Web Survey Bibliography
Introduction: Online panels are population's subsets who accept to complete questionnaires in exchange of economic incentives, charitable givings or just for the sake of giving their opinions. Whereas on one hand the incentive presence is a way to ensure the people usually not helpful partecipation, on the other hand it could drive the panelists to respond in a not truthful way: panelists are inclined to elaborate strategies for going beyond initial filtering questions as soon as they undertsand that those are used to determine panelist eligibilty. How the introduction questions could induce respondents to give not truthful informations for escaping a potential screenout? To verify if this bias exists and to measure its dimensions, we have done a survey using two different kind of introduction for the same questionnaire. In one case we stated explicitly what the screenout criterias would be, on the other we kept it secret. This method allows us to measure this kind of bias and to obtain informations about cheaters profile. Method: In May of 2014 we've made a questionnaire aimed to estimate the consumption of organic food by italian population through a CAWI survey. In a first version of the survey we've processed an explicit introduction from which the panelist could infer the topic of the survey. We've done this first survey on our panel on a sample of 1000 respondents with a quota sampling (gender, age and geographical area) by using the first version of the questionnaire with an explicit presentation. At the end of this first survey we've noticed that the percentages obtained from the food purchasing manager and consumers of organic food was too high compared to the data in our possession coming from different sources. We had, therefore, a first confirmation of the fact that the presence in the introduction of the questionnaire of some clues, that could induce a part of panelists to lie, in order to obtain an incentive, had generated a bias. From the literature we know that the panelists are often registered on multiple panels, joining the same panel with double or triple identity, and finally tend not to be truthful, again in order to obtain incentives. In this regards, interesting are the indications of methodological research for the identification of cheaters. Hence, we've repeated the survey to give more foundation to the first confirmation of the hypothesis. We faced 2 alternatives in order to understand the magnitude of the bias, ie repeat the survey:
- with different panellists;
- with the same panellists.
We've chosen the latter because we thought it would have let us to gather more information due to the comparability of a greater number of subsets. After the second survey's field eneded, we have been able to split first survey's respondents in 3 category: who completed the first survey but not the second, who responded in the same way at both the survey, who responded in a different way. At the first survey responded 1.001 panelists and 885 of those responded also to the second survey carring to the below situation:
- 116 persons didn't respond to the second survey
- 592 panelists gave the same answers at both the surveys
- 293 panelists gave different answers in the second survey
This way of proceeding (measure again the same variables after some weeks, changing presentation omitting indications about the questionnaire contents) made us able to analyse 3 different subsets and study their differences, furthermore it has made possible to measure the bias effect due to the use of two different kind of presentations. Conclusions: The first conclusion that we can make is: the use of two different introductions changes the results, confirming the hypothesis that the clues about the questionnaire's argument in the presentation can cause bias in the answers. The second conclusion is: there are specific differences in the 3 categories produced by the experiment. With this experiment we have found out some practical indication about the bias extent and about the right way to fix it.
Web survey bibliography - Italy (57)
- Web Health Monitoring Survey: A New Approach to Enhance the Effectiveness of Telemedicine Systems; 2017; Romano, M. F.; Sardella, M. V.; Alboni, F.
- Web Health Monitoring Survey: A New Approach to Enhance the Effectiveness of Telemedicine Systems ; 2016; Romano, M. F.; Sardella, M. V.; Alboni, F.
- Recommended Practices for the design of business surveys questionnaires; 2016; Macchia, S.
- Cheating in web surveys. Evidence from a split-ballot repeated experiment on knowledge questions on...; 2015; Ladini, R.; Vezzoni, C.
- 640 Current trends in management of high-risk prostate cancer in Europe: Results of a web-based survey...; 2014; Briganti, A., Isbarn, H., Ost, P., Ploussard, G., Sooriakumaran, P., Van Den Bergh, R.C.N., Van Oort...
- The invisible Interviewer: Old and New Methodological Issues in Online Research; 2014; Niero, M.
- The need of and the demand for completing surveys on mobile devices; 2014; Toninelli, D., Revilla, M., Ochoa, C.
- Survey participation via mobile devices in a probability-based online-panel: Prevalence, determinants...; 2014; Poggio, T., Bosnjak, M., Weyandt, K.
- Web-respondent-driven sampling; 2014; Bianchi, A., Biffignandi, S., Artaz, R.
- Prioritisation of alternatives with analytical hierarchy process plus response latency and web survey...; 2014; Barone, S. Errore, A., Lombardo, A.
- Modelling ”don’t know” responses in rating scales; 2014; Manisera, M., Zuccolotto, P.
- How much is shorter CAWI questionnaire VS CATI questionnaire?; 2014; Bartoli, B.
