Web Survey Bibliography
Historically, many researchers have followed the “rule of thumb” that translated survey instruments should be cognitively tested with only monolingual and limited source-language proficient respondents. There are various rationales for this practice, such as assumptions that 1) monolingual respondents are the intended users of translated survey instruments (Pan, et al., 2007); and 2) fully bilingual respondents might be more likely to understand a poorly translated phrase. Bilinguals are also more likely to understand inappropriately literal translations for concepts that do not exist in the target language. Whether pretesting translations with monolingual or bilingual respondents produces different results has rarely been studied empirically and most studies have not been designed to look at this issue specifically (Park, et al., 2014). This paper focuses on results from two different Spanish-language cognitive and usability studies with monolingual and bilingual Spanish-speaking respondents: 1) testing of a U.S. Census Test internet instrument and 2) testing of a U.S. Census Test CAPI instrument. In the first study, a small number of bilingual respondents were inadvertently included in the study. The second study was deliberately designed to compare testing with monolingual and bilingual respondents, with 20 interviews conducted with each type of respondent. Preliminary results from the first study indicate that bilingual respondents uncovered an equal or higher number of translation and usability problems as did the monolingual respondents. One limitation of these results is that the study was not specifically designed to examine this issue and thus bilingual respondents were not systematically recruited. In addition, there were correlations between English-language proficiency, computer proficiency and educational level, with the bilingual respondents having higher levels of each. We will compare the number and types of findings uncovered by monolingual and bilingual respondents in the internet and CAPI studies and will explore mode differences noted across the two studies.
Web survey bibliography - The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) 70th Annual Conference, 2015 (35)
- 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.
- The Role of Device Type and Respondent Characteristics in Internet Panel Survey Breakoff; 2015; McCutcheon, A. L.
- Web Survey Invitations: Design Features to Improve Response Rates; 2015; Hughes, J.; Marlar, J.
- Advance Postcard Mailing Improves Web Panel Survey Participation; 2015; Bertoni, N.; Burkey, A.; Caldaro, M.; Keeter, S.; DiSogra, C.; McGeeney, K.
- Mobile Devices for the Collection of Sensitive Information; 2015; Maitland, A.; Mercer, A. W.; Tourangeau, K.; Williams, Do.
- What Is The Impact of Smartphone Optimization on Long Surveys?; 2015; Cole, J.; Brooks, K.; Sarraf, S.
- Examining the Impact of Mobile First and Responsive Web Design on Desktop and Mobile Respondents; 2015; Tharp, D.
- Can An Importance Prompt Reduce Item Nonresponse For Demographic Items Across Web and Mail Modes?; 2015; Israel, G. D.
- Leveraging Area Probability Sampling in Recruiting Households for Web Surveys; 2015; Copeland, K.; Pedlow, K.; Tupek, A.
- Reducing Coverage Error in a Web Survey of College Students; 2015; Daley, K.; Pacer, J.
- Influences on Response Latency in a Web Survey; 2015; Ackermann, A.; Cheng, H. W.; Howard Ecklund, E.; Kolenikov, S.; Phillips, B. T.
- App vs. Web for Surveys of Smartphone Users; 2015; Igielnik, R.; McGeeney, K.
- Where Does the Platform Matter: The Impact of Geographic Clustering in Device Ownership and Internet...; 2015; Bilgen, I.; English, N.; Stern, M. J.; Ventura, I.
- Methodological Considerations in the Use of Name Generators and Interpreters; 2015; Proeschold Bell, R. J.; Eagle, D. E.
- Survey Estimation: How Different Are Probability and Non-Probability Survey Designs?; 2015; Shook-Sa, B. E.; Dever, J. A.
- Experience of Multiple Approaches to Increase Response Rate in a Mixed-Mode Implementation of a Population...; 2015; Ding, M.;Leite-Bennett, A. K.; Landreman, U. E.; Johnson, D. R.; Mehrotra, K.; Rosenkranz, M.; Thompson...
- The Effect of Respondent Commitment on Response Quality in an Online Survey; 2015; Cibelli Hibben, K.; Conrad, F.
- Predictors of Completion Rates in Online Surveys; 2015; Cho, S.; Cohen, Jo.; Kuriakose, N.; Liu, M.
- Boosting Probability-Based Web Survey Response Rates via Nonresponse Follow-Up; 2015; Chew, K.; Fontes, A.; Lavrakas, P. J.
- Adding a Web Mode to Phone Surveys: Effectiveness and Cost Implications; 2015; Beebe, T. J.; Lien, R.; Luxenberg, H.; Rainey, J.
- Web Survey Response Examined from the Perspective of Leverage-Saliency Theory Within a Longitudinal...; 2015; Nares, Y. G.
- Challenging Survey Screen Designs on Smartphones; 2015; Nichols, E. M.; Olmsted, E. L.
- The Effect Usability Testing has on Data Quality: A Design of an Online Diary; 2015; Gentry, R. J.; Pens, Y.
- Making Usability-Testing a Standard Survey Pretesting Methodology; 2015; McFarlane, E.
- Measuring the Effects of Operational Designs on Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias; 2015; Anderson, Me.; Henrikson, N.; King, D.; Ulrich, K.
- A Systematic Generation of an Email Pool for Web Surveys; 2015; Silber, H.; Leibold, J.; Lischewski, J.; Schlosser, S.
- Are Tailored Outreach Efforts Too Costly? An Assessment of a Responsive Design Approach to Control Costs...; 2015; Epps, S. R.; Getman, D. P.; Hall, L. M.; Hunter, J. A.
- Nonresponse Analysis and Adjustment in the Follow- Up Study of a National Cohort of Gulf War And Gulf...; 2015; Dursa, E.; Hammer, H.; Kolenikov, S.; Schneiderman, A. I.
- Return To Sender: An Evaluation of Undeliverable (e)Mail in the Modern Age; 2015; Marlar, J.; Yu, D.
- Evaluating Visual Design Elements for Data Collection and Panelist Engagement; 2015; Christian, L. M.; Harm, D.; Langer Tesfaye, C.; Wells, T.
- Comparing Field and Laboratory Usability Tests to Assess the Consistency and Mistakes in Web Survey...; 2015; Croen, A.; Gonzales, N.; Ghandour, R.; Stern, M. J.
- Cell RDD Respondents Unmasked: Progress Report on Geo and Demo Appends to the Wireless Frame; 2015; DiSogra, C.; Kennedy, C.Mosher, M.
- Cognitive Testing of Survey Translations: Does Respondent Language Proficiency Matter?; 2015; Schoua-Glusberg, A.; Park, H.; Meyer, M.; Goerman, P. L.; Sha, M.
- Culturally-Related Response Styles for Attitude Questions: A Comparative Analysis of Chinese and American...; 2015; Wang, Me.
- Innovative Uses of Paradata Across Diverse Contexts ; 2015; Cheung, G.; Pennell, B.-E.