Web Survey Bibliography
Background: Traditional modes of survey data collection show decreasing response rates and increasing costs. Web surveys potentially provide a cost-effective alternative. Opt-in volunteer web panels are widely used for market research or opinion polling, but less for academic or government research because of concerns about their representativeness arising from the effect of self-selection bias. Various methods attempt to make web panel surveys more representative of the population. We compared results from four UK web surveys with Natsal-3, a national probability sample survey.
Methods: The four web surveys were done by three UK market research companies, each with large volunteer web panels. A shortened Natsal-3 questionnaire was included on four web surveys: two used basic demographic quotas and two were modified with variables correlated with key outcomes as additional quotas. Panel members aged 18–44 years, who were resident in Great Britain, and who met the criteria set for the quotas were eligible. Each company was asked to provide a sample of 2000 participants, which achieved between 2000 and 2099 participants, with data collection between May and July, 2012. After weighting for age and sex, comparisons were made with Natsal-3 for demographic characteristics, key behaviours, and opinions, to examine whether modified quotas improved the results. We calculated mean absolute odds ratios (ORs) and the percentage of variables that significantly differed from Natsal-3 at the 5% significance level. We used Z tests based on bootstrap standard errors to assess whether the modified quota surveys provided estimates closer to Natsal-3 than the basic quota surveys. We used generalised estimating equations to assess whether the two modified quota surveys and likewise the two basic quota surveys provided consistent estimates. Six demographic and 35 behaviour or opinion variables were compared, including reporting of same-sex experience and attraction, vaginal sex in the past month, number of heterosexual partners, and attendance to a sexually transmitted infection clinic.
Findings: All four web surveys gave different results from Natsal-3 for most of the variables, and overall the two surveys with modified quotas did not provide estimates that were closer to Natsal-3 than the basic quota surveys. Estimates for men from the web surveys differed more from Natsal-3 than estimates for women. For men, the mean absolute OR was 1·81 for basic and 1·64 for modified surveys, and for women the results were 1·43 for basic and 1·42 for modified surveys. The differences between the web surveys and Natsal-3 were numerically greater for questions asked face-to-face than those asked in self-completion format, but no formal statistical comparison was made. The two modified quota surveys seemed to differ from each other (ie, were inconsistent, p=0·07), as did the basic quota surveys (p<0·0001). Adjustment of web panel quota controls did not lead to much improvement according to the results of Z tests, although for men improvements were more evident than for women. Moreover, meeting the modified quotas proved difficult, and the quotas had to be relaxed in both cases.
Interpretation: When measuring sensitive sexual behaviours in the Great Britain population, volunteer web panel surveys provided significantly different estimates than a probability computer-assisted personal interview or computer-assisted self-interview survey, and modified quotas did not clearly improve estimation. At present, non-probability web panels are not an appropriate means of gathering data if accurate estimates of population prevalence are the intention, regardless of whether quotas are basic or more sophisticated. This finding is consistent with findings from similar research from the USA and other European countries.
Funding: Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.
Homepage (Abstract)/ (Full text)
Further details
Web survey bibliography (431)
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Millennials and emojis in Spain and Mexico.; 2017; Bosch Jover, O.; Revilla, M.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment...; 2017; Wenz, A.
- A Comparison of Two Nonprobability Samples with Probability Samples; 2017; Zack, E. S.; Kennedy, J. M.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.
- Oversampling as a methodological strategy for the study of self-reported health among lesbian, gay and...; 2017; Anderssen, N.; Malterud, K.
- Analyzing Survey Characteristics, Participation, and Evaluation Across 186 Surveys in an Online Opt-...; 2017; Revilla, M.
- Comparison of response patterns in different survey designs: a longitudinal panel with mixed-mode and...; 2017; Ruebsamen, N.; Akmatov, M. K.; Castell, S.; Karch, A.; Mikolajczyk, R. T.
- Determinants of polling accuracy: the effect of opt-in Internet surveys; 2017; Sohlberg, J.; Gilljam, M.; Martinsson, J.
- Article Establishing an Open Probability-Based Mixed-Mode Panel of the General Population in Germany...; 2017; Bosnjak, M.; Dannwolf, T.; Enderle, T.; Schaurer, I.; Struminskaya, B.; Tanner, A.; Weyandt, K.
- Effects of Mobile versus PC Web on Survey Response Quality: a Crossover Experiment in a Probability...; 2017; Antoun, C.; Couper, M. P.; G. G.Conrad, F. G.
- Impact of satisficing behavior in online surveys on consumer preference and welfare estimates; 2016; Gao, Z.; House, L. A.; Bi, X.
- Comparing Twitter and Online Panels for Survey Recruitment of E-Cigarette Users and Smokers; 2016; Guillory, J.; Kim, A.; Murphy, J.; Bradfield, B.; Nonnemaker, J.; Hsieh, Y. P.
- Targeted Appeals for Participation in Letters to Panel Survey Members; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Motivated Misreporting in Web Panels; 2016; Bach, R.; Eckman, S.
