couper, M. P., Crawford, S. D.
- Building an alternative response process model for business surveys; 2001; Willimack, D. K., Nichols, E. M.
- Ethische Dimensionen der Online-Forschung; 2001; Dzeyk, W.
- Panel Bias from Attrition and Conditioning: A Case Study of the Knowledge Networks Panel; 2001; Clinton, J. D.
- Web experiment on colour harmony principles applied to computer user interface design; 2001; Laugwitz, B.
- Knowledge acquisition, navigation and eye movements from text and hypertext; 2001; Naumann, A., Waniek, J., Krems, J. F.
- Score Reliability in Web or Internet-Based Surveys: Unnumbered Graphic Rating Scales versus Likert-Type...; 2001; Cook, C., Heath, F., Thompson, R. L., Thompson, B.
- On-line student feedback: A pilot study ; 2001; Galbraith, L. B., Gee, P., Jennings, F., Riley, R.