- Online mobile surveys in Italy: coverage and other methodological challenges; 2014; Poggio, T.
- Migraine and pregnancy: an internet survey; 2013; Allais, G. et al.
- The internet user profile of Italian families of patients with rare diseases: a web survey; 2013; Tozzi, A. E., Mingarelli, R., Agricola, E., Gonfiantini, M., Pandolfi, E., Carloni, E., Gesualdo, F.,...
- Web Surveys and Official Statistics: Perspectives and Cases ; 2013; Martelli, B.
- The challenge of a mixed-mode design survey and new IT tools application: the case of the Italian Structure...; 2013; Cardinaleschi, S., De Santis, S., Rocci, F., Spinelli, V.
- The Design of the Online Questionnaire of the Italian Population Census ; 2013; Tininini, L., Virgillito, A.
- The behaviour of respondents while filling in a web questionnaire: the case of the Italian business...; 2013; Masselli, M., Nuccitelli, A.
- A web-based Census of services: an ISTAT evolutionary study ; 2013; Cesaro, A., Palazzi, B., Paterniti, M., Ranaldi, P.
- A web based management system for addressing census complexity: the Italian experience; 2013; Bruno, M., Giacummo, M., Silipo, M., Vaste, G.
- Online Survey on Twitter: A Urological Experience; 2013; Dal Moro, F.
- Web Panel Representativeness; 2013; Bianchi, A., Biffignandi, S.
- Measuring the impact of the Web: Rasch modelling for survey evaluation; 2013; Annoni, P., Weziak-Bialowolska, D., Farhan, H.
- Responsive design for mixed-mode panel data; 2013; Bianchi, A., Biffignandi, S.
- Adjusting for bias in a mixed-mode CAWI survey on University students ; 2013; Clerici, R., Giraldo, A.
- Comparative analysis of data from web and face-to-face surveys. A case study on e-commerce in young...; 2013; Cappello, C., Pellegrino, D.
- The Relation of Survey Topic and Participation Behavior. Analyzing Unit Nonresponse using web-generated...; 2013; Zillmann, D., Schmitz, A., Blossfeld, H. P.
- A walking exercise on a tightrope: trying to balance coverage, probabilistic sampling and the costs...; 2013; Poggio, T.
- Norme di qualita' Assirm (Assirm quality rules]; 2012
- Social research in online context: methodological reflections on web surveys from a case study; 2012; Pandolfini, V.
- Survey Data Collection and Integration; 2012; Davino, C., Fabbris, L.
- Online Data Collection in the Agro-Food Sector; 2012; Biffignandi, S., Artaz, R.
- Mobile Survey Participation Rates in Commercial Market Research: A Meta-Analysis; 2012; Bosnjak, M., Poggio, T., Becker, K. R., Funke, F., Wachenfeld, A., Fischer, B.
- Panel retention rate and data quality: experimental results drawing on Reciprocity design; 2012; Biffignandi, S., Artaz, R.
- Web Surveys: Methodological Problems and Research Perspectives; 2012; Biffignandi, S., Bethlehem, J.
- A Generalized System for Aided Development and Monitoring of Web Surveys; 2011; Torelli, R.
- Using survey data collection as a tool for improving the survey process; 2011; Biffignandi, S., Perani, G., Laureti, A.
- Facebook sampling methods: some methodological proposals; 2011; Macrì, E., Tessitore, C.
- Errors within web-based surveys: a comparison between two different tools for the analysis of tourist...; 2011; Polizzi, G., Oliveri, A. M.
- Use of new technologies in social research: Self-administered mobile surveys; 2011; Bosnjak, M.
- Modeling non-sampling errors and participation in Web surveys; 2010; Biffignandi, S.
- Web-based macroseismic survey in Italy: method validation and results; 2010; Sbarra P., Tosi, P., De Rubeis, V.
- Web-based versus paper-based data collection for the evaluation of teaching activity: empirical evidence...; 2010; Lalla, M., Ferrari, D.
- Web based macroseismic survey: fast information exchange and elaboration of seismic intensity effects...; 2009; De Rubeis, V., Sbarra P., Sorrentino, D., Tosi, P.
- Factors Contributing to Participation in Web‐based Surveys among Italian University Graduates; 2009; Cimini, C., Girottu, C., Gasperoni, G.
- Integration of different data collection techniques using the propensity score; 2009; Camillo, F., Conti, V., Ghiselli, S.
- Modelling online survey participation among Italian university graduates ; 2009; Cimini, C., Girotti, C., Gasperoni, G.
- Coverage rates of mobile telephones and the Internet in Italy ; 2009; Fabbris, L., Gorelli, S.
- An experiment on the effects of non-response reweighting on estimators' precision in a web survey; 2009; Fabrizi, E., Biffignandi, S., Toninelli, D.