- Using official surveys to reduce bias of estimates from nonrandom samples collected by web surveys; 2016; Beresovsky, V.; Dorfman, A.; Rumcheva, P.
- A Feasibility Study of Recruiting and Maintaining a Web Panel of People with Disabilities; 2016; Chandler, J.
- Inferences from Internet Panel Studies and Comparisons with Probability Samples; 2016; Lachan, R.; Boyle, J.; Harding, R.
- Exploring the Gig Economy Using a Web-Based Survey: Measuring the Online 'and' Offline Side...; 2016; Robles, B. J.; McGee, M.
- Comparing data quality between online panel and intercept samples; 2016; Liu, M.
- Integration of a phone-based household travel survey and a web-based student travel survey; 2016; Verreault, H.; Morency, C.
- Are Final Comments in Web Survey Panels Associated with Next-Wave Attrition?; 2016; McLauchlan, C.; Schonlau, M.
- Estimation and Adjustment of Self-Selection Bias in Volunteer Panel Web Surveys ; 2016; Niu, Ch.
- Participation in an Intensive Longitudinal Study with Weekly Web Surveys Over 2.5 Years; 2016; Barber, J. S.; Kusunoki, Y.; Gatny, H. H.; Schulz, P.
- The impact of survey duration on completion rates among Millennial respondents ; 2016; Coates, D.; Bliss, M.; Vivar, X.
- Cognitive Probing Methods in Usability Testing – Pros and Cons; 2016; Nichols, E. M.
- Assessing the Accuracy of 51 Nonprobability Online Panels and River Samples: A Study of the Advertising...; 2016; Yang,Y.;Callegaro,M.;Yang,Y.;Callegaro,M.;Chin,K.;Yang,Y.;Villar,A.;Callegaro, M.; Chin, K.; Krosnick...
- Calculating Standard Errors for Nonprobability Samples when Matching to Probability Samples ; 2016; Lee, Ad.; ZuWallack, R. S.
- User Experience and Eye-tracking: Results to Optimize Completion of a Web Survey and Website Design ; 2016; Walton, L.; Ricci, K.; Libman Barry, A.; Eiginger, C.; Christian, L. M.
- Using Web Panels to Quantify the Qualitative: The National Center for Health Statistics Research and...; 2016; Scanlon, P. J.
- Does Changing Monetary Incentive Schemes in Panel Studies Affect Cooperation? A Quasi-experiment on...; 2016; Schaurer, I.; Bosnjak, M.
- Web Probing for Question Evaluation: The Effects of Probe Placement ; 2016; Fowler, S.; Willis, G. B.; Moser, R. P.; Townsend, R. L. M.; Maitland, A.; Sun, H.; Berrigan, D.
- Using Cash Incentives to Help Recruitment in a Probability Based Web Panel: The Effects on Sign Up Rates...; 2016; Krieger, U.
- Making Connections on the Internet: Online Survey Panel Communications ; 2016; Libman Barry, A.; Eiginger, C.; Walton, L.; Ricci, K.
- Evaluating a Modular Design Approach to Collecting Survey Data Using Text Messages ; 2016; West, B. T.; Ghimire, D.; Axinn, W.
- Safety First: Ensuring the Anonymity and Privacy of Iranian Panellists’ While Creating Iran...; 2016; Farmanesh, A.; Mohseni, E.
- Tracking the Representativeness of an Online Panel Over Time ; 2016; Klausch, L. T.; Scherpenzeel, A.
- Non-Observation Bias in an Address-Register-Based CATI/CAPI Mixed Mode Survey; 2016; Lipps, O.
- Bees to Honey or Flies to Manure? How the Usual Subject Recruitment Exacerbates the Shortcomings of...; 2016; Snell, S. A., Hillygus, D. S.
- Thinking Inside the Box Visual Design of the Response Box Affects Creative Divergent Thinking in an...; 2016; Mohr, A. H.; Sell, A.; Lindsay, T.
- Establishing the accuracy of online panels for survey research; 2016; Bruggen, E.; van den Brakel, J.; Krosnick, J. A.
- Adaptive survey designs to minimize survey mode effects – a case study on the Dutch Labor Force...; 2016; Calinescu, M.; Schouten, B.
- What is the gain in a probability-based online panel to provide Internet access to sampling units that...; 2016; Revilla, M.; Cornilleau, A.; Cousteaux, A-S.; Legleye, S; de Pedraza, P.
- Representative web-survey!; 2016; Linde, P.
- The Utility of an Online Convenience Panel for Reaching Rare and Dispersed Populations; 2016; Sell, R.; Goldberg, S.; Conron, K.
- Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk; 2016; Berinsky, A.; Huber, G. A.; Lenz, G. S.
- Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population The German Internet Panel; 2016; Blom, A. G.; Gathmann, C.; Krieger, U.
- Reducing Underreports of Behaviors in Retrospective Surveys: The Effects of Three Different Strategies...; 2016; Lugtig, P. J.; Glasner, T.; Boeve, A.
- Dropouts in Longitudinal Surveys; 2016; Lugtig, P. J.; De Leeuw, E. D.