Web Survey Bibliography
Relevance & Research Question: Traditionally, the measurement of ego-centered social networks is done with the help of an interviewer who is available for assistance and who can motivate the respondent to continue with the answering procedure. The most often used method to collect ego-centered network data was proposed by Burt (1984): first a contact list with name generators, then name-interpreters, and finally the inter-alter response matrix. Nowadays, network data are often collected via web surveys using the same three kinds of questions. However, research has shown that this procedure leads to a reduction of data quality, probably because respondents tend to answer items mechanically (Matzat & Snijders 2010). We present the results of an online experiment that tests the usefulness of a visual way of eliciting participants’ responses to network items. We test whether the ‘quality of the data’ (see below) collected in this way improves, when compared to the standard procedure implemented in web surveys. We hypothesize that participants find the experience more enjoyable, leading to an improved data quality.
Methods & Data: The implemented web survey tool presents the name interpreter and the inter-alter-response matrix in such a way that the participants immediately observe their own social network emerging. We test our hypotheses on a student sample and a sample of members of a commercial opt-in internet panel (total n=725). The randomized experiment uses a between subject design with the visual elicitation method as treatment and the standard data collection method as control condition. We test hypotheses about effects of the visualization method on, among others, the drop-out rate, the number of missing values, and the tendency to answer questions mechanically, using multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses.
Results: An important finding is that respondents answered less often mechanically. At the same time, more respondents had difficulties in understanding how to answer, leading to more missing values. Drop-out was negligible under both conditions.
Added Value: The findings indicate that the tool should be simplified more for respondents. Nevertheless, they demonstrate that a visual way of eliciting participants’ answers about ego networks in web surveys is in principal useful.
Web survey bibliography - General Online Research Conference (GOR) 2014 (29)
- Using Paradata to Predict and to Correct for Panel Attrition in a Web-based Panel Survey; 2014; Rossmann, J., Gummer, T.
- Targeting the bias – the impact of mass media attention on sample composition and representativeness...; 2014; Steinmetz, S., Oez, F., Tijdens, K. G.
- Offline Households in the German Internet Panel; 2014; Bossert, D., Holthausen, A., Krieger, U.
- Which fieldwork method for what target group? How to improve response rate and data quality; 2014; Wulfert, T., Woppmann, A.
- Exploring selection biases for developing countries - is the web a promising tool for data collection...; 2014; Tijdens, K. G., Steinmetz, S.
- Evaluating mixed-mode redesign strategies against benchmark surveys: the case of the Crime Victimization...; 2014; Klausch, L. T., Hox, J., Schouten, B.
- The quality of ego-centered social network data in web surveys: experiments with a visual elicitation...; 2014; Marcin, B., Matzat, U., Snijders, C.
- Switching the polarity of answer options within the questionnaire and using various numbering schemes...; 2014; Struminskaya, B., Schaurer, I., Bosnjak, M.
- Measuring the very long, fuzzy tail in the occupational distribution in web-surveys; 2014; Tijdens, K. G.
- Social Media and Surveys: Collaboration, Not Competition; 2014; Couper, M. P.
- Improving cheater detection in web-based randomized response using client-side paradata; 2014; Dombrowski, K., Becker, C.
- Interest Bias – An Extreme Form of Self-Selection?; 2014; Cape, P. J., Reichert, K.
- Online Qualitative Research – Personality Matters ; 2014; Tress, F., Doessel, C.
- Increasing data quality in online surveys 4.1; 2014; Hoeckel, H.
- Moving answers with the GyroScale: Using the mobile device’s gyroscope for market research purposes...; 2014; Luetters, H., Kraus, M., Westphal, D.
- Online Surveys as a Management Tool for Monitoring Multicultual Virtual Team Processes; 2014; Scovotti, C.
- How much is shorter CAWI questionnaire VS CATI questionnaire?; 2014; Bartoli, B.
- WEBDATANET: A Network on Web-based Data Collection, Methodological Challenges, Solutions, and Implementation...; 2014; Tijdens, K. G., Steinmetz, S., de Pedraza, P., Serrano, F.
- The Use of Paradata to Predict Future Cooperation in a Panel Study; 2014; Funke, F., Goeritz, A.
- Incentives on demand in a probability-based online panel: redemption and the choice between pay-out...; 2014; Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L.
- The Effect of De-Contextualisation - A Comparison of Response Behaviour in Self-Administered Surveys; 2014; Wetzelhuetter, D.
- Responsive designed web surveys; 2014; Dreyer, M., Reich, M., Schwarzkopf, K.
- Extra incentives for extra efforts – impact of incentives for burdensome tasks within an incentivized...; 2014; Schreier, J. H., Biethahn, N., Drewes, F.
- Students First Choice – the influence of mobile mode on results; 2014; Maxl, E.
- Device Effects: How different screen sizes affect answer quality in online questionnaires; 2014; Fischer, B., Bernet, F.
- Moving towards mobile ready web panels; 2014; Wijnant, A., de Bruijne, M.
- Innovation for television research - online surveys via HbbTV. A new technology with fantastic opportunities...; 2014; Herche, J., Adler, M.
- Mixed-devices in a probability based panel survey. Effects on survey measurement error; 2014; Toepoel, V., Lugtig, P. J.
- Online mobile surveys in Italy: coverage and other methodological challenges; 2014; Poggio, T.