Web Survey Bibliography
Response latency to web surveys is of considerable interest. Time from the stimulus (here, displaying a question) to the response (here, recording the answer) is used to identify potentially problematic respondents (those with low latency) and items (those with high latency). Such uses are, however, typically narrowly constructed. We analyze a wide variety of factors using a rich dataset to develop a deeper understanding of the drivers of response latency in web surveys. The Rice University Religion and Science in International Context (RASIC) survey of members of biology and physics departments in Italian universities and research institutes measured response latency for each survey item. The RASIC dataset is a rich source of material. Respondent-level measures include extensive biographical data including age, academic rank, and language of choice (the survey was offered in Italian and English). Item-level measures include length of item, reading difficulty, topic, number of responses, and position in survey. Paradata include accumulated time spent on the survey, time of day, and device/browser used. The resulting dataset has respondent x item observations, with each observation being nested within respondent (e.g., age, tenure) and item (e.g., item length, reading grade level). Due to this nesting, a hierarchical cross-classified model is used for analysis. Our findings will shed light on the impact of a broad range of factors associated with response latency, addressing questions including the effects of time of day, age, means of access, reading grade level, number of response options, and so on. These analyses will provide important context for the perhaps simplistic interpretations of response latency: low latency being a desirable trait for items but undesirable for a respondent. Data collection utilized for this paper was funded by the Templeton World Charity Foundation, grant TWCF0033.AB14, Elaine Howard Ecklund, PI, Kirstin RW Matthews and Steven W. Lewis co-PIs.
